THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Church-Government AND Excommunication: OR A peaceable DISPUTE for the perfection of the holy Scripture in point of Ceremonies and Church-Government; IN WHICH The removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, The six Books of Tho: Erastus against Excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a Vindication of that eminent Divine Theod: Beza against the Aspersions of Erastus, The Arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and The Doctors of Aberdeen; Touching Will-worship, Ceremonies, Imagery, Idolatry, Things Indifferent, An Ambulatory Government; The due and just Power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion, and The Arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed.

To which is added, A brief Tractate of SCANDAL; with an Answer to the new Doctrine of the Doctors of Aberdeen, touching Scandal.

By SAMUEL RUTHERFURD, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts,
Zach. 4. 6.
Veritas claudi & ligari potest, vinci non potest. Hieronymus comment. ad Ierem. in Prefati. ad Eusebium.
Occultari ad tempus potest veritas, vinci non potest, florere potest ad tempus iniquitas, per manere non potest.
Augustinus ad Psal. 61.

Published by AUTHORITY

London▪ Printed by JOHN FIELD for Christopher Meredith at the Crane in Pauls Church yard. MDCXLVI.

TO The Right Honorable and Noble Lord, The EARL of LOVDEN, Chancellor of Scotland; AND Chancellor of the University of St. Andrews, Grace, Mercy and Peace.

RIGHT HONORABLE,

AS Jesus Christ the wonderful, the Isa. 9. 6. Counsellor, the mighty God driveth on his great State-design in the whole Earth, and now in these Kingdoms, to to save an afflicted people, to dye his Garments in the blood of his Enemies, and to [Page] build the Tabernacle of God amongst men, and cause the wildernes blossome as a Rose, that theIsa. 35 1, 2.glory of Lebanon, and the excellency of Carmel and Sharon may in a spiritual manner be given to Zi­on; So he still acteth in his own sphere of Righteousnes, and all inferior wheels in their revolutions move toward his most eminent end; for the Courtiers and Royal At­tendantsPsal. 97. 1. of his Throne are Righteousnes and Judge­ment. And he desireth that the motions and wayes of his people may be concentrick to his own heart, andVel luben­tes, vel vi attracti de­creta Dei se quamur necesse est. move in the same Orb with himself; we must either walk, or be drawn to the end of Jesus Christ, his end cannot come down and comply with our policy. When men go with one head, and two faces, and two hearts, Providence can beguil them: we are then safe, and do sail at the Haven of the Sea when we walk with God, and our way draweth a straight line to the heart of Je­sus Christ. These two Kingdoms have before them an end▪ the Covenant to be a people to God; this we did Swear with our Hands lifted up to the most High; the stones of the field shall witnes against us, and the Sword of the Lord avenge the quarrel of his Covenant, if we dally with the Lord, as if the Vow of God, that the Lord may be one, and his Name [Page] one in both Kingdoms had been on us, when we were low only, and our Oath had a date only till the Year 1645. and then our Vow must exspire, as did the Law of shad­dows, when the Body Jesus Christ came. As successe is a poor and waxy Kalender for Religion, so the low condition of our Kingdom, I hope, shall not move us to forsake the Lords cause, or to blame God, because good causes have sometimes sad events; for beside that Heathens said, that God cannot erre, because Ma­rius ex culpâ gloriam reportavit, Marius was made glorious by ill-doing, and one hath a Crosse,Ille crucem sceleris pretium tulit, hic diadema. Iuven. Saty. 10.another a Kings Crown for a reward of wic­kednesse, we know that God, however it be, is good to Israel. If that which was intended for Vnion, shall by mens wickednesse, turn to a sad Division between the Kingdoms, I shall believe, that the truly Godly of either Kingdoms, can scarce be capable of such bloody intentions, as shall leave a Legacy of perpetuated blood to the Posterity; and sure, though for the present guiltinesse, strength prevail, yet habent Deum ulto­rem, men on Earth cannot long be strong against Ven­geance from Heaven. As successe doth inebriate, so extremity of a low condition is a wicked Counsellor; and evil Iealousie, as Hell, thinketh alwayes evil. All whose [Page] bowels are moved for the Desolation, Graves, multipli­ed Widows and Orphans of both Kingdoms will not dare (Judgement from the Almighty being a terrour to them) to adde affliction to the people of God already afflicted. Blessed shall they be of the Lord, who medi­ate for preventing of National ruptures, and for the continuance of the Brotherly Covenant. Christ Je­sus is a uniting Saviour, one God, one Faith, one Lord Jesus, one Religion should be, and I beseech the God of Peace, they may be Chains of Gold to tie these tipo Nations and Churches together in uno tertio, that they may be concentered and united in one Lord Jesus. O that that precious Dew of Hermon, that showers of Love and Peace may lie all the night upon the Branches of the two Olive Trees, that the warm­nesse, heat, and influence of one Sun of Righteousnesse with healing in his wings, may make the Lilly amongst the Thorns, the Rose of Sharon, that is planted by the Lord, the Spouse of Jesus Christ in both King­doms to spred its Root, and cast its Smell, as green and flourishing to all the Nations round about. The Kingdom of God is Peace. The Lord is about a great work in Britain, why should Divisions that proceed from the lusts of men▪ and the enemies of the Lord re­tard [Page] the wheels of the Chariot of Christ? Let us not water the Lilly with blood again. The Sons of Babel have shed our blood in great abundance, for the which doth the Church of God in the three Kingdoms stand, and Pray and Prophecy in sackcloth. The violence Ier. 51. 35. done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the Inhabitants of Zion say: And my blood upon the Woman arrayed in Purple and Scarlet, the Mother of Harlots and Abomina­tions Rev 17. 3. 5. of the Earth, shall Ierusalem say. Happy we, if we could for the second Temple builded, and the Lord repairing the old waste places, and the Gentiles Isa. 62. 1, 2▪ beholding the Righteousnesse of the Elder Sister the Church of the Jews, and both as a Crown of Glory in the hand of the Lord, and as a Royal Diadem in the hand of our God.

I shall not need, I hope, either of an Apology for In­tituling this Piece, such as it is, (others can, and I hope will adde riper Animadversions to Erastus) to Your Ho­nours Name, or of a word of incitement, that Your Lordship co-operate with Your serious Endeavours, for a right understanding between both Kingdoms, and for the carrying on the work of the right arm of the Lord, [Page] the Lords creating of glory on every Assembly on Mount Zion, (for we are witnesses of Your Honours Travels for both) that glory may dwell in our Land.

Your Honours at all respective obser­vance in the Lord, S. R.

To the Ingenuous and Equitable Reader.

IT lieth obvious to any ordinary under­derstanding (worthy Reader) that as al­wayes we see a little portion of God; so now, the Lord our God in his acting on Kingdoms and Churches, maketh Darknesse his Pavilion, to finde out the [...] and the Demonstrative Causes and true Principles of such bloody conclusions and horrible vastations, as the Sove­raign Majesty of Heaven and Earth hath made in Ger­many, Bohemiah, and the Palatinate, as if they were greater sinners then we are; and why the windows of Divine Justice have been opened to send down such a deluge of blood on Ireland; and why in Scotland the Pestilence hath destroyed in the City, and the Sword of the Lord, not a few in the fields, (their Lovers and Friends standing aloof from their calamities) is from the Lord who is won­derful in Counsel; but to finde reasons to quiet the under­standing, is not an easie scrutiny: matters are rolled onIob 37. 23. Iob 33. 13. invisible wheels. It is enough to us [...] no Men, no Angels can hunt out the tracings of Divine Pro­vidence; Nor can we set a day of Law, nor erect a Court to implead this Lord, who is not holden in Law, to an­swer for any of his matters: It were our wisdom to ac­knowledge that the actions of our Lord, ad extrà, are so twisted and interwoven thred over thred, that we can see but little of the walls and out-works of his unsearchable [Page] counsels; sure, Divine Providence hath now many irons in one fire, and with one touch of his finger he stirt [...]h all the wheels in Heaven and Earth.

I speak this, if happily this little piece may cast it self in the eye of the Noble and Celebrious Judges and Sena­tors who now sit at the [...]e [...]m▪ for I hope they consider, it is but a short and sorry Line, or rather a poor Circle, Job 1. 21. Gen. 3. 19. between the Womb and the Grave, between Dust and Dust▪ and that they then act most like themselves (Psal. 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods) when they remember they are sinful men, and when they reckon it for gain, that the King of Ages gives them a Diurnal of 24 hours to build the House of the Lord, to cause the heart of a Widow Church (though her Husband live for evermore) to sing for joy, and are eyes to the blinde, and legs to the lame; and withall do minde, that when the Spirit is within half a Cubit, or the sixth part of a Span to Eternity, and Death cannot adjou [...]n for six hours▪ to repent▪ or do any more service to Christ in the body, the welcom and testimony of God, shall be incompa­rably above the Hosanna's of men. Undeniable it is, that we destroy again what we have builded, if we behead the Pope, and divest him of his Vicarious Supremacy, and soader the Man of Sins head, in the Ecclesiastical Govern­ment, to the shoulders of any Man, or Society of men on Earth. It is not an enriching spoyl to pluck a Rose or Flower from the Crown of the Prince of the Kings of the Earth. Diamonds and Rubi [...]s picked out of the Royal Diadem of Jesus Christ, addeth but a poor and sorry Lustre to Earthly Supremacy; it is Baldnesse in stea [...] of Beauty.

An Arbitrary power in any, whether in Prince or [...] re­lats, is intolerable. Now to cast ou [...] Domination in one, [Page] and to take it in in another, is not to put away the Evil of our doings, but to Barter and Exchange one sin with ano­ther, and mockingly to expiate the Obligation of one Arrear to God, by contracting new Debt. Again, how glorious is it, that Shields of the Earth lay all their Royal­ty and Power level with the dust before him that sitteth on the Throne, and to make their Highnesse but a Scaffold to heighten the Throne of the Son of God? Yea, if Do­mination by the Sword be the Magistrates Birth-right, as the Word of Truth teacheth us, Luke 22. 25, 26. Psal. 82. 1, 6. Rom. 13. 4. and the Sword can never draw blood of the Conscience; It is evident that the Lord Je­sus alloweth not Carnal weapons to be used within the walls of his Spiritual Kingdom; and if Power be an enchanting Witch, and like strong Drink, which is dolo­sus luctator, a cosening Wrestler, we are to be the more cautelous and circumspect, that it incroach not upon Je­sus Christ, for fear that we provoke the eyes of his glory, and cause Jerusalem to be plowed, and Zion become heaps, and many houses great and fair, desolate.

Let the Appeal be to the Spirit that speaketh to the Churches in the Word: The Golden Reed can measure every Cubit of the Temple; as well the outer Porch, as the Holy of Holiest, and all the dimensions, the length and bredth of the City which is named [...] ▪ The Lord is there. If the Scripture be no Rule of Church Govern­ment, but the Magistrates Sword be upon the shoulders of Christ, as the prime Magistrate; we come too near to the Jewish, Earthly, and Temporary Mes [...]iah. And if Ex­communication and Censures, and that Ministerial Go­verning which was undeniably in the Apostolick Church, be Fictions, we are in the dark. I confesse, we know not whether the Vessels of the House should be of Gold and [Page] Silver, or if they should be but Earthen Pitchers.

It is said, That all this is but a Plea for a Dominion of an higher Nature, even over the Consciences of men by Censures. But why a Dominion? Because a power of Censures? Surely, if they were not Spiritual Censures, and such as hath influence on the Conscience, we should yield a Do­mination were the businesse. But this power of Cen­suring Spiritually, is as strong as Authoritative in Dis­pensing Rebukes, Threats, Gospel-charges and Com­mands in the Word Preached, as in Censures; The power is Ministerial only in the Word, not Lordly; and why should it be deemed a Dominion, and an Arbitrary power in the one, and not in the other?

If the will of the Magistrate may carve out any Go­vernment that seems good to him, and the Word of God in this plea be laid aside, as perfect in Doctrine, but imperfect and uselesse in Government, we fall from the Cause. But if the Word of God stand as a Rule in matters of Church-Government; then the Question is only, on whose shoulders the Ark should be carried; and by whose Ministery doth Jesus the Lord and King of the House punish (if I may use this word) Scandalous men? And whether doth the Head of the Church Christ, in laying Judgement to the Line, and Righteousnesse to the Plummet, use the Magistrates Sword for a Spiritual and Supernatural end of the Service and Ministery of his Church; or doth he send Pastors and Teachers as his Ambassadors for this end? But if you were not Disputing your self, and not Christ (say some) to make Preachers the Alpha and Omega of mens Consciences, and the Circle which beginneth and endeth at it self, you would be satisfied, if Scandals be punished by the Magistrate: Is not the Magistrate a Christian as you are? Paul was glad [Page] that the Gospel was Preached, he made no account by whom. But I should be grieved that such a hard conclusion should be drawn out of such innocent Principles: This were to extract Blood out of Milk, a Domination out of a meer Ministery; and I confesse, Self is a great Sophist in De­bates, and that any man is inclinable to miscount him­self, and to think he may stand for an hundred, when the product is scarce one, if not a cypher. I conceive nothing is here taught, that may reach a blow to the Honour and Majesty of the Godly Magistrate. The Magistrate is a Christian as well as the Preacher; and in some sense, so all the People were holy, as were Moses, Aaron and the Levites. Uzziah who burned Incense was a Member of the Church of the Jews, and Circumcised no lesse then the Sons of Aaron: Yet I hope these stretched themselves beyond their line, when they usurped what was due to the Priests and Levites. Its another thing to punish evil doing with the Sword, the Magistrate is to do this. But there is a Spiritual removing of Scandals, by the saving of the Spi­rit in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 5. Matth. 18. 15. 2 Cor. 10. 8. and a gaining of the Soul of an Offender. This Spiritual removing of Scandals, doth only bring Christ and the Gospel in request, in the hearts of both such as are within and without the Church; as Scandals raiseth up an evil report of Christ and the Truth. Now the Sword can never this way remove Scandals; and be­cause Christ hath appointed Spiritual means, and Spi­ritual Censures, to restore the Lord Jesus to his Honour, 2 Cor. 2. It is presumption (with all submission I speak it) for men to horse out, and decourt such Censures Spi­ritual as the Apostles in the Spirit and Wisdom of Christ used as most sutable to that end, and which the Lord commandeth in the second Command, and to substitute [Page] in their room, nothing but a Sword void of all activity on the Conscience.

I do also here plead for the perfection of the Word of God against Humane Ceremonies, which are deservedly by the Honorable Houses of Parliament, and Reverend Assembly laid aside; Religion needeth not any such Orna­ments, except men would make the Worship of God, when naked, under shame, and so under sin (for Justice Married shame and sin once.) But as Roses, Lillies, the Sun, and other glorious Creatures, are most beautiful without Garments, and not capable of shame; so is the Worship of God. I confesse, Ceremonies were the Seas and Rivers that Prelats delighted to swim in; and if their Element be dried up, they have the lesse pleasure to live: But if they would repent of their bloody Per­secution, that their Souls might be saved, no matter. Ce­remonies, as they have nothing of Christ in them, so have they been injurious to Magistrates. It is but a Ceremony that the Emperour kisse the sole of the Popes foot, be­cause there is indented on it a curious Crucifix. And when Prelacy was yong, and its beard not grown, a Deacon was sent to Theodosius the Emperor by the Prelats to chide him, because he presumed to sit in the Chancel, a place too holy for Lay-men.

What I have here said against Erastus, a friend too dear to worthy Bullinger and Rodolp. Gualther, (often we love both the Friend and his Error) I humbly submit to the Judgement of the Godly and Learned: But I con­ceive, I am unwilling that Error should lodge with me willingly; and I professe I am afraid, that wrath is gone out from the Lord against the Rulers, if they shall after a Reformation obtained with the Lives, Blood, Tears and Prayers of so many of the Saints, whereof a great num­ber [Page] are asleep in the Lord, rear up a building to the Lord so maimed and lame, as Jesus Christ shall say, Offer it now Mal. 1. 8. to your Governour, will he be pleased with you, or accept your persons?

But it is a Controversie (say some) whether the Government of the Church of the New-Testament belong to the Magistrate or to the Church? to which I say; 1. It was a Contro­versie created by men willing to please Princes, with more power in the Courts of Christ, then ever the Law­giver and Apostles gave them, and that against the minde of glorious Lights, the first Reformers, and the whole Troops of Protestant Divines, who Studied the Contro­versie against the usurped Monarchy of the Man of sin, more exactly then one Physitian, who in a cursory way, diverted off his road of Medicine of which he wrote Learnedly, and broke in on the By upon the deepest Po­lemicks of Divinity, and reached a Riders blow una­wares to his friends. 2. In things doubtful, Conscience hath refuge to the surest side: Now its granted by all, and not controverted by any, That in the Apostolick Church, the Government of the Church of the New Testament was in the hands of Apostles, Pastors, Teachers; and there­fore Conscience would sway to that in which there can be no Error, except on supposal of abuse; and Christi­an Rulers would not do well to venture upon Eternity, Wrath, the Judgement to come, confiding on the poor Plea of an Erastian Distinction, to incroach upon the Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ. This very God of Peace build Zion, and make her an Habitation of Peace▪

Yours in Jesus Christ, S. R.

A Table of the CONTENTS of the Book.

Introduction, SECT. 1.
  • CHrist hath not instituted a mutable Church-Government, Page 1, 2
  • Some things moral, some things natu­ral in Gods worship, Ibid.
  • Physical Circumstances are all easily known and numbred, p. 2
  • Circumstances, and such and such Circum­stances, p. 3
  • Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved by Scripture, as being supposed, p. 4, 5
  • 1. Argument to prove, that the platform of Ch. governm [...]is not mutable at mens wil, p. 7
  • The Script. way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable, is it self unalterable, p. 8
  • 2. Argument, p. 9
  • The Scripture shall not teach when we sin, in Church-policy, when not, if the platform be alterable at mens will, Ibid.
  • There is no reason why some things positive are alterable in Ch.-policy, some not, p. 10
  • 3. Argument, ibid.
  • The place 1 Tim. 6. 13. touching the unviolable cōmand given to Timothy discussed, p. 10, 11, 12
  • Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positions of policy, p. 11
  • Widows, p. 12
SECT. 2.
  • 4. Argument, p. 13
  • Christ is the head of the Church, even in the external policy thereof, p. 13, 14
  • A promise of pardon of sin made to the right: use of the Keys, proveth Discipline to be a part of the Gospel, p. 15, 16
  • The will of Christ as King, is the rule of the Government of his house, p. 17, 18
  • Things of policy, because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law, are not there­fore alterable at the will of men, p. 19, 20
  • Order requireth not a Monarchical p [...]elate, p. 21, 22
  • How the care & wisdom of Christ hath left an immutable platform of Discipline, p. 22, 23
  • Christ the onely immediate King, Head, and Law-giver of his Church, without any de­puty heads or Vicars, p. 24, 25
SECT. 3.
  • 5. Argument, p. 26, 27
  • Moses and David might not alter or devise any thing in Worship or Government, nor may the Church now, p. 27, 28
  • Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament. Ceremonials, as were in the Old, p. 29, 30
  • How Moses his doing all according to the pa­tern, proveth an immutable platform. The Objections of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Pryn an­swered at length, p. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, &c.
  • Gods care to us leadeth us to think he hath gi­ven us a better guide thē natural Reason in all morals of Church-Discipline, p. 33, 34
  • The occasional writing of things in Scripture, no reason why they are alterable, p. 35, 36
  • Papists pretend, as Formalists do, that things are not written in the Word, because of the various occurrences of providence, p. 36, 37
  • That there was no uniform platform of Go­vernment written in the time of Moses and the Apostles, is no Argument that there is none now, p. 39, 40
  • Fundamentals, because successively delivered, are not alterable, p 41, 42
  • The Church of Ierusalem, as perfect in Do­ctrine and Discipline, is our patern, p. 42, 43
  • The indifferency of some things in the Apo­stolick Church, cannot infer that the Go­vernment is alterable, p. 45, 46
  • The Argument of Moses his doing all in the Tabernacle, to the least pin, according to special direction, further considered, p. 47. 50
  • The Ark of Noah proveth the same, ib.
  • Formalists acknowledge Additions to the Scripture, contrary to Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 32. the same way that Papists do, p. 51,-56, &c.
  • Moses and Canonick Writers are not Law­givers under God, but Organs of God, in writing, and meer reporters of the Law of God, p. 62, 63
  • Papists say that the Church is limited in the making of Ceremonies, both in the matter [Page] and the number, and so do Formalists, p 62, 63, 64
  • Four wayes Positives are alterable, but by God onely, p. 64
  • All things, never so small, are alike unalte­rable, if they be stamped with Gods autho­rity, speaking in the Scripture, p. 64, 65
  • By what authority Canonical Additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses, p. 65
  • Canonick Writers how immediately led by God, p 66
  • The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies & Papists Traditions one and the same, p. 67
  • What is it to be contained in Scripture, and how far it maketh any thing lawful, accord­ing to Hooker, p. 68
  • The Fathers teach, that all things are to be re­jected that are not in Scripture, p. 69, 70
  • [...]t derogateth nothing f [...]om the honour of God, in Scripture, that hee be consulted in the meanest things, p. 70
  • How things are in Scripture, p. 71
  • Some actions are supernaturally moral, some naturally or civilly moral, some mixt. p. 72
  • Some habitual reference to Scripture is requi­red in all our moral actions. p 73
  • Works of Supererogation holden by Hooker, p. 77
  • Whether our obedience be resolved, in all Church policy, in This saith the Lord in his Word, or in This saith the Church. p. 79
  • Two thing [...] in the external worship, 1. Sub­stantials. 2. Accidentals or Circumstan­tials, p. 80
SECT. 5.
  • The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent, in Church-policy, not to purpose, in this question. p. 81, 82, &c.
SECT. 6.
  • What are Honour, Praise, Glory, Reverence, Veneration, Devotion, Religion, Service, Worship, Love, Adoration. p. 82, 83, 84, 85
  • Two acts of Religion imperated and elicite. p. 83
  • Honouring of holy men is not worship, p 84
  • The Religions object with the act of reve­rencing, maketh adoration to be Religious; but a civil object, except the intention con­cu [...]s, maketh not religious adoration of a civil object. p. 85, 86
  • What Worship is. p. 86, 87
  • Worship is an immediate honouring of God, but some worship honoureth him more im­mediately, some lesse. p. 87, 88
  • A twofold intention in worship. p. 88, 89
  • Vncovering the head is veneration, not ado­ration, p. 89
  • Consecration of Churches taken two wayes condemned. p. 90
  • Master Hookers moral grounds of the holinesse of Temples, under the N. T. answered. p. 92
  • The place 1 Cor. 11. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in, &c. maketh nothing for hal­lowing of Churches. p. 93
  • Nor the place Psa. 74 8. p. 94
  • The Synagogue not Gods house, as the Tem­ple was. ib.
Question 1.
  • The negative argument from Scripture valid. p 95
  • Not to command is to forbid. p. 96
  • How far Davids purpose to build the Temple was lawful. p. 97
  • Of additions to the Word. p. 98
  • Even perfecting additions of men are unlaw­ful. p. 99
  • Every moral action is to be warranted by the Word. p. 102
  • What is man's, in worship, is not lawful p. 103
  • Not all actions in man, as actions of meer nature, of arts or trades of sciences, but on­ly moral actions are regulated by Scripture. p 104
  • Helps of faith, and the formal object of faith are different. p 105
  • What certitude of saith is required in all our actions of our daily conversation. p. 107
  • The Scripture a Warrant for the morality of our acts, of the second Table. p. 107
  • Many actions of the second Table are purely moral, all actions of the first Table are purely moral. p. 107, 108
  • What ever is beside the Word of God, in [Page] morals, is contrary to it. p. 109
  • The vanity of the perfection of Scriptures in Essentials, not in Accidentals. p. 110
  • Whatsoever is not of faith, how true, p. 110, 111
  • Doubting condemneth. p 113
  • Papists say▪ the Scripture in general is perfect, but not in particulars, and so Form lists. p 114
  • What is onely negative in Gods worship, can­not be commanded. ibid.
  • Opinion of sanctity and divine necessity, not essential to false-worship. ibid.
  • The distinction of worship, essential, and ac­cidental, of Gods general and particular will, is to be rejected. p. 118, 119
  • The distinction of divine and apostolike tra­ditions rejected. p. 125, 126
  • Circumstances not positive, religious obser­vances, as ceremonies are. p. 127
  • Ceremonies usurpe essential properties of di­vine Ordinances. p. 128, 129, 130
  • We owe subjection of conscience collateral onely to Gods Ordinances. p. 135
  • The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies. p. 136
  • The place Matth. 15. concerning the traditi­ons of the Elders, discussed. p 137, 138
  • Ceremonies Magical. p. 141
  • If the third command shall enjoyn decency in general, then must it enjoyn this special decency, Crosse and Surplice. p. 141, 142
  • Iewish and Popish Ceremonies, are fruitlesse professions of unlawful worship. p. 142, 143
  • Whether the Ceremonies be Idolatry. p 144
  • Of religious kneeling. ibid.
  • Four things in adoration. ibid.
  • Intention of worship, not essential to wor­ship. p. 145
  • Religious bowing, of its nature, and not by mans arbitrary and free 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 expressiō of God in the creature, is no ground of adoring the creature, p. 151
  • The Iews beleeved not the Golden calt 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 worshippe [...] therein, p. 182, [...]83, 184, &c.
  • Vasquez will have all things to be adored. p. 190
  • Joan. d [...] 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
  • [Page]The will of created Authority cannot create goodnesse in things. p. 204, 205
  • Humane Laws obli [...]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 typi [...]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 Church­members, 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 its 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 [...]ome to the Supper. p. 280
  • [Page]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
  • Its 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 scandalous, a mean to save them, p. 339
  • The similitude of a cut off member to hold forth Excommunication vindicated, p. 340
  • No warrant that the Apostles killed any, by the ministery of Satan, p. 341
  • No miraculous faith required in the Corin­thians, to pray for the killing of the man, p. 342, &c.
  • Of the Leaven, 1 Cor. 5. p. 344
  • What it is to purge out the Leaven, none kil­led for eating Leavened Bread, p. 346
  • To eat the Passeover with Leavened Bread, a violation of that Sacrament, p. 348, &c.
  • Putting away of Leaven, p. 349
  • What is meaned by the whole lump, and what by leaven. p. 352, 533
  • Hymeneus and Alexander, not miraculously killed by Satan. p. 354, 355
  • Erastus his expositions, all without ground in Scripture. p. 354
  • Withdrawing from scandalous Brethren, argu­eth Excommunication. p. 357
  • How eschewing intimate fellowship with a scandalous Brother is a Church-Censure, p. 357, 358, 359
  • Sacraments, though helps of piety, yet not to be given to all. p. 361, 362
  • Erastus his contradiction in excluding both some, and none at all from the Sacraments, p. 363
  • How withdrawing from scandalous Brethren, may infer Excommunication. p. 365
  • The scandalous are forbidden to come to the Sacraments, p. 368
  • An evident contradiction in Erastus thorow his whole Book. p. 369
  • Whom Erastus excludeth from the Sacraments, p. 370
  • Some on earth must try who are to be admit­ted to the Sacrament, who not, p. 371
  • Other arguments for Excommunication vin­dicated, p. 37 [...]
  • The place Gal. 5. 12. vindicated. p. 373
  • Paul did not judicially condemn the incestu­ous man, 1 Cor. 5. p 374
  • To eschew the scandalous is materially to excommunicate them▪ p. 377
  • What Presbyteries Erastus yeeldeth. p. 379
  • A Presbytery at Corinth. p. 380
  • Erastus granteth an Examination of such as [Page] are admitted to the Sacraments, and yet de­nieth that any should be debar'd, p. 382, 383
  • The places Deut. 17. and 2 Chro. 19. do prove two different Iudicatures, p. 383, 384
  • How the Kingly and Priestly office are diffe­rent. p. 384, 385
  • Erastus denyeth the Ministery to be peculiar to some, but proper to all under the New Testament. p. 385, 386
  • Two distinct Iudicatures, 2 Chron. 19. page 386, 387
  • The Magistrates are not to dispence the Word and Sacraments, as Erastus saith. p. 391, 392
  • The Magistrate is not to judge who is to be admitted to the Sacrament, who not; nor hath he power of Church Discipline, page 394, 395
  • How Erastus confuteth a Presbytery. p. 398
  • A Church Iudicature in the Iewish Church, Deut. 17. ibid.
  • The [...]iest put no man to death. p. 401
  • Teaching and Judging not one. p. 406
  • The Civil Iudge as a Iudge, cannot teach, p. 406, 407
  • Erastus maketh the Magistrate or Priest, and Pastor, formally one, p. 406
  • What are the Matters of the Lord, and of the King, 2 Chro. 19. p. 411, 412
  • Levites sometimes imployed in civil busines­ses, p. 414
  • The power of the civil Magistrate, p. 417
  • Men haue need of two sort of Governors, ib.
  • Magistracy and Ministery both Supreme in their own kinde, p. 417, 418
  • Erastus alloweth no Government, but Pope­dom and Monarchy, p 418, 419
  • Christs kingdom, how not of this world, p. 421
  • Moses, David, Salomon, appointed to the Priests nothing as Kings, p. 423
  • The Priests onely judged de questione juris, of the questiō of law in matters of death, p. 424
  • The Priests and Levites had no Law-power, by Gods Law, or from Caesar, to put Christ to death, p. 426, 427
  • The Sanedrim had no Law-power against Ste­v [...] to stone him, p▪ 427
  • The like of their dealing with Paul, true, ib.
  • How the Christian Magistrat is to be acquain­ted with Excommunication, p. 429, 430
  • A Colledge of Church rulers in the New Testament, p. 431
  • The place, 1 Cor. 5. again vindicated, no miraculous killing, 1 Cor. 5. p 435, 436
Cap. 19. Quest 15.
  • Of the use of Excommunication, p. 437
  • Erastus yeeldeth there is a Presbytery, p. 43 [...]
  • The Magistrate under Church-discipline, ib.
  • The Magistrate not a Church-officer, p▪ 440
  • A Iudicature proper to the Priest as Priest, ib.
  • The Magistrate under Ch.-discipline, p. 443
  • How the Magistrates consent is requisite in Excommunication, ib.
  • The Magistrates Sword no kindly mean of gaining souls, p. 445
  • The Scandalous are forbidden to partake of holy things, p. 448
  • The morally unclean debarred out of the Temple, 452, 453
  • No price of a Whore to be offered to God, and what is meant, p. 454, 455
  • Our chief Argument for Excommunication not answered, p. 456
  • The place, Mat. 5. When thou bringest thy gift, &c. discussed, p. 457
  • How men do judge of inward actions, p. 460
  • A frequent contradiction in Erastus, p. 462
  • What it is to be cast out of the Synagogue, p. 464
  • Christ and the Apostles not cast out of the Sy­nagogue that we read, as Erastus dreams, 467
  • Ministers subject to the Magistrate, 471, 472
  • Morally unclean debarred from the holy things, ibid.
  • Tell the Church discussed, p▪ 476, se (que)
  • Though there was no Christian Church, yet Christ might say, Tell the Church, p. 480
  • There was no more a right consti [...]uted Sane­drim in Christs time then a Christian Church, ibid.
  • External Government of the Church not in the hands of the Magistrate, 481, 482
  • Rebuking of Princes argue no lesse [...]u [...]isdicti­on then all that the Presbytery doth, p. 484
  • Whō Erastus e [...]cludeth from the Sacrament, ib
  • [Page]Magistrates, if Scandalous, are to be debarred from the Sacrament, p. 487
  • Every profession maketh not men capable of the holy things of God, p. 492
  • All sins punished with death in the Old Te­stament▪ are not therefore so punished under the New Testament, p. 493
  • How great sins debar men from the Sacrament, p 497
  • The Scandalous among the Iews, debarred from the holy things, p. 498
  • The Magistrate cannot admit to, or debar from the Sacraments, 499
  • The Sword no intrinsecal and kindly mean of gaining souls, p. 500
  • Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiastical Discipline, p. 503, &c.
  • Idolaters and Apostates are to be excommu­nicated, as Erastus saith, ibid.
  • The Church as the Church, not subordinate to the Magistrate, ibid.
  • Government peculiar to Church-officers, as to Priests and Levites, p. 506
  • The Epistles to Timothy & Titus must chiefly be written to the Emperor and Magistrate, if Pastors be but servants of the Magistrate, p. 507, 508
  • Civil and Ecclesiastical powers immediatly from God, p 510, 511
  • The Magistrate not subordinate to Christ as Mediator, ibid.
  • The patern-Church of the Apostles, not ruled by the Magistrate, p. 513
  • Erastus and Mr. Pryn grant there is such an ordinance as Excommunication, ibid.
  • Suspension, ex naturá rei, may be where there is no Excommunication, ibid.
  • Christs admitting Judas to the Supper no rule to us, p. 516, 517
  • The Gospel preached to those to whom the Sacraments cannot be dispensed, ibid.
  • The Sacrament a confirming ordinance, p, 518
  • We partake of the sins of many, in dispensing to the unworthy the Sacraments, and not in preaching the Word to them, p. 520
  • We know no extraordinary▪ conversion by mi­racles, without the Word, p. 522
  • The Sacrament not a first converting ordi­nance, yet a confirming one, ibid.
  • The Lords Supper presupposeth Faith and Conversion in the vvorthy Receiver in a Church-profession, p. 523, &c.
  • The Magistrate subject to the Church, p. 528
  • The Church a perfit society without the Ma­gistrate, p. 529, 530
  • God efficacious by Preachers, not by Magi­strates. p. 532
  • Differences between the Preachers, and the Magistrate, p. 532, &c.
  • The Magistrate cannot limit the Pastors in the exercise of their calling, p▪ 535
  • That Magistrates are more hot against the Churches punishing of sin, then against sin­ful omissions, argueth that they are unpati­ent of Christs yoke, rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the Subject, p. 536, &c.
  • Of the Reciprocation of the Subordinations of Magistrates and Church-Officers to each other, ibid.
  • Not any power or office subject to any, but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons, p. 538
  • A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate, dif­ferent. p. 539
  • Two things in a Christian Magistrate, jus, authority, aptitudo, hability, p. 539, &c.
  • Christianity maketh no new power of Magi­stracy. p. 542
  • A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary, upon which, and the former distinction follow­eth ten very considerable assertions, page 542, &c.
  • The Magistrate as the Magistrate, command­eth the exercise of the Ministerial power, but not the spiritual and sincere manner of the exercise▪ p. 544
  • Magistrates as godly men, not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of Ministerial power, p. 545, &c.
  • A twofold goodnesse in a Christian Magi­strate, essential, accidential, p. 548
  • [Page]The Magistrate as such, commandeth onely in order to temporary rewards and punish­ments, nor holdeth he forth commands to the conscience. p. 549, &c.
  • Magistrates as Magistrates, forbid not sin as sin, under the pain of eternal wrath, p. 550
  • Two sorts of Subordinations, Civil, Eccle­siastick, p 553
  • Subordination of Magistrate and Church, to each others, p. 554, &c.
  • Church Offices as such, not subordinate to the Magistrate, ibid.
  • What power Erastians give to Magistrates in Church matters. p. 557
  • The minde of Arminians touching the power of the Magistrate in Church matters, ibid.
  • A threefold consideration of the Magistrate in relation to the Church. p. 558
  • Reciprocation of subordinations between Church and Magistrate. p. 560
  • The Ministers as Ministers, neither Magistrates nor Subjects. p. 564, &c.
  • The Magistrate as such, neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator, nor under Satan, but under God as Creator. ibid.
  • The Prince as a gifted Christian may Preach, and spred the Gospel to a Land where the Gospel hath not been heard before, page 570, &c.
  • The King and the Priest kept the Law, but in a far different way, p. 572, &c.
  • The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another. p. 574, &c.
  • God hath not given power to the Magistrate and Church, to Iudge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause, p. 577
  • Whether Appeals may ly from Church-assem­bles to the Civil Magistrate, p. 578
  • Of Pauls appeal to Caesar. ibid.
  • Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in Causes Ecclesiastical. p. 579, &c.
  • It is one thing to complain, another thing to appeal, p. 580
  • What an appeal is, ibid.
  • Refuge to the Magistrate is not an Appeal, p. 581
  • A twofold appeal, p. 582
  • The Magistrates power of punishing or his, interest of faith proveth him not to be a Iudge in Synods. p. 585, &c.
  • Pauls appeal proveth nothing against appeals, for appeals from the Church to the Christi­an Magistrate. p. 587
  • Paul appealed from an inferiour Civil Iudge, to a superior Civil Heathen Iudge in a matter of his head and life, not in a contro­versie of Religion, p. 588
  • What power a conqueror hath to set up a Re­ligion in a conquered Nation. p 590
  • There were no appeals made to the godly Emperours of old. p. 594
  • To lay bands on the conscience of the Magi­strate, to ty him to blinde obedience, the Pa­pists, not our Doctrine. p 595
  • Subjection of Magistrates to the Church, no Papal tyranny, p. 600, &c.
  • The Magistrate as a Magistrate, cannot forbid sin as sin, ibid.
  • The Magistrate pomoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom. ibid.
  • The Magistrate as such, not the Vicar of the mediator Christ, p. 601
  • The Adversaries in the Doctrine of the Ma­gistrate Popish, not we at all, ibid.
  • Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates in their whole Ministery, by the Adversaries, p. 603, &c.
  • Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiastical Ad­ministration, p. 604
  • The Magistrate as such, not the Vicar of the mediatory Kingdom, ibid.
  • Heathen Magistrates as such, are not oblieged to promote Christs mediatory Kingdom, p. 606
  • Magistracy from the Law of Nations, p. 608
  • The Adversaries must teach universal Re­demption, p 610
  • Magistrates as such, not members of the Church, p. 613
  • Christ mediator not a temporary King, p 614
  • The Magistrat not the servant of the Church, p. 616
  • The adequate and complete cause why the [Page] Magistrate is subject to the Church, p. 617
  • That the Magistrate is subject to the Rebukes and censures of the Church, is proved from the Word, p. 618, &c.
  • The supreme and principal power of Church-affairs not in either Magistrate or Church, p 620
  • Though the Magistrate punish Ecclesiastical scandals, yet his power to Iudge and punish is not Ecclesiastical and spiritual, as the Church censureth breaches of the second Table, and yet the Churches power, is not Civil for that, p. 622
  • People as people may give power to a Magi­strate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church, to judge and punish offenders therein, p. 625
  • A Governour of, or over the Church; a Go­vernour in the Church, a Governour for the Church, different, p. 628
  • The distinction of a Doctrinal or Declara­tive, and of a Punitive part of Church-Government, of which, the former is given to Pastors, the latter to the Magistrate, a heedless [...] and senselesse notion, p. 629, &c.
  • That the Magistrates punishing with the sword scandalous persons, should be a part of Church-government, a reasonlesse con­ceit, p. 631
  • There is neither coaction nor punishment properly so called in the Church, p. 632
  • Bullinger not of the minde of Erastus, p. 634
  • The Iudgement of Wolf [...]ag, Musculus, Are­tius, and Gualther, p. 634, &c.
  • The Errour of Gualther to please the usur­ping Magistrate, p. 638
  • Their minde different from Erastus, p. 639
  • The Christian Magistrates sword cannot sup­ply the place of Excommunication in the Church, p. 640
  • The confessions of the Protestant Church for this way, p. 642, &c.
  • The testimony of Salmasius, p. 644
  • Of Simlerus, p. 645
  • Lavater, Ioan. Wolphius, ibid.
  • Of R [...]b. Burhillus. 646

The Contents of the Tractate or Dispute touching Scandal.

  • WHether things indifferent, can be com­manded. Introduction, p. 1
  • Indifferent things as such, not the Matter of a Church-constitution. Introd.
  • Actions are not indifferent because their cir­cumstances are indifferent. Introd.
  • Marrying not indifferent, Introd.
  • Indifferency Metaphysical and Theological, Introd.
  • Necessity of obeying the Church in things onely necessary for the Churches Com­mandment, is neither a lawful nor obliging necessity. Introd.
  • Actions meerly indifferent, cannot be done in faith. Introd.
  • The unlawfulnesse unseparably adhering to actions indifferent, maketh them unlawful, Introd.
  • How exsuperancy of goodnesse is to sway the will of Rulers and people. Introd.
  • The will of Rulers not a law to us, in things indifferent, Introd.
  • The definition of a Scandal, p. [...]
  • Propositions touching Scandal from Rom. 14. p, 4, 5, 6
  • Propositions and Rules touching Scandal, from 1 Cor. 7. and 8, and 10. p. 7, 8, 9
  • An object scandalous two wayes, p. 9
  • Four things may be scandalous objects. ibid.
  • What is malum aparens, appearance of evil, p. 11
  • Rules touching Scandal, p. 12, 13, 14
  • Whether or no we may deny obedience to the Laws of Superiors for fear of Scandal causelesly taken, p. 15, 16, 17
  • Whether Information can remove Scandal from things not necessary, but only through the necessity of mans commandment, p. 20, 21
  • Whether the precept of obedience to superiors, [Page] or the precept of eschewing Scandal be more obligatory, p. 28, 29, &c.
  • The essence of an active Scandal, p. 36, 37
  • How the fifth Commandment is more obli­gatory then following precepts, and how no [...], p. 46, 47, &c.
  • Whether or not in every indifferent things we are to eschew the Scandal of all, even of the malicious? Affirmatur, p. 53, &c.
  • Occasions of sins as occasions, are forbidden, p. 56
  • What is Christian liberty in things indiffe­rent, p. 57, 58
  • A further consideration of things not necessa­ry, how they he scandalous, p. 60
  • Of the necessity of things which remove Scandal, p. 61, 62
  • Some things necessary from the onely p [...]i [...]ive Will of God, some thing necessary from something in the things themselves, p. 62
  • Two sorts of monuments of Idolatry, p. 63
  • We cannot devise the use of any thing in wor­ship, when we cannot devise the thing it self, p 63
  • The place Deut. 7. 25. The graven Image of their gods, shall ye burn with fire cleared, p. 64
  • How House [...] and Temples builded to Saints, are not to be demolished, p. 65
  • Temples and Houses have a like physical use in Gods worship; as out of Gods worship, p. 65, 66
  • No Houses, no Temple, no Creatures, are now unclean under the New Testament, p. 67
  • How things not necessary are to be abstained from, or used, in the case of Scandal, p 67, &c
  • Things scandalous under the New Testament are forbidden in a far other sense; then meats, dayes, and other things in the Cere­monial Law, p. 73
  • How far a Moral, and perpetual reason maketh a Law perpetual, p 74, 75
  • Difusing of houses because abused to idolatry a Iudaising, p. 75, 76, 77
  • Bells for convening of the people to publike worship, not to be abolished, though they haye been abused to superstition, p. 77, &c.
  • A most necessary rule to be observed in the doctrine of Scandal, That emergent provi­dences of natural necessity, are to us in place of divine commands in some cases. p. 81
  • Eight considerable Rules touching the kindes and degrees of necessity in eschewing Scan­dal, p. 82, 83, 84
  • The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Rule, p. 82, 83,
  • the 6. Rule, ib.
  • A scandal may flow from ignorance and cor­ruption, and so be taken, when it also kindly issueth from the sinful or unseasonable fact of another, and so is also kindly given, p. 84, 85.
  • the 7. Rule 84
  • A false rule of Papists that men may co ope­rate in a sinful act, and be free of scandal, because of some necessity, p. 85
  • No relation of servant or c [...]ptive can render it lawfu [...]: to cooperate with sin, p. 86
  • What things not necessary are to be removed from the worship of God as scandalous, p. 87,
  • the 8. Rule, ibid.
  • Ceremonies not so much as necessary by way of disjunction, which necessity agreeth to many circumstances of worship in the Di­rectory, p. 8 [...]
  • Religious monuments of Idolatry are to be removed, p. 89, 90, &c.
  • What conformity with Idolaters is unlawful, p 93
  • Conformity with Idolaters in things, in Gods worship not necessary, unlawful, p. 94, 95
  • The same Ceremonies in Idolaters, and in the true Church, may be judged the same three wayes, p. 96
  • Formalists grant conformity with Heathen and Idolaters in Ceremonies, cloathed with a scriptural signification, p. 96, 97, 98
  • How the Scripture is a Rule, p. 99
  • Church-Government properly an Institution, ibid.
  • The worship of God needeth no religious Ceremonies, but what God hath himself prescribed, p. 100, 101
  • We need not say, that conformity with Idola­ters, was the onely cause why God forbad his people heathenish rites, p. 102, 103

❧ Places of Scripture cleared in both these [...]REATISES.

Gensis.
Ch.Ver.Page.
6.14.51
17.11129
9.13ibid.
Exodus.
Ch.Ver.Page.
32.22117
20.4130
32.4, 5151, 152
12.8, 15347, 348
18.15. 16404, 405, 406
Leviticus.
Ch.Ver.Page.
4.5, 6439, 440
6.4, 5, 6289, 290
8.6, 7, 8,384, 385
 9, &c. 
10.11398, 399
10.10379, 380
  453, 242
9.13347, 348
16.2, 3,285
4, 5, &c.  
18.3, 494, 9 [...]
19.19ibid.
22.20, 21455
22.10470
21.2, 3,288, 289
 4, 5 
23.27, 28286, 287
19.11282, 283
13.3. 4386
Number
Ch.Ver.Page.
5.1, 241, 242
9.3, 4, 5, 6 [...]48
9.6, 7 [...]53
8.6, 7, 8, 9391, 39 [...]
11.16, 17 [...]04, 405
16.991, 392
25.7, 8 [...]28
35.what [...]76, 477, 478
[...] [...] 12 
3121, 22 [...]7, 78
Deuter.
Ch.Ver.Page.
1.16404, 415
[...] [...]51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, &c. 98, 99, 100
4.5155, 156, 157
12.3251, 52, 53, &c.
7.25, 2664, 65, T [...]. of Scan. 66, 67, 74
14.1, 2362, 363
17.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 340, 402, 303, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 505
17.18,547, 548, 571, 572
19,20. 
20.1966, 67
22.9ibid.
23.18455, 456
32.2455
Jeshua.
Ch.Ver.Page.
12507
22.15, 16ibid.
Judges.
Ch.Ver.Page.
18.17567
1 Sam.
Ch.Ver.Page.
8.7208, 209, 210
3.13453, 454
15.1, 2, 365, 66.
1 Kings.
Ch.Ver.Page.
8.1796, 97, 98
11.12571, 572
12.27127
18.40, 41428
2 Kings.
Ch.Ver.Page.
11.1 [...], 18572
1 Chron.
Ch.Ver.Page.
26 [...], &c.410, 411
28.1127, 28
26.30, 31414, 415
29.20159, 170
2 Chron
Ch.Ver.Page.
10.8468, 469
15.12, 13463, 464
19.9545
23.19241, 242
19.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11386, 387, 388, 389, &c. 405, 406, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 507
30.6, 7346, 347
30.18, 19348
Ezra.
Ch.Ver.Page.
9.21, 22242, 243
6.9290
10.11, 12ibid.
Psalmes.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2.8, 9605, 606, 607▪ 610, 611
34.11202
501 [...]272, 368
79.893, 94
99.5171, 172
106.19, 20152, 153
1158159, 160
119.1059
Proverbs.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2.99, 104
4.11ibid.
12▪6, 23ibid.
Isaiah
Ch.Ver.Page.
22.2 [...]14, 15, 61 [...]
31.3156, 158
[...]18129, 130, 157, 158, 164, 165, 153, 15 [...]
6. [...], [...]155
49.23547, 572, 573
52.11136
Jeremiah.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2.27158, 159, 173
5.31387
7.8, 9246, 272
10.8129, 158, 159
26.7, 9, 10387, 424, 425
22.2, 3388, 389▪
Ezekiel.
Ch.Ver.Page.
3.13, 19252
14.1524 [...]
22.25, 26247, 347, 34 [...]
23.39452, 453, 496
34.1533
40.41, 4228
44.8, &c.244, 245, 194
Daniel.
Ch.Ver.Page.
3.18147, 148, 17 [...]
Hosea.
6.6449, 450, 451
8.6103, 104
13.2ibid.
Habbakuk.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2.18, 19129, 154
Haggai.
2.11, 12272, 347, 348, 387
Zechariah
Ch.Ver.Page.
3.74 [...]9
Malachi.
Ch.Ver.Page.
[...].2, 7572, 583
Matthew.
Ch.Ver.Page.
5.23448, 450, 458, 459
[...].6254, 255, 476, 638, 477, 478
15.14, 15103, 104, 137, 138, 139
16.17, 18, 194 [...], 14, 15
[Page]16.19308, 309, 310, 311, 235, 236, 295
10.5, 6, 10518, 519
12.5, 651
18.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20290, 291, 292, 293, 294, &c 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 127▪ 128, 129, 465, 466, 467, 396, 397, 611, 612, 635, 636, 637, 638▪
23.319
28.18, 19393, 396, 397
Mark.
Ch.Ver.Page.
7.6, 7, 8, 9137, 138, 139
Luke.
Ch.Ver.Page.
[...].1, 2, 3361
12.13, 14428, 602, 603, 392, 393
17.3223, 224, 297, 298
22.21197, 198
ib.24428, 602, 603
ib.26617
John.
Ch.Ver.Page.
9.22464, 465, 466, 467
15.22606, 607
18.31, 36 [...]25, 426, 421, 422, 510, 511, 603
20.23235, 236, 293
[...]s.
Ch.Ver.Page.
4.1, 20558
5.31612
6.612
7.1, 2, 51, 52426, 427
10.1567, 68
14.11, 12, 13146, 147, 148
15.22, 23, 24, 25,8, 45, 251, 25 [...], 581, 586, 92, 2 [...]2
17.29, 30162, 155, 158, 159, 162, 168, 170
20.28, 29431, 533. 534, 569
25.6, 7, 8, 9, 10587, 588, 589
26.10427, 428
Ro [...]ans.
Ch.Ver.Page.
12.8433
13.4 [...]06, 407
b.4, 5541, [...]16, 217, 534, 547, 549, 630, 631
14.14, 208, 1
b.14, 23110, 111, 112, 113, 14, In­troduction to Scandal.
16.17249, 269, 356, 336, 337
[...] Corinth.
Ch.Ver.Page.
5.1, 2, 3, [...], 5, 6, 7, [...], 9, 10, 11, 12238, 239, 240, 250, 255, 256, 268, 269, 317, 318, 319, 320, &c. 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 34 [...], 344, 345
5.1, 2, 3, &c.346, 347, 356, 366, 367, 374, 375, 376, 380, 381, 382, 431, 43 [...], 436, 636, 637, 638
6.1, 2, 3, [...]299, 210
9.15, 16, 17, 18, 19 [...]r [...]ise of [...], 39, 40, 41 [...] 45.
10.27, 28Of Scand. 3.
11.29, 30346, 347
10.1, 2, 3, 4, 5276, 277, 278
11.27, 28278, 279, 280, 458, 459
14.31385, 386
16.22372, 373
2 Corinth.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2.6221
7.17281, 282
10.4, 5393, 406, 603, 604
12.20, 21333, 334
Galath.
Ch.Ver.Page.
1.857, 58
4.6430
5.12336, 337
5.11, 12353, 373, 374, 416
Ephesians
Ch.Ver.Page.
4.11, 12, 1324, 44, 393, 431, 508, 609, 610, 619, 620
5.21, 2224
Philip.
Ch.Ver.Page.
1.15, &c.460, 462
2.9612, 613
Col [...]ssians.
Ch.Ver.Page.
1.17, 1814
[...]b.18586, 587, 613
2 Thessal.
Ch.Ver.Page.
3.14, 15250, 256, 258, 259, 360, 36 [...], 378 56 [...]
1 Tim.
Ch.Ver.Page.
1.19, 20354, 355,
2.2543, 552, 573
4.465, 66
5.17432, 434, 534
5.19, 20222, 223
6.3, 4, 5378, 379
2 Tim.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2.15253, 547
5.2111
Titus.
Ch.Ver.Page.
1.10533
3.10378, 379
Hebrews.
Ch.Ver.Page.
3▪1, 2, 326
5.4253, 391, 39 [...] ▪ 61 [...]
8.2, 348, 49
8.526, 27
9.8129
13.7, 13628
ib.17.533, 560, 57, 571, 5 [...]3
1 Pet.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2.13▪ &c609, 610
ib.2 [...]202
5.1, 2, 3534
5.4552
1 John [...].
Ch.Ver.Page.
4.1587
2 John.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2 Ioh.10358
Revelat.
Ch.Ver.Page.
2.14, &c.9
ib.14, 20250, 251
ib.22245, 246
19.10167, 168

ERRATA.

PAge [...] ▪ L [...] [...]4. for puring, read [...]rim, p. 37. read [...]ullis in Marg. p. 46. l. [...]8. for Nor [...]. But, p. 50 l. 10. [...]. patrons, p. 51. l. 1 [...]. 1. Answered, p. 96. r▪ a D [...]o in marg. p. 1 [...]7. l. 5. for rellgiously r. religious, p. 121. l. 1. for antecedent r. assumption, p. 139. l. [...]0. delenor, p. [...]6. l 24 for 37. r. [...], p. 210 l. [...]. dele then they are bou [...] to beleeve and obey me, p. [...]13. l 22. for ar [...] r. [...], p 227. l 10. for o [...] [...]. are, p. 267. l. 2 for 5 [...]0. [...]. 108. p 274. l. [...]. dele is, p. 289. l. 34. for 99▪ r. 8, [...], p. [...]86. l. 8. adde be, p 399. l. 6. r. 19, p. 521. l. 1. for 5. r. 7, p. 53 [...]. l. 2. for [...], [...]. r. 13. [...], p. 533. l. 14. for ha [...] dominion r. hath no dominion, p. 537. l. 23. [...]. reciprocation, p. 548. l. 8. dele not, l. 3 [...]. dele [...] Tim. 5 17. Matth. 10. 10. p. 571. l. 26. for Walens, p. 588. l. 34. for of life and death r. in a matter of religion, p 63 [...] ▪ l. 2 [...]. r. rebuke.

In Treatist of Scandal, p. 15. l. [...]9 for [...]andalously r. causelesly▪ p. 2 [...]. l 3. [...] ▪ also▪ p. 78. l. 24. for to eat▪ r. not to eat.

The Introduction.

SECTION I. Certain Introductory Conclusions, tending to clear the perfection of the Scriptures in all things, as well Ce­remoniall, as Non-Ceremoniall.

1. Conclusion.

CHrist Jesus hath so far forth set down, and sta­blished Christ hath not insti­tuted a mutable Church Govern­ment. a perfect Plat-forme of Church-Govern­ment in all Morals, not only both for the inward, but also for the outward, and externall Govern­ment of his House, that he hath left no Liberty or Latitude to Magistrates, or Churches whatsoever to choose and settle such an orderly Forme of Church-Government or Discipline, as is most suitable to their parti­cular Civill-Government, Laws, Manners, and Customes, so this Forme be not repugnant to the Word of God.

I shall first explaine the Tearmes of the Conclusion: 2. Con­firme it: 3. Vindicate it from the objections of Adversaries.

1. The Church-Government of which I here speak, is a Church-GovernmentSome things Morall, some things na­turall in Gods wor­ship. in its Morals: To exclude those things that are meer­ly Physicall and Humane in this Government, as a Pulpit of this or that matter, Stone or Timber, or of this Timber, or of any other kinde; a Communion-Table of this, or that forme; a Cup of wood, or of metall, as Silver, Tin, &c. It is a Morall thing, either Morally good or evil, that there be an Officer in the Church that Christ hath not appointed, or that there be none but such as Christ hath appointed: yet is it not Morall that a Pastor be such or such a [Page 2] Country man, so he be apt to teach, and holy; Crossing, signifying the dedication of the Baptized Childe to the service of Christ must be Morall, but what sort of River the [...]ter of Baptisme be, is meerly Physicall, not Morall.

So there be two sort of things in Gods Worship, things eitherCircum­stances either meerly morall, or 2 meer­ly Physi­call, or 3. mixt. meerly Morall, or meerly Naturall.

And here also we consider things Circumstantiall, as Time, Place, &c. And circumstances are either meerly Physicall, or 2. meerly Morall, or 3. mixt, partly Morall, partly Physicall; Circum­stances meerly Physicall are such adjuncts of divine worship, as are common and unseparable concomitants of both civil, naturall, and Religious or Sacred actions performed by men, and as they are such, contribute no Morall goodnesse, or badnesse to the action or Agent in the performance thereof, such as I take to be the seven indivi­duall proprieties of every man; Forma, figura, locus, tempus strips, patria, nomen, under Forme and figure: The first two, I compre­hend, such a proportion of body, a man of a high stature, or low; a man beautifull, or not beautifull, to which I crave leave to reduce all externall Formes of habites, as cloathes, the head covered, or not covered, the situation of the body, as as they are in them­selves, meer Physicall acts; kneeling, sitting, standing; the eyes cast down to the earth, or lifted up; the hands lifted up, or not lifted up, the knocking on the breast, or not knocking, motions of the soul, that are naturall Time, Place, Fami­ly, Country, Name, as such a person, Thomas, not Iohn: the son of such a man, not of such a man; 1. All these are common con­comitants of Civill, Naturall, and Religious actions, for all actions performed by man of what kinde soever, as naturall, to eat, sleep; or civill, to declaime an oration before the people; or religious, to preach or pray, must be done by some persons, Iohn or Thomas, men of some Family, in some time, in some place, for they are not actions eternall, and so must be done in time and place so▪ the Agents must, have some habite, some gesture in the doing of all these actions, and they are unseparable Adjuncts of all these actions because neither actions naturall, civill, nor Religious, can be performed, but by some persons, in some habite and gesture, in some time, in some place: and lastly, they are meere circumstantials, and contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the actions, as they are but common and [Page 3] unseparable circumstances; for because he preacheth in time, or in place simply, the preaching is neither Morally good, nor ill, better or worse, because Thomas prayeth in Gown or Cloak in this place, rather then that place (so it be not, Locus ut sic, of intention, such a Re­ligious place, before the Image of Christ, or the Father, or the Virgin Mary) the praying is neither the more, or the lesse acceptable to God because of these common and unseparable adjuncts: Hence there can be no such force in these circumstances, as to make the actions indif­ferent: Such as contend for the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies, say our circumstances of time, place and the like, is nothing but a meerblinde; for we cannot (say they) enumerate all these circumstances, for habite, ge­sture, person, are not meer circumstances and they mustcome in under the lap of this general, &c. or the like: To which I answer, that to my know­ledge all these that are meer Physical circumstances, are particularly enumerated, such as are, 1. Time: 2. Place, 3. Person, or Agent: 4▪ Name. 5. Family: 6. Condition, as Country, Family, House: 7. Habits or Gar­ments: 8. Gestures, as sitting, standing, lifting of the eyes or hands,Our Phy­sic [...] Cir­cumstances are all easi­ly known and num­bred. knocking on the breast, kneeling, and there is no blinde in this enu­meration, for there be no other particulars that can be enumerated, except this time of the day, eight or ten of clock, this place, not any other, this person not another, and these are only considered here as circumstances, not as such and such circumstances, but the truth is, the enumeration of Symbolicall Rites, as Crosse, Surplice, and the like, is really a blinde, and is an enumeration with a wide belly, and includeth species, and not individuals only, as Symboli­call Ceremonies, such as are Crossing, Bells, Oyle, Salt, Spettle, Milk, turning to the East, toward the people, from the people, toward the Altar, with a high voice, with a low voice, and a thousand the like; yea, all the old Ceremonies of Moses with a new face, all the toyes of the Masse, of the Dedication of Churches, which would fill a Volumne like the Rationale of Durandus: 2. Some Cir­cumstances are meerely Morall, for as Divines distinguish Time and Place; in Time as Time, and as such a Religious Time, the Lords Sabbath, Tempus, & tempus ut sic, and Place as Place, or such a Religious place, Locus, & locus ut sic▪ Circum­stances, and such and such cir­cumstances So we may distinguish here, between circumstances in common or in grosse, and such and such circumstances; As time is a common adjunct of Divine Worship: But such a time, to wit, the Lords­day, [Page 4] is both the time of Worship, and Worship it self. So there is place of Worship, and there is such a Religious place, The holy of holiest, the Temple. A habit is a meer accident of Worship, the person, John or Thomas, is also an accident; but if God com­mand such an Ephod as Aaron and the Priests were to wear, this is not a meer circumstance; that the person who administreth the Lords-Supper, be John or Thomas, is a meer circumstance; but that this person be a called Pastor, not a private man, is more then a circumstance. And therefore these circumstances, taken in com­mon and their Universall nature, are meerly Physicall circumstances; but taken in their particular and determinate restrictions, as such circumstances, they may be meerly Morall circumstances, such as are the common adjunct of the time of Worship, the place, and the Sabbath time and the Temple for Iewish Worship. The former are circumstances meerly Physicall, the latter meerly Morall; I mean, as they are restricted other wayes: The Temple of Jerusalem served as our meeting places do, to sence off the injuries of Heaven and Sun; but that is as a place, not as such a place.

3. There be some mixt circumstances, as these same Physicall circumstances, clothed with their own seasonable conveniences; so time for Worship, and due and convenient time is required, there may be some Scandalous and Superstitious time for Worship. A ha­bit in the Preacher is required, and that a grave one; a place is re­quired for private Worship, and a fit place, such as is not the Mar­ket-street for private Praying; the inconveniency of the circum­stance may vitiate the Worship.

I did say that Christ Iesus hath set down in the Word, a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government, in all Morals; I say in all Mo­rals, The Scrip­ture teach­eth not meer cir­cumstan­ces, but supposeth them. because the Word doth not teach us any thing of circumstan­ces, Physicall as Physicall. Scriptura talia non ponit, sed supponit: The Scripture saith not, That the Worship of God must have a time, a place, when, and where its to be performed, a person, who is to perform it, a habit, or garments on the person that Worship­peth; the Scripture teacheth none of these, but supposeth that they are and must be; because nature teacheth, that without time, place, person, habit, gesture, its unpossible that these or any humane acti­ons can be; and therefore Prelaticall Formalists, do without all sense or reason, require that we should prove by Scripture, the law­fulnesse [Page 5] of time, place, person, habit, gesture in Gods Worship; for these are presupposed in all actions, Naturall, Civill, Religious, Pri­vate, Publike, Lawfull, unlawfull, in acts of Arts, Sciences, of Mo­rall conversing and all; yea, there is as good reason, that they de­mand Scripture to prove he must be a living man, who hath a rea­sonable soul, and senses, and is born of a woman, who Preacheth and Administrateth Sacraments, which is presupposed by nature.

When the Heretick willeth me to prove from Scripture that Christ is very man; it is a vain thing he should demand of me be­side to prove by Scripture, that Christ is such a one also as can laugh, weep, admire, sing, sigh, &c. for these are presupposed to follow mans nature; and if Scripture prove Christ to be a true man, it presupposeth by natures light, that he can laugh, he can weep, and that in some time, some place, in some habit, in some ge­sture, so he be a man; for that is presupposed by the light of na­ture, and known by the most Barbarous who never heard of Scrip­ture; and therefore there is no greater reason to put us to prove all the naturall and unseparable circumstances of Worship, such as time and place, without which it is impossible any action at all can be performed; then that we should presse Prelats to prove by Scrip­ture, that Iames Ʋsher is born of English or Irish Parents, for sense and nature can prove all these without Scripture: But because their Ceremonies of Crossing, bowing to Altars, Festivall dayes, Oyl, Salt, Spittle, Masse▪ clothes, are nothing warrantable by natures light, and must have Morall and Symbolicall influence in Worship, as positive Religious observances, having some spirituall signification and use, (except they be reasonlesse fancies) we have just reason to demand a warrant and speciall Charter for all Morals, and so for their Ceremonies in the Scripture, and to call their &c. humane Ceremonies and the like, a blind: For if Prelats can prove these Ce­remonies to be from Christ, and warranted by his Testament, we shal yield that their natural circumstances of time, when you should Bow to Altars, and Crosse a Baptized Infant, and where, or in what place you should wear Surplice; and that the person that useth Oyl, Spittle, Salt, in Baptisme, must do it in some habit, and with some gesture, either sitting, standing, lying, or kneeling, are all warrantable and lawfull from the light of nature; for if Gods light of Scripture, warrant wearing of a Surplice, as it doth warrant [Page 6] Sacramentall eating and drinking, the light of nature must warrant these concreated, naturall, and unseparable circumstances of time, place, person, habit, gesture used in both the former and the latter.

But because I said that circumstances of time and place have aTime and place of Ceremo­nies need not be pro­ved. threefold consideration, Physicall, Morall, and Mixt: and I have spoken onely of these circumstances in a Physicall or naturall consi­deration; therefore in the other two considerations there being in­volved some Morall goodnesse, and because there is no Morall good­nesse imaginable, but it must have its essentiall form and being from a Law or word of God; therefore all the former circumstances, as they are clothed with either morall conveniency and expediency, or with some Religious positive goodnesse, must be warranted by the Word of God, or the Rules of sinlesse and spirituall Prudence, which can­not deviate from the word of God: For circumstances clothed with Religious Positive goodnesse, such as are the Sabbath day, the holy of Holiest, the Temple; these are not meer circumstances, but worship it self: So a Religious habit, as an Ephod or a Surplice, is not a meer circumstance, or a meer habit, but a worship, or such a part or limb of worship as must be warranted by the word of truth, else it is nothing but a will-device, and a forgery, and so to be rejected. And as touch­ing things of Prudence, they are things properly mixt, as at what hour Sermon shall begin in such a Church, at eight, or nine, or ten of the clock; how the worship shall be ordered, whether you should begin the Worship with a word of Prayer, or a word of Praising, or a word of Exhorting to stir up for the duty of the day, is a matter of Prudence; and because God hath not laid the band of a Precept on us, to begin with either of the three; therefore it would seem, that though the things themselves be Morall, and must be war­ranted by a Word of God; yet the order is not Morall, but Pruden­tiall, and so cannot fall under a command of the Church; for to me it is hard, that men and the Church should lay on a tie or bond of a Precept where God hath laid on no such bond; The Church, in these mixt things, where the Morality is not clear, at farthest, can but go on to directive advises, as Paul doth, 1 Cor. 7. 6. 12. Not to imposing of Laws, nor to injunctions or Command­ments under the pain of Church-censures; for Christ must bind and ratifie in Heaven, all Church-censures on earth, and so the Church cannot command nor censure, but as Christ himself would command or censure.

[Page 7]Now because the rest of the conclusion shall be farther cleared; I prove that Christ hath so far forth set down a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in the Scripture, as he hath not given a liber­ty to Rulers, Prelats, or to the Church her self, to set up a variable Plat-form sutable to their particular Civill Government, Laws, Manners and Customes.

1 Arg. What ever maketh the man of God perfect, thorowly fur­nished 1. Argum. to prove that the Platform of Church-Govern­ment, is not mu­table at mens will. unto all good workes, and is written for this end, that any Timo­thy or Faithfull Pastor, might know how he ought to behave himself in the House of God. That must make the man of God perfect in this good work, of holy walking, as a perfect Governour, or a perfect Church-member, to be governed in all Morall acts of Discipline and godly behaviour, according to the spirituall policie of the Lords house, and so must hold forth a perfect Plat-form of Disci­pline, which doth not varie, ebbe and flow, and alter according to the Civill Government, Laws, Manners and Customs of men: But the Scriptures of God doth so instruct all Members of the visible Church, both Governours and governed, 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. 1 Tim. 3. 14, 15. Ergo, the Scripture must hold forth a perfect form of Discipline which doth not varie, ebbe, flow, and alter according to the Civill Governments, Laws, Manners and Customes of men. The Proposition is made good: Because, 1. to walk according to the spirituall Policie of the Lords house, must be a good work, and so a Morall and Lawfull work, and a due conversing in the spiritu­all Society of the Church, according to the Rule of the Word. 2. If this Morall walking be according to a Rule that may crook, bow and varie according as Civill Customes of men and Cities al­ter and varie at mens pleasure, It is a Morall walking, no more ac­cording to the Rule of Scripture, then the contradic [...]nt thereof is according to this Rule, but falleth and riseth, hath its ups and downs at the meer nod and pleasure of men, who may change Customes and Manners every year twice, if so it please them. For what Scripture teacheth me a Civill Custome of a City, as not to carry Ar­mour in the night, to take up the Names of all between sixteen years of age and sixty? Or what Scripture teacheth me, a Bishop may be above the Pastors of the Church, or a Bishop may not be? Surplice, Cros­sing, Bowing and Cringing to wooden Altars, may be or may not be? Deacons may be, or may not be? even as customes and guises of [Page 8] the Civill State, appear as Meteors in the Aire, and in the fourth part of a night, disappear and vanish to nothing; to say, that the word teacheth the Church to abstain from blood, is a part of theAct. 15. perfection of the Scripture, and yet the Scripture teaches that ab­stinence from blood, not as an eternall, and unalterable Law, for we are not now tied to abstain from blood, therefore the Scripture may make the man of God perfect in some works that are alterableThe Scrip­tures way of teach­ing that in­different things are alterable, is it self unalte­rable. and changeable: This (I say) is no Answer, for saying that God should now make abstinence from blood, and things strangled, in­different, as he made them in that intervall of time, Acts 15. When the Ceremonies were mortall, but not deadly and unlawfull, as is clear in that Paul, Act. 16. 1, 2, 3. circumcised Timothy, that Rite being then indifferent; and yet he writeth in another case, when the Gospel is now fully promulgated, that to be circumcised maketh a man a debtor in conscience, to keep the whole Law of Moses, and so to abstaine from eating of blood, and things strang­led, must be a falling from the Grace of Christ, and an Apostacy from the Gospel, Gal. 5▪ 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, 6▪ 7. The like I say of observing of dayes, which, Rom. 14. 5, 6. were indifferent, and in another case, Gal. 4. 9, 10. Col. 2. 16, 17. Deadly, unlawfull, and not necessary, so the matter, Acts 15. which in the case of scandilizing the weak, is abstinence from things indifferent, say that they are indifferent, bindeth as a perpetuall Law to the end of the world, and bindeth us this same very day, Rom. 14. 20. In the Morality of it, as abstinence from murthering, One for whom Christ died, Rom. 14. 15. 1 Cor. 8. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 10. 26, 27, 28. And upon the ground laid by Prelates, which is most false and untrue, to wit, that many Positive things in Church-Government, such as are Prelats deemed to be warranted by Apostolick, though not by Divine right: Ceremonies, and Cros­sing, kneeling to bread, Altars, Surplice, Rochet, corner-Cap, yea, and Circumcision, a Passeover-Lambe, and all the Jewish Ceremo­nies, though with another spirit and intention, then to shadow forth Christ to come in the flesh, imagined to be indifferent, and alterable things, we hold that all these are to be abstained from, as eating of blood, and things strangled of old were, if you say they are as in­different, as blood, and some meats were in the case, Act. 15. Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 1 Cor. 10. Its a most false principle as we shall hear, and therefore the Scripture, if it make the man of God perfect to e­very [Page 9] good work, as the Apostle saith, it must teach us to abstain from all these as scandalous, and must set down as perfect and particular directions for Church-Government, as Paul doth, Rom. 14. Set down a particular Platform, how we shall eschew Murther; for scandalizing our Brethren in the use of things indifferent, is spiritu­all Murther, Rom. 14. 15. 20.

2. Arg. That which is a lamp to the feet, and a light to the path, 2, Argum. Psal. 119. 105. And causeth us understand Equity, Iudgement, Righ­teousnesse, and every good way, Prov. 2. 9. And to walk safely, so that our feet stumble not, Prov. 3. 25. Prov. 4, 11, 12. Prov. 6. 23. That must be a lamp and light to our feet, and walking in a Platform of Church-Discipline, so as we shall not erre, sin or stumble therein: But if the light be so various, doubtfull, alterable, as we may walk this way, or the contrary way, according to the Civill Laws, altera­ble The Scrip­ture shall not teach when we sin in Church Policie, when not, if the Plat­form be al­terable at mens wi [...]. Customes and Manners of the people, we shall not so be guided in our path, as our feet shall not stumble; the Church might then suf­fer Jezabell to Prophecie, and these that hath the Doctrine of Ba­laam, or not suffer them, as the Civill Laws, and alterable Customes of the people should require: Now the Scriptures doth clearly insi­nuate, that the Law and will of God revealed in the Word, is a Rule of walking straightly and of declining sin, and any stumbling in our way, which deserveth a rebuke and a threatning, such as Christ uttereth against the Church of Pergamos, Rev. 2. 14, 15, 16. And of Thyatira, v. 17, 18. Now if these Churches had no certain Rule or Word of God, from which they should deviate and erre in their path of Discipline, but the Customes and alterable Ci­vill Laws and Manners of men, they were unjustly rebuked by Christ, which to aver were Blasphemy.

Prelats say, Some things in Church-Policie, are Fundamentals, not to be altered; but there be other things alterable. And of things of Policie of the former notion, we have a certain Platform in Scripture; but of the latter, not any at all is necessary; and the not suffering of false Teachers in the Church, is of the former sort. But I Answer, some Scripture or reason ought to be given of this distinction: If all be Morall and unalterable that are necessary to Salvation, its good▪ But to suppresse Jezabell and false teachers, is not necessary, Neces­sitate medii; for then the Salvation of that Church were desperate, and past remedy, which should suffer false teachers; surely then [Page 10] Pergamos and Thyatira, were in a certain irremed [...]l [...]sse way of E­ternallThere is no reason why some things Po­sitive of Church-Policie are alterable, some not. Damnation, as are these who are void of all Faith and know­ledge of Fundamentall Articles; I conceive Prelats will hold their hand, and not be so rash as to say this; If these other things of Po­licie be necessary, necessitate precepti, in regard that Iesus Christ hath commanded them to be observed, why then are some things alterable which Christ hath commanded to be observed some things unalter­able? Crosse & Surplice, which Prelats say have been in the Church these twelve hundred yeers, are in themselves as positive, & have as small affinity with the Civil Laws, Customes & Manners of Nations (except they mean sinfull Customes) as Sacramentall eating and drinking. And the like may be said of all the alterable Ceremonies sometimes in use, in England, and now in force amongst Papists.

3. Arg. That Commandement which Timothy is [...]o keep without 3. Argum. spot unrebukeable, untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 13. is no alterable command that falleth and riseth with the Cu­stomes, Civill Laws and Manners of men. But Paul commandeth under that, every Positive Law of Church-Discipline to be thus kept, of which he speaketh in these Epistles to Timothy.

Mr. Hooker denyeth the assumption; For Paul (saith he) restrain­eth 3. Book, Eccles. Polic, pag. 117, 118. The place, 1 Tim, 6. 13. discus­sed. the words to one speciall Commandment amongst many; and there­fore it is not said, keep the Ordinances, Laws, Constitutions, which thou hast received; but [...], that great Commandment, which doth principally concern thee and thy calling, that Commandment that Christ did so often inculcate unto Peter (Feed my sheep) and that Act. 20. Attend to your selves and all the flock, &c. And that, 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee in the sight of God, &c. Preach the word, and teach the Gospel without mixture, &c. And these words (till the appearance of Christ) doth not import the time wherein it should be kept; but rather the time whereunto the finall reward for keeping it was reserved according to that, henceforth is laid up for me a crown of Righteousnesse. It doth not import perpetuall observation of the A­postles Commandment, for it bindeth not to the Precept of choosing of Widows, as the Adversaries grant. We do not deny, but certain things were Commanded to be, though Positive, yet perpetuall in the Church. Ans. 1. If Paul restrain this to one speciall Commandment, sure it is so generall and comprehensive a Commandment of feeding the Flock, as taketh in all the speciall Positive Commandments be­longing [Page 11] to feeding, by both Word and Discipline, which is enough for the perpetuity of all Positive precepts of Discipline and Policie, even till Christs appearance to judge the world; and I wonder that Hooker expoundeth this by 2. Tim. 4. 1. As if Paul did mean the precept of Preaching only, and that soundly and without mix­ture; and yet passe by the Parallel place, 1 Tim. 5 21. A [...]lmostin the same stile of Language, in which place he speaketh of many spe­ciall Positive precepts and Rules of Policie, as of poor widows, the Almes to be given to them; the not rebuking of an Elder, the office of Elders Governing, and of Elders labouring in the Word and Do­ctrine, the not receiving an accusation against an Elder, but under two or three Witnesses, the publike rebuking of those who offend publikely, the not admitting to the Ministry raw and green souldiers not tryed, and many other particulars of Policie, of all which he saith gravely, v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ, and the Elect Angels, that thou observe these things &c. Cer­tainly, [...], these things was not one Commandment, but all the precepts of Faith, and of Church-Government spoken of in this E­pistle; and truly [...] shall think that Paul who particular [...]z [...]th that Timothy should not drink water, but a little wine because of his infir­mity, and of bringing with him the cloak that he left at Troas, and the Pauls cloak of lesse conse­quence, then Posi­tives of po­licie. parchments, 2 Tim. 4 doth far more spec [...]fi [...] all the positives of poli­cie, and writ, how all the Timothies and Pastors are to behave them­selves in the Church of God: If Ceremonies and all these alterable trifles had not been excluded out of the Platforme; for a Religious Masse-Surplice, is of far more consequence then Pauls old cloak, and yet Paul spake of the one in Canonick-Scripture, never of the other; and Oyle, Spittle, Salt, Crosse in Baptisme being positive significant Rites, and having continued in the Church so many hun­dred years, should far rather have been specified in Scripture then Timothies drinking of water: yea, and if all the alterable positive things of Policy, as Crosse, Surplice, be commanded as necessary in the generall, though not in this or that particular, as Hooker and o­ther Formalists do teach, then sure the meaning must be: I give to thee, O Timothy, charge in the sight of God who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, &c. That thou▪ keep this Commandment of Crossing, Surplice, bowing to Altars, of corner-Cap, or of the equi­valent of these, without spot irrebukeable to the appearance of Jesus [Page 12] Christ; for the precept of feeding the Flock, must include all these; and though Ceremonies in particular be alterable, and not comman­ded in Hythothesie; yet that in generall there should be such posi­tive Ceremonies is necessary, and the Apostle (say they) comman­deth them, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Yea, (as Dunam saith) humane Holy­dayes, are commanded in the fourth Commandment, and Burges saith, all the Ceremonies are commanded in the third Command­ment, and Formalists; who denyed the Prelate to be of Divine in­stitution, made a Ceremony of him, and made him a decent and orderly thing; which as the Poet said, to me is like the act of death, that brought Great Alexander, to whom the whole world was not sufficient, in small bounds, in the Grave under two foot of earth, and this maketh the great Pope, the Catholick Bishop of the earth a little Ceremony: But this little Ceremony hath these many hundred years infested the whole earth. 2. If this precept be not a perpetu­all binding precept till Christs second appearance, but only rewar­ded with life eternall at Christs appearance, yet shall it follow that all things included in the precept of feeding the flock, and so all the Surplice, Crossing, Will-worship or their equivalent, without which, feeding cannot be in a decent and orderly way (as they say from, 1 Cor. 14. 40.) must be rewarded with life eternall: let For­malists wait at the day of judgement for a reward, of a Garment of glory for wearing a linning Surplice, my faith cannot reach it.

3. For the choosing of Widovves that are poor to take care of the poor and sicke in Hospitals; we think it just as necessary now as then, though no wayes, if there be none sick, and poor in the Church: But that Widows were Church-Officers ordained, as were Deacons, Act. 6. 6. we never thought, and therefore we do not see that the wanting of such Widows, is the want of a Positive institution of Church-Policy; for other positive things of policy that should be of perpetuall use, and not all of the same kinde, and of equall ne­cessity: I see no reason (which I speak for Apostles) which were necessary then, and not now; But if from thence Formalists infer, that many positive things of policy are alterable, I can infer with equall strength of reason, that then Pastors, and Teachers are al­terable by the Church, for if the one have a Divine institution to warrant it, Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13. so hath the other; and if Prelates may come themselves into the Church without any warrant but this, [Page 13] that Apostles are alterable, and may put out Pastors and Teachers, because God hath put out Apostles; we have a new world of alte­rable Church-Policy. 5. Reverent Beza referreth the Command­ment to the Platforme of Discipline: So Ambrose in Loc. and Chry­sostome Homil. 18. so Diodat. This Commandment which is, ver. 11, 12. Or generally all other Commandments, which are contained in this E­pistle; Popish Writers confesse the same, though to the disadvan­tage of their Cause, who maintain unwritten Church-Policy and Ceremonies: So Lyra and Nicol. Gorran. Mandatum quod Deus, & ego mandavimus, the Commandment of the Lord, and of me his Apostle, Corne [...]a lapide: Quicquid tibi, O Episcope, hac Epistolâ pre­scripsi, & demandavi, hoc serva: Salmeron, alii per mandatum in­telligunt, Quecunque mandavi spectantia ad munus boni Episcopi.

SECT. II.

THE Adversaries amongst these things of Church-Policy, doBilson of perpetuall Gover. c. 3. Hooker of Eccles. Po­lic. l. 3. reckon such things as concerne the outward man, and externals only; and therefore Bilson, Hooker and the rest, as Cameron and others, will have Christs kingdom altogether Spirituall, Mysticall, and invisible, and Christ to them is not a King to binde the externall man, nor doth he as King take care of the externall government of his own house, that belongeth (say they) as other externall things to the Civill Magistrate, who with advise and counsell of the Church, Bishops and their unhallowed Members, may make Lawes in all externals, for the Government of the Church, and all these externals though Positive, are alterable; yea, and added to the word, though not as additions corrupting, but as perfecting and a­dorning the word of God and his worship.

In opposition to this, our fourth Argument shall be, he who is4. Arg. Christ the Head of hi [...] Church i [...] the exter­nall poli [...]y thereof. the only Head, Lord, and King of his Church, must governe the po­litick, externall body his Church, perfectly by Laws of his own spi­rituall policy, and that more perfectly then any earthly Monarch, or State doth their subjects, or any Commanders, or any Lord or Master of Family, doth their Army, Souldiers, and members of their Family.

But Christ is the head and only head of the Church, for by what title Christ is before all things, he in whom all things consist, and is the beginning, the first borne fram the dead, and hath the preheminence in [Page 14] all things; and he is onely, so [...]ely and absolutely all these, by the same title he is the Head, and so the onely Head of the Body the Church, Col. 1. 17, 18. And he is the head of his Politick body, and so a head in all externals, as well as of mysticall and inv [...]sible body, for if his Church be an externall Politicall body, and ruled by Or­gans, Eyes, Watchmen, Rulers, Feeders, and such as externally guideth the flock, as it is, Eph. 4▪ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 16▪ 17, 18. A society to which Christ hath given the keys of his House, and so externall power in a visible Politick Court on earth to binde and loose, to take in and put out, to open and shut the doors of his visible Politick house; then this Politick body must have a head in externall policy, and this head in externals must as a head governe by Laws all the members in their externall society; for a body without a head is a monster, and a Politick body, with­out a head Politick, and one that ruleth Politically, is a Monster. And Christ is the King, yea the only King of his own Kingdom, ei­ther as this Kingdom is mysticall and invisible, or as it is Politick, externall, and visible on earth, as these Scriptures proveth, 1. Mat. 28. 18. Iesus [...]aith unto me, is all power given in Heaven and in earth: I hope this power is only given to Christ, not to Pope or earthly Prince: It is the name above all names, Phil. 2. 9. King of Kings▪ Rev. 17. 14. And upon this Kingly power, Christ doth an ex [...]ernall Act of Royall power, and giveth not only an inward but also a Politicall, externall power to his disciples, ver. [...]9. Go Teach, and Baptize all Nations: Is this only inward and heart- [...]eaching, and inward Baptizing by the spirit? I think not, God hath reserved that to himself only, Isa. 54. 13. Ioh. 6 44. 45. Joh. 1. 33. and Ioh. 20, 21. 22. Upon this that the Father sent Christ, and so set him his King upon his holy hill of Zion, Psa. 2. 6. Christ performeth an externall Politick mission, and sendeth his disciples with power in a Politick externall way to remit and retain sins, in an externall way, for there is clearly two remittings and retainings of sins in the Text: None can say of the Church, its my Church, but he who is King of the Church; and Christ saith, Matth, 16. 18. that it is his Church, and up­on this it is his Kingdom, and the keyes are his keys, and they are keys of a Kingdom visible and Politick on earth, as is evident, ver. 19. I will give unto thee, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth, (in an externall Politicall court [Page 15] of Church Rulers, as it is differenced from an internal, and mysticall binding in Heaven) shall be bound in Heaven, &c. For it is clear that there is an internall binding in Heaven, and a Politicall and ex­ternall binding on earth, and both are done by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: But Christ can have or give no Politi­call or ex [...]ernall keys of an externall and Politicall King, but as he is a King: Yea, and Excommunication doth not only binde the inward man in Heaven, but also the externall man on earth, ex­cluding him from the Society of the Church as a Heathen, and a Publican, and purging him out from the externall communion of the Church, as if he were now no brother, Matth. 18. [...]7▪ 18. 1 Cor. 5. 7. 10, 11, 12. Now this externall separating and judging of an of­fender by the Church is done by the keys of the Kingdom; Ergo, by Christ as a King, ruling the externall man Political­ly, and so by the key of the house of David, which is laid upon Christs shoulder, Isa. 22. 22. And by a Royall Act of him, upon whose shoulder is the Government, Is▪ 9 6. Who sitteth upon the throne of David to order the kingdom, & to establish it with judgement & justice. For the Church doth bind and loose in the externall Court, either by a Commission from him who as head of the Church, and who as King gave to her the Keys of the Kingdom; or by a generall Arbi­trary power given to the Magistrate and Church, to do in these things as they please; so they do nothing contrary to the Word, though not according to the Word, as they are to do in Doctrinals; if the former be said, then must the externall Government be upon the shoulder of Christ as King, which is that which we teach: If the latter be said, then might the Magistrate & Church appoint such an Ordinance as excommunication, and so they may by their ArtitraryA promise of Pardo­ning of sin made to the right use of the keys pro­veth disci­pline to be a part of the Gos­pel. power, make a Gospel Promise of ratifying an Ordinance in heaven, and of pardoning sins in heaven; for he that can make the ordinance, can make also the Gospel-Promise, and he that can by an Arbitrary power make one Promise or part of the Gospel, may make all. And if either Magistrate or Church can appoint such an Ordinance as hath a Promise of b [...]nding & loosing made good in heaven, they may also take away such Ordinances and Gospel Promises; for it is the same power to make and adde, to unmake and destroy Ordinances. Hence also I argue for the Immutabili [...]y of a Scripturall Platform, that the Church cannot alter at her will: thus, That must be of Di­vine [Page 16] institution which is an essentiall part of the Gospel; but the Platform of Church-Government in the word is such, and so must be no lesse Immutable then the Gospel. I make good the major Pro­position thus: That which essentially includeth a Promise of the New Testament, that must be a part of the Gospel which consisteth especi­ally of Promises, Heb. 8. 6. 2 Cor. 7. 1. Gal. 3. 17. Gal. 4. 23, 24. But there's a Promise of forgiving sins in Heaven made to the Church, using the Keys aright, and of Christs presence in the excercise of the Keys, as walking amongst the golden Candlesticks, Matth. 18. 18, 19. 20. Math. 16. 18, 19. Iob. 20. 23. Rev. 2. 1. Now if any shall object, this Argument proveth only that which is not denyed, to wit, that some part of Discipline only, is of Divine institution which is not denyed, for a power of binding and loosing, of remit­ting and retaining sins, is of Divine institution: But hence it is not concluded that the whole Platform, and all the limbs, joynts, bones, and toes are of Divine institution, they being matters of smaller concernment. I Answer, As from a part of the Doctrine of the Law and Gospel that is of Divine institution; for Example, that I keep, observe and do the Law, that I believe and repent, which are things of Divine institution: I infer that the whole Platform of Law and Gospel, is of Divine institution, and the particulars of Obedi­ence and Faith, are not Arbitrary to the Church; just so in Disci­pline, I say the like, there is no more reason for one part written by God, then for another.

Farther, if the Church be a visible Politick Kingdom, as it is, Mat. 13. v. 45, 46, 47, 48. Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 8. 12. And if the Word be the Word, Scepter and Law of the Kingdom, as it is, Matth. 6. 10. Matth. 13. 11. Luk. 4. 43. Matth. 4. 23. Mark 13. 8. Luk. 21. 10. 14. Luk. 8. 10. Yea, the Sword and Royall power of the King, Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 19. 15. By which he Ruleth and Raigneth in his Church, Isa. 11. v. 4. Psal. 110. 2. Heb. 1. 8, 9. Psal. 45. 3, 4. 5, 6, 7. Isa. 61. 1, 2. 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5, 6. 1 Pet. 2. 4, 5, 6, 7. And if by this Word the King Raigneth, bindeth, looseth, and conquereth souls and sub­dueth his Enemies, Matth. 18. 18, 19, 20. Matth. 16. 19. Rev. 6. 2. Then certainly Christ must Raign Politically, and externally in his Church, and walk in the midst of the golden Candlesticks, Rev. 2. 1. And if Christ Ascending to Heaven as a Victorious King, Leading Captivity Captive, gave gifts to men, and appointed an externall [Page 17] policie, for the gathering of his Saints by the Ministery of certain of­ficers of his Kingdom, as it is, Psal. 68. 18. Even that the Lord God might dwell amongst them, Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Then he must Raign in the externall Policie of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, by Word, Sacraments, and Discipline. Now the King himself, the Lord who Raigneth in this externall Policie, must be the only Law­giver, Iam. 4. 12. Isa. 33. v. 22. There can be no Rabbies or Do­ctors on earth, who as little Kings can make Laws under him, Mat. 23. v. 8, 9, 10. Yea, not Apostles who can teach how the Worship should externally be ordered, but what they receive of the King of the Church, 1 Cor. 11. 23. Act. 15. v. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. How the house should be Governed, Heb. 3. 1, 2. 4, 5. Yea, nothing more reasonable, then that Whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven, should be done in, and for the house of the God of Heaven, under the pain of his Wrath, Ezr. 7. 23. 1. That there should be Officers in a Kingdom, and Laws to Govern the Subjects, beside the will of the Prince or Judges of the Land, or that the Members of a Family, or Souldiers in an Army should be Governed by any Rule, Custome, or Law, beside or without the will of the Master of the House, and of the Generall & Commanders, is all one, as if Sub­jects, Families and Souldiers, should be Ruled and Governed by their own will and wisdome, and not by their King, Iudges, Ma­sters and Commanders; for the question is upon this undeniableThe will of Christ as King, is the Rule of the Go­vernment of his house. supposition, that Christ is the only Head and King of his Church, and so the Head and King of Prelats (if they be of the body) and of the Rulers, Guides, and Pastors of the Church, which are to be Governed and Ruled by certain Laws, no lesse then the people, whither or no this Representative Church of Rulers, being Sub­jects and Members of the Head and King of the Church, are to be Ruled by the wisdome, Laws, and Commandments of this King the Lord Jesus; or if they have granted to them a vast Arbitrary po­wer to Govern both themselves and the people, by adding Positive Mandats of Arbitrary Commanders, such as Prelats are (in the minde of those who think they have no patent of any Divine right) and of Surplice, Crossing, kneeling for reverence to wood, to bread and wine. The matter cannot be helped, by saying that Christ is the Mysticall, Invisible King, (some doubt if he be the only King of the Church, which is too grosse to be resuted) of the Church in [Page 18] things spirituall, and in regard of the inward operation of the Spi­rit; but he is not a Politicall and visible Head in regard of exter­nall Policie; this distinction must hold also in regard of the people, who as Christians and believers are rather under Christ as a My­sticall and invisible Head, then the Rulers who are not as Rulers, but only in so far as they are believers, Mysticall Members of the Head Christ; for Christ exerciseth no Mysticall and Internall operations of saving Grace upon Rulers as Rulers; but upon Ru­lers as believers, then he cannot be the Mysticall and invisible King of Rulers as Rulers, to give them as a King, an Arbitrary power to be little Kings under him, to Govern as they please; and the truth is, Christ is a Politicall Head and King of his Church, not properly a visible Head, 2 Cor. 5. 16. Except that he is a visible Head in this sense, in that he Raigneth and Ruleth, even in the externall visible Policie of his Church, through all the Catholick visible Church, in his Officers, Lawfull Synods, Ordinances, giving them Laws in all Positive externals, which place the Beast, the King of the Bottom­lesse Pit, the Pope usurpeth: But I would gladly be informed of Formalists, how the King is the Head and Vicegerent of Christ o­ver the Church; if Christs Kingdom be only spirituall, Mysticall Internall, not Politicall, not externall; for sure the King as King, exerciseth no internall and Mysticall operations upon the conscien­ces of men under Jesus Christ, his power is only Politicall and Ci­villy Politicall, about, or without the Church, not properly within the Church: Surely if Rulers be Subjects and Members under Christ the Head and King: I shall believe that Christ must in all Positive things of externall Policie, give to them Particular Laws in the Scripture, and Rule them; and that they being Members, not the Head, must as particularly be Ruled in all externals Positive, by the will and Law of the Head Christ, and that they are not Kings, Heads and Law givers, and Rulers to themselves: And especially upon these considerations. This King and Head must be particular in an im­mutable, perpetuall, and unalterable Platform of Church-Govern­ment. 1. Salomon for wisdome in the order, degrees, number, at­tire of his servants and Policie of his house to the admiration of the Queen of Sheba, in this we conceive was a type of a greater then Salomon. 2. The Positives of the policie of Christs house, must be congruous to a supernaturall end, the edification of souls, and that [Page 19] Symbolicall Rites of mens devising, speak supernaturall duties, that Christ hath already spoken in the Scripture, as that Crossing spell out Dedication to Christs Service, Surplice, pastorall holinesse, which both are Gospel truths, 1. Pet. 1. 18. 1 Pet. 2. 24. Isa. 52. 11. Is as supernaturall a mean for edification, as that bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood; & therefore the one more then the other ought not to be left to humane reason, but must be expresly set down in Scripture. 3. All these must lay a tie upon the conscience; but if they have their rise from the vain will of Prelats and men, they can never bind my conscience; for how can they bind my conscience as the Scripture bindeth them on me, and yet Rulers as Rulers in the name of Christ the King, cannot presse them upon me? Formalists give divers Replies to this: As, 1. Hooker: You are Hooker, Eccles. Policie, l. 3. 123, 124. constrained to say that of many things of Church-Policie, some are of great weight, some of lesse, that what hath been urged of immutability of Laws, it extendeth in truth no farther then only to Laws, wherein things of greater moment are prescribed; as Pastors, Lay-Elders, Deacons, Synods, Widows; else come to particulars, and shew if all yours be perpetuall, and our particulars unlawfull. Ans. 1. Things of greater and lesse weight, we acknowledge in Church-Policie, and in Doctrinals too; but in this sense only: 1. That they be things Positive. 2. They be both things that are unchangeable by any, except by God himself, and oblige us Necessitate precepti, by the necessity of a Divine Commandment, as Matth. 23. 23. To pay tythe of Mint, Annise, and Cummin, is a lesse matter then the weigh­tierThings of Policie, be­cause lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law, are not therefore mutable at the plea­sure of men. duties of the Law, Iudgement, Mercy, and Faith: But there is nothing so small in either Doctrinals or Policie, so as men may alter, omit, and leave off these smallest Positive things that God hath commanded; for Christ saith, Paying of tythe of Mint, ought not to be omitted, though the Church of Pharisees should neglect it, and command some other petty small things in place thereof: If there­fore Prelats should obliterate the Office of Ruling Elders which Christ the Lord instituted in his Church, and put themselves in as Governours in their Room, they may put out Pastors and Sacra­ments, and take in for them, Turkish Priests, and Circumcision, with a signification that Christ is already come in the flesh: We urge the immutability of Christs Laws, as well in the smallest as greatest things, though the Commandments of Christ be greater or lesse in [Page 20] regard of the intrinsecall matter, as to use water in Baptisme, or to Baptise is lesse then to Preach Christ, and believe in him, 1 Cor. 1. 17. Yet they are both alike great, in regard of the Authority of Christ the Commander, Matth. 28. 18, 19. And its too great bold­nesse to alter any Commandment of Christ, for the smallnesse of the matter, for it lieth upon our conscience, not because it is a greater or a lesser thing, and hath degrees of obligatory necessity, lying in it for the matter; but it tyeth us for the Authority of the Law-gi­ver: Now Gods Authority is the same when he saith, (You shall not Worship false Gods, but me the only true God) And when he saith, (You shall not adde of your own one ring or pin to the Ark, Tabernacle Temple) yea, either to break or teach others, to break one of the least of the Commandments of God, maketh men the least in the Kingdom of God, Matth. 5. 18. And to offend in one is to offend in all, Iam. 2. 10. 2. That our things of Church-Policie are perpe­tuall, we prove, and that what we hold of this kinde, we make good to be contained in the Scripture, either expresly, or by due con­sequence; and, so the Church and their Rulers, act nothing in our way, but as Subordinate to Christ as King and Head of the Church, and Surplice, humane Prelats, Crossing, we hold unlawfull in the house of God, because they are not warranted by the King and Head Christs word; and because the devisers and practisers of these do neither devise nor act, in these, as Subordinate to Jesus Christ as King, Priest, or Prophet, by the grant of our Adversaries.

Hooker, l. 3. Eccles. Pol. pag. 124. The matters wherein Church-Policy are conversant, are the publick Religious duties of the Church, as administration of the Word, Sacraments, Prayers, spirituall cen­sures of the Church and the like, to these the Church stand alwayes bound; and where Policy is, it cannot but appoint, some to be leaders of others, and some to be led; If the blinde lead the blinde, they both perish: and where the Clergy is any great multitude, order requireth that they be distinguished by degrees, as Apostles and Pastors were in the Apostolick Church: And number of specialities there are which▪ make for the more convenient being of these principall parts of Policy.

Ans. 1. If Christ as King have appointed word and Sacraments in generall, and Censures; he hath appointed the Word, Sacra­ments and Censure in speciall; to wit, such a word, such Sacra­ments, [Page 21] Baptisme, the Lords-Supper, such Censures, Excommunica­tion, admonition, or then he hath left the Specialities of written and unwritten Word, to the arbitriment of men, and that there be Excommunication, or no Excommunication; and this Doctrinall and the like he hath left to mens devising; to wit, (Crossing is a Dedication of the childe to Christ) now Jerome Advers. Helvid. saith Vt hec que scripta sunt non negamus, ita ea quae non sunt scripta re­ [...]nuimus, and August. Lib. de pasto. c. 11. Quicquid inde (è scriptura) Andieritis, hoc nobis bene sapiat, Quicquid extraest, respuite, n [...] er­retis in nebulâ. Now to say, we may receive some truths of things Arbitrary or mutable, crosseth Cyrill. Allexand. Glaphyre in Gen. l. 2. [...].

That which the holy Scripture hath not said, by what means should we receive, and account it amongst these things that be true? Cyrill would deny all your Ceremonies to speak any thing, but lies; andBasil. l. de Fide. so would I: Yea, to bring in any thing that is not written, Basilius saith, it is [...], a demonstration of Pride, and Origen in Levit. Hom. 5. Si quid autem, superfuerit, quod non Divina Scrip­tura decernat, nullam aliam debere tertiam Scripturam ad autorita­tem scientiae suscipi (licet) I think some third Scripture which is neither the old or the New-Testament must be sought to make good the Doctrines, that dumbe humane Ceremonies teach us: 2. That the blind lead the blinde is not safe; but it is no Argument to prove that this is an immutable thing in policy, that there should be Lea­ders, and some that are led, except you suppose the Prelates to be the seeing men, and the Pastors and People to be blinde. 3. I ut­terly deny this consequence: The Clergy is a great multitude; Ergo, order necessarily requireth, that by degrees they be distinguished in Prelates and Pastors; for the Prelats are a multitude; Ergo, or­der requireth that one be Pope to command all the rest: The A­postles were a multitude; Ergo, There was a necessi [...]y of a Mo­narch-Apostle, the Prelaticall Government is Monarchicall; dothOrder re­quireth not a Monar­chical Pre­late. order require in all multitude no Government but a Monarchy? Nor do we finde any warrant that Apostles had jurisdiction over Pastors in the Scripture, nor in any Ecclesiasticall Records; but where Papacy was working; Paul, as if he had been to go out of this life, and never to see the faces of the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20. 25. [Page 22] Left unto them as Elders all of equall degrees of power of juris­diction, the feeding and Governing of the Church of God, Act. 20. 28, 29, 30. 4. The particulars of Policy, as Surplice, Crossing are no more circumstances of Worship then Aarons Ephod, a vesture is a circumstance, but a Religious vesture teaching us of Pastorall ho­linesse, is worship, not a Circumstance: Men can place no Religion in Circumstances.

Hooker, Eccle. Poli. l. 3. p. 125. It is in vain to argue from Christs office, if there be an immutable Platforme in Scripture, it is as if one should demand a Legacy by vertue of some written Testament, wherein there being no such thing specified; he plead­eth that there it must needs be, and bringeth Arguments from love and good will, which awayes the Testator bore him, ima­gining that these or the like proofes will convict a Testament to have that in it, which other men can no where by reading finde, its our part to admire what he hath done, rather then to dispute what he in congruity of reason, ought to do: how unsearchable areHow the care and wisdom of Christ pro­veth, that Christ hath left an un­alterable platforme in his te­stament, his judgements?

Ans. 1. It is very true, a Platforme of discipline is questio facti, A question of Fact, rather then Law; we hear nothing in this comparison, but what Papists with equall strength of reason do bring for their unwritten Traditions; for they say Protestants are to prove a fact and deed of Jesus Christ, that he hath left in his writ­ten Testament a perfect and immutable Platforme of Doctrine and manners, to which nothing can be added; and this they prove from the care, wisdom and love of Christ to his Church, for he ought to reveale his will perfectly, and compleatly in his Scripture, other­wise he hath not the love, care, and wisdom of a Law-giver to his own people, if he leave them in the mist, and in the dark, and write not down all things touching Faith and manners: Now we can no where finde by reading Scripture, any thing for the Baptizing of In­fants, or a remedy for women to be cured of Originall sin in the Old-Testament in lieu of circumcision; we finde no warrant for the Feast of Dedication, in the Law of Moses, nor for the dayes of puring, ob­served by the Iewes, nor for Images, invocation of Saints, Prayer for the dead, the perpetuall Virginity of the Virgin Mary, and many such Doctrines which the Church believeth. But we answer, because these vain doctrines (we except the Baptizing of Infants, warranted [Page 23] by Scripture) are not in Scripture, they are the vaine and saplesse doctrines of men, and will-worship: But to presse the compari­son, If any should demand a Legacy by vertue of a Testament, in which the Testator hath testified his good will, wisdom, care to his Brethren in such a manner, that he had said; I have left in my Testa­ment to my Brethren, my mind to instruct them, for every good worke, to lead them in all truth, to teach them every good way, to understand equity, judgement and righteousnesse, to cause them walke safely, so that their feet shall not stumble, and I have left them my word to be a Lamp, and light to their feet in walking: Then I would inferre from this Testament two things: 1. That the love and care of our Testa­tor Christ, so revealed, warranteth us to plead for light in Christs Testament, how to walk in every good way, and so how to walk in all the wayes of the orderly worship of God, and of Govern­ing of Gods house, by Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, by their Lawfull calling, qualifications, duties; by the Churches Courts in admonition, excommunication, by the use of the keys: 2. Because the Testament is perfect to instruct in every good way, particular­ly, and in all duties of worship, and this Testament forbiddeth all adding and diminishing, and speaketh not one word of Crossing, Cringing, and bowing to Altars, of wearing of Surplice: There­fore these are not Gods Lawfull wayes, and if I walk in them, I can do nothing but fall and stumble: 3. We do not here argue sim­ply from the wise, and congruous dealing of God, what he ought to do, nor from the love of Christ, as a King and he [...]d simply, but from the love, care and wisdom of Christ, as he is such a King and Head, upon whose shoulder is the whole Government, and upon whom are all the vessels of the house, great and small: 4. It is no lesse then blasphemy to ascribe the not particularizing of Ce­remonies, such as Crossing, Surplice, humane Feasts to the unsear­chable Wisdom, and wayes of God, to which Paul, Romanes 11. re­ferreth the great deeps of Supernaturall Providence in Gods E­lection and Reprobation, his calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Iewes; and observe (I pray) this consequence; the wayes of the Lord past finding out; Ergo, The Lord hath set down no Platforme of Church-Policy in his Sons Testament; but hath left it to the wisdom of the Church to devise, Crossing, kneeling to Crea­tures, Surplice, or some such like: But since we have a pattern of [Page 24] perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times, who had power even, In actu excercit [...], of Discipline and Church-worship, and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature: How is it that we have no hint of Crossing, Kneeling, Surplice, corner. Cap, nor any such, like unto these? And yet they were as necessary for decency then, 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. &c. Rev. 2. 1. 2, 14, 18, 20, 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now,

Others of great learning reply, that Christ is not the only immedi­ate Mr. Prynne Truth tri­umphing over false­hood, p, 113. 114. Head, King, Law-giver, and Governour of the Church, for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings, Magistrates, higher powers, nurse-Fathers, Pastors, Doctors, Elders; for by this, there should be no Kings, Parliaments, Synods, no power of juris­diction in them to make Lawes, to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry, Superstition, Heresies. But I answer, that Christ is the on­ly immediate Head, King, Law-giver, and Governour of his Church, as upon his shoulder only is the Government, Isa. 9. 6. And the key of the house of David, Isa. 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things; and set above all▪ principalities and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this vvorld, but also in that vvhich is t [...] come; He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body, Eph. 1. 21, 22, 23. And he is such a head even in externals, in giving Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, who for the vvork of the ministery, perfecteth the Saints, Collat. Roinal. cum, Io. Hartio. Sect. 2. p 40 Christ the only im­mediate King and head, and Law-giver of his Church without any depu­ty heads or Vi­cars, D. Roinald. 16. d. 41. in vvhom the vvhole body (of the Church) is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth, according to the effectu­all vvorking, in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, to the edifying of it self in love, Ephes. 4. 11, 12▪ 13, 14, 15, 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in exter­nals, and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ: Let any of the Formalists, if Christ be not the only im­mediate Head, Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate, Ministeriall, inferior Head of the Catholick Church, even in exter­nall Government: For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roi­nald, saith, Christ is the only principall, imperiall, and invisible Head; but the Pope (saith he) is the visible and Ministeriall Head; So do all Papists say; but our Protestant Divines Answer, That it is a re­pugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head, should be in any sense both a Subject and a King, a part or Member and a [Page 25] Head; and Roynald saith, This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ; Yea, the head, in externals, must be with the Catholick body, as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world; neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end: It is true, the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power; yea, but so may the Pope be, if all Pastors on earth be but his De­puties, and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies, and sent by the King, so is the King the Head of the Church; but then the Catho­lick Church hath as many heads, as there be lawfull Kings on earth; But we desire to know, what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things, doth agree to Kings, Parliaments, and Synods; Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God, which God hath not made to their hand; if the King and Synods only declare and propound, by a power of jurisdiction, that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded; they are not the Law-makers, nor creators of that morality in the Law, which layeth bonds on the conscience; yea, they have no Organicall, nor inferiour influence in creating that morality, God only by an immediate act as the on­ly immediate King, made the morality, and if King, Parliaments, and Synods, be under Kings and under Law-givers, they must have an under-action, and a Ministeriall subservient active influence un­der Christ in creating as second causes, that which is the formall reason, and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience, and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath, though King, Parliament, Pastors or Synods, should never command such a Mo­rall thing: Now to propound, or declare, that Gods will is to be done in such an act, or Synodicall Directory or Canon, and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine, is not to make a Law, it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King: but it maketh them neither Kings, nor Law-givers, no more then Heralds are little Kings, or inferiour Law-givers, and Parliaments, because in the name and Authority of King and Par­liament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parlia­ment: the Heralds are meer servants, and do indeed represent King and Parliament, and therefore to wrong them, in the pro­mulgation of Lawes, is to wrong King and Parliament; but the [Page 26] Heralds had no action, no hand at all in making the Laws, they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping, and so by no pro­priety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings, under-Law­givers, just so here, as touching the morality of all humane Laws, whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall, God himself immediatly; yea, from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without ad­vice of men or Angels, for who instructed him? neither Moses, nor Prophet, nor Apostle; yea, all here are Meri precones, only He­ralds; yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes, equals may declare them charitative, By way of charity to equals, but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws, whom God hath placed in Authority, as Kings, Parliaments, Synods, the Church, Masters, Fathers, Captains; And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these, because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver, and head of the Church, they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws, the morality of which bindeth the conscience (for this God only can do) Ergo, there be no Parliaments, no Kings, no Rulers, that have Authority over men, it is a most unjust con­sequence; for all our Divines against Papists, deny that humane Laws as humane, do binde the conscience▪ but they deny not, but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings, Parliaments, Synods, Pastors.

SECT. III.

IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him, as the Lord of the house above the servant, Heb. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the5. Arg. As Moses and David were not to follow their own spirit, far lesse is the will of the Church a rule to shape an unalterable Govern­ment. Tabernacle, for (saith he) See thou make all things according to the pattern [...] shewed unto thee in the mount, Heb. 8. 5. And was not to follow his own spirit, but was to follow the patterne that God shewed him in the Mount, then far lesse hath Christ the Apostle and high Priest of our Profession giving us a Platforme of the Church and Government of the New-Testament variable, & shaped according to the alterable laws, customes & manners of divers nations, for as Moses though a Prophet was not to make one pin of the Tabernacle, but ac­cording to the samplar & patern that God did shew him, so Christ ma­nifested to his Disciples, all that he had heard, and seen of the Father, Ioh. 15. But it is not to be supposed, that the Father shew to Christ an alterable tabernacle in the new Testament, that men might alter, chop and change at their pleasure, as the customes of Nations are changed: [Page 27] If God thought Religion should run a hazard, if the greatest of Prophets (except Christ) might have leave to mold and shape all the Leviticall Service, and Ceremonies, (for as the judicious and Lear­ned Interpreter Mr. David Dickson saith, all the Leviticall ServiceDa. Dick­sonus, Ex­pos. Ana­lyti. in E­pist, a [...] heb. c. [...]. v. 5. is comprehended under the name of the Tabernacle, Exod. 25. 40.) according as he pleased, far more should all be corrupted, if erring men, far inferior to Moses, Prelats and Pastors, should have leave to draw the Lineaments of the New Testament, Tabernacle, Church, Service, Officers, Censures, and all the Positives of Policie accor­ding to no patern shown by Christ; but only the Fashions, alterable Laws, Customes, & forms of nations: Now all the pins of the Taber­nacle were but shadows, and Types of Morall and Heavenly things, Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. Heb. 9. 9. And they were to be changed and done away by Christ, Col. 2. 17. Heb. 7. 12. 2 Cor. 3. 11. Yet could nei­ther be devised by Moses, nor altered by any mortall man, Church or Priests; how can we imagine that men may now devise and set up an alterable and changeable New Testament-frame, of Prelats, Altars, Religious dayes, Surplice, Crossing, or any the like toyes? And though David was a Prophet, and a man according to Gods heart; yet in the externals of the Temple, nothing was left to his spirit; he might neither in the least jot adde or omit, 1 Chron. 28. 11. Then David gave to Solomon his Son, the patern of the Porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the Treasuries thereof, and of the upper Chambers thereof, and of the inner Parlors thereof, & of the place of the Mercy-Seat. Here be many particulars; But whence had David all these? From the patern according to which, Crosse, Surplice, Altars, and humane Prelats are shapen? Alas, no; therefore it is added, v. 12. And (he shewed) the patern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round about v. 19. All this (said David) the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this patern. I see no rea­son to deny, that the form of the Temple was written by the hand of God; as the Ten Commandments were written in two Tables of stone by him; the Text seemeth to say no lesse, [...] Pagni, and Ar. Mont. ren­der it, Omnia in Scriptura, de manu domini, super me intellegere fecit. So Jerome, Omnia venerunt, Scripta manu domini ad me. Vatablus in notis, Omnia ista dominus Scripsit manu, su [...] et digito, [...]u [...] ut me fa­miliarius [Page 28] do [...]eret: We shall not contend with Tostatus, who saith,Pag [...]i, Ari­ [...]ont. Vata­blus in notis, To­status in 1 Chron 18. 19. 2. 7. Ista Scrip­tura tam poterat fieri per Angelos quam per de­um. Tostatus, Q. 1. ibid. Cornel, a Lapide, com. 1. Pa­ralip, 29. 19. D [...]us ergo in ta­bula de­scripsittotam ideam, Tem­pli alioqui delincatio [...] Davide vix intelligi po­tuisset. Degrees de Templ. Ded. p. 73. Lavater, Ex [...]o quod, [...]dificium et vasa secun­dum for­mam sibi ostensam fa­cere debuit, significatur in [...]ultu dei non secun­dum hum [...] ­nam ratio­ [...]m, sed ver­bum dei a­gendum esse, quo pa­tefecit quo­modo coliv [...] ­lit. Si Sa­lomon su­as imagina­tiones fuis­set sequitus Templum a­liâ form â construxis­set, vasa ali­ter fecisset et plura quam deus prescripse­rat. It might have been written by Angels; though we go not from the letter of the Text, we have from this Papist Tostatus, all we desire; for he saith: We must say that it was not by Davids own thought, that he builded all; for David durst not build a Temple to the Lord of his own heart; because he knew not if that would please God, but by Divine Revelation: And therefore the old Translation is corrupt in this, as in many things, which rendreth, v. 12. Thus: Dedit David, Salamoni descriptionem p [...]rti [...]us, &c. Nec non et om­nium que cogitaverat: As if Davids thought had been his guide; for [...] by the spirit, by Tostatus, Corneli. a Lapide, Lyra, is meant, not Davids spirit, but the spirit of Revelation from the Lord; and Lyra saith, on v. 12. Per hoc designatur; quod deus pater dedit homi­ni Christo notitiam omnium agendorum in ecclesiâ. And Pet. Mar­tyr, our own Doctor saith, on 1 King. 8. It cannot be told how un­pleasant the institution of new worship is to God: And, there should be nothing in Baptisme but the Word and the Elements; any thing added (as Crossing, Oyl, Salt,) came from the Prelats: Lavater, in 1. Par. c. 28. ver. 14. condemneth all additions, even though Solomon should have added them, Ezech. 43. 11. Thou Son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel,—12. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fa­shion thereof, and goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the Ordinances thereof, and all the forms there­of, & all the Laws thereof; And write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, & all the Ordinances thereof, and do them. Now it is most considerable, that the Form, Fabrick, and Structure of the Temple, Ezech. c. 40. In the visions of God, is shewn to the Prophet by a man, by Christ the great Angel of the Covenant; who with a measu­ring reed of six cubits, measured the Temple; and in these chapters, c. 40, 41, 42. Christ sheweth to Ezekiel all the patern and form which evidently typifieth the Church of the New Testament, the Bride the Lambs Wife in the Kingdom of Grace, and glorified in Heaven, revealed by the Angel to John, Rev. 21. 9, 10, 11. It may be thought that the Porches, Chambers, length and bredth of them East, West, South, and North, the Laws about the Priests, their linnen garments, Sacrifices, washing and the like, are of lesse concernment then the Doctrine of Christs nature, person, offices of Faith, Repentance, [Page 29] Iudgement, Heaven &c. And therefore being not so necessary, nor so weighty; there was no necessity that all the like Positive exter­nals of Church-Policie, written to a rude and carnall people, should be written to us, who are now more spirituall, and upon whom the day-spring from above doth shine, the shadows now being past; and who have greater liberty then they had, who were as children under Tutors. Ans. 1. I do not deny, but all Ceremonials are of lesse weight then the Morals; but the question is, if they be of lesse Divine authority, so as we may devise of our own Spirit such Ceremonials, and may alter, omit, or remove these, or any new Ceremonials in the Sacraments under the New Testament; for New Testament Ceremonials, as to take Bread, Eat and drink, are not so necessary, nor so weighty to us under the New-Testament, as the precept of believing in Christ, and of repentance from dead works, yet I hope it shall be a weak inference, from thence to inser, we may therefore alter and change any thing of the Sacrament, for the same Christ who commanded us to believe in him, said also, Drink Ceremo­nials of Moses his Law, are of lesse weight then Mo­rals, but not of lesse divine au­thority. ye all of this; and if we may not remove drinking from the last Sup­per, because injoyned by Christ upon the authority of the Law­giver, as signifying the spirituall drinking of Christs Blood, how can any dare to adde Crossing to Baptisme, which signifieth the dedication of the Baptized to Christs service? But 1. Divine Ce­remonials, and positives which were to be changed, have these notes and impressions of God, which Surplice, Crosse in Baptisme, Corner-cap, (which by Analogie answereth to Moses his Ceremo­nies) hath not; and yet if they be of the New Testament, and soTwo notes of Divini­ty ought to be in the New Te­stament Ceremoni­als, which were in Divine Ceremo­nies. of a more excellent spirits devising then the people of the Iews were capable of, in regard of their Bondage under Carnall Precepts, they ought to have them in a more excellent man­ner: As 1. In regard of the manner of Revelation; all the Laws and Ceremoniall Ordinances were revealed to Moses when he was forty dayes in the Mount with God, and was in Heaven and above men, Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. The length measure and patern of the Temple was revealed to Ezechiel when he was in the spirit, and saw the Visions of God, Ezech. 40. 2, 3. And a writing of the form of the Temple by Gods hand, was delivered to David, 1 Chro. 28. 19. Now if a more free and glorious spirit teach the Positives of poli­cy, under the New-Testament, such as Surplice, Crossing, then Pre­lates [Page 30] must be in a higher mount with God, then Moses was, and in a deeper extasie of the visions of God, then Ezechiel was in, Ezec. 40. 1, 2, 3. When they are in the childe-birth pain of devising, and bring forth such defaced and dirty whelpes, as Surplice, Crossing, Altars, &c. 1. I should think it blasphemy so to think: 2. In re­gard of the Doctrine revealed: When I read the 40, 41, 42. Chap­ters of Ezekiel touching the forme of the Temple, and the Anti­tipe, Chapters the Revelation, c. 21. c. 22. Yea, and the very Ce­remoniall Laws of Moses, as the scape-goats going to the wilder­nesse with the sins of the people of God, and all the rest of the Lawes that pointeth at Christ to be slain for us, and the heavenly mysteries of the Gospel explained especially in the Epistle to the He­brews: when I read these, I finde a strong smell of the ointments of a precious Redeemer, the extream love of God to man: the Majesty, the divinity and efficacy of divine power in these, as in other Scriptures: But should our Prelats, put in Print by the spirit of the new Testament, some Epistles touching Ceremonies in Generall, or of Surplice, Corner-cap, Crossing, and their heavenly relation to the mysteries of the Gospel in particular, I should not think men would dare to say a nobler spirit speaketh like God and heaven in these then in the other.

It is without all Warrant to expound Christian Liberty of a po­wer of devising a mutable Church-Policy, and lawes not warran­ted in Gods word, seeing Christian Liberty expresly exempteth us altogether from obedience to mens Laws not warranted by Christs word, Gal. 5. 1. Col. 2. 20, &c.

Let us hear what Hooker saith, for his mutable Policie underEccles. Po­licy, book 3. pag. 122.the New Testament: Christ is not lesse faithfull then Moses, because Moses delivered to the Iewes some Lawes that were durable, and Christ some Laws that are changeable, otherwayes by this reason Christ shall be lesse faithfull then Moses; for Moses erected in theHow Mo­ses doing all accord­ing to the pattern proveth an immutable platforme. wildernesse a Tabernacle, which was moveable from place to place; Solomon a stately Temple, which was not moveabl [...]: Therefore So­lomon was faithfuller then Moses, which no man indued with reason will think: Christ was faithfull, and saith, I have given to them the words that thou gavest me: He concealed not any part of his Fathers will: But did any part of that will require the immutability of Laws concerning Church-Policy?

[Page 31] Ans. I answer, as Christ did to the Jews in another case, Ioh. 6. 32. Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father gi­veth you that true bread: So in this, neither Moses nor Solomon e­rected either that Tabernacle or Temple, as Law-givers, but the Father of our Lord Iesus, as the true Law-giver: Now both were but meer servants and Heralds in all that they did, for God shewed to Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle, and to David and Solomon the forme of the Temple, in all the pins, rings, chambers, cubits, length and breadth, Exod. 24 40. 1 Chron. 28. 11, 19. And the que­stion is not if ever the Lord himself delivered mutable or immu­table Laws, either in Doctrine or Policy: We grant he did, and may deliver Laws changeable and to indure for a time only in both the old and new Testament, Heb. 7. 18. Col. 2. 17. Act. 15. 28, 29. But the question is, if Moses as a man, if Christ as a man only, if the Church of Prelates, yea, or of Lawfull Officers can be faithfull, if they deliver lawes to the Church, which may be altered, without the expresse will of God, speaking in his word at the pleasure of men, and which are positives of worship and Policy, such as hu­mane Prelates, Surplice, Crosse, &c. which varieth, dieth and li­veth, falleth and riseth with the climate, Nation, civill-Government, Lawes, Manners, and customes of People; and this is all one, as to move the question, whither the Ambassadour as a man, may alter the Articles of his Commission, according to his own private lust, without an expresse and evident Warrant of the Prince and State, whose servant and Messenger he is in all that he doth, and if he be a faithfull Ambassadour, who doth his own will, and not the will of those that sent him, and if Christ be as faithfull as Moses, if he had given Laws of policy under the New-Testament to be altered with­out an expresse and evident Warrant from the will of the Father, at the pleasure and will of men? This we deny; and certainly, say that Moses had erected a changeable Tabernacle at the will of man, and Solomon a Temple unchangeable at the will, and expresse Com­mandment of God, then had Solomon been faithfuller then Moses; our Arguments nerves do not consist in the immutability, or the mu­tability of things themselves, or of the Laws, but on the immutabi­lity or mutability of things positive, or Laws positive, under this re­duplication, so as they be immutable or mutable at the pleasure and will of men, without and beside the word of God, such as Crosse [Page 32] and Surplice, and such like Romish stuffe are pretended to be. 2. Certain it is, that Christ concealed not any part of his Fathers will, Ioh. 17. 8. But delivered all, and this place, with the place, Ioh. 15. 15. We urge against the traditions of Papists, and say, because Christ spake nothing from his Father either in his own person, or his Apostles in the New-Testament, or in the old by Moses and the Prophets, of invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Worshipping of Images, and Reliques and the rest of their unwritten Traditions, these being positives of worship, and more then unseparable, and connaturall attendants, such as are common, Time, Place, Person, Name, Country, Habite, Gesture, are therefore unlawfull, because Christ neither heard them of the Father, nor spake them to the A­postles, and just the like say we of Surplice, Crosse, &c. That they are no part of the will of God, which the Father revealed to Christ, and these same Texts Papists use, to prove that the Scriptures are not perfect, because they speak nothing of the Traditions of the Church; so Bellarmine, Because the Counsell of Trent, Andradius, Stapleton, and all the rest, and they prove as well, if Crosse and Surplice, and humane Offices, as Prelates, stand good and lawfull, that yet the Scriptures are unperfect: 3. We say that the whole will of God revealed by the Father to Christ, and by Christ to the Prophets and Apostles, requireth the immutability of all Laws of Church-Policy in this sence, that men should not dare to make and unmake, erect, command, alter, and injoyne positive Laws, of do­ctrine or policy at their pleasure.

Hooker, ibid. p. 113. There is more reason to say that God hath a lesse care of the Church under the New-Testament, then under the Old; then a Philosopher had to say, because God hath provided better for beasts that are born with hornes, skins, hair and garments by na­ture, then man who is born without these, that therefore nature is a carefull mother to beasts, and a hard-hearted Step-dame to man: for Gods affection consisteth not in these, for even herein shineth his wis­dom, that though the wayes of his providence be many, yet the end which he bringeth all at the length unto, is one and the self same: yea, it should follow that because God hath not prescribed Rites, and Laws of civill Policy to us, as to the Iews, that he hath lesse love to us, and lesse care of our Temporall estate in the world then of theirs.

Ans. 1. Its true indeed, God should have lesse care of man, who [Page 33] is born naked, then of beasts born with hair in lieu of garments, if God had not given reason to man according to which by nature, he may provide garments for himself, and the comparison should goGods care for us lead­eth us to think he hath given us a better guide then naturall reason, in all Positive Morals of Church-Policie. aptly on four feet, God should have lesse love, and should declare lesse love to some of mankinde, if he gave some naturall reason to devise a Bible and a Religion of their own that they might walk to heaven in the light of a fire of their own kindling, without the Scrip­tures of God (which is a false supposition) and if he had denied rea­son to another part of mankinde, surely all would say, God had so far forth been more carefull of the salvation of the former, as he should have willed their salvation, and loved those in a higher measure to whom he gave reason on these termes, and should have been lesse carefull of the salvation of those to whom he denied reason, as he he had no more created such capable of salvation and of his love for the saving of them, then brute beasts are: and this answer lay­eth down a ground that naturall reason is sufficient without the light of Scripture to guide us in all these things of policy that are alterable, then (say I) God did take a great deal of needlesse and superfluous pains in setting down so many particular Laws of Ce­remonies and Civill Policy, for the Iews, if with the help of reason, they might have steerd their course to Christ and salvation, by the help of the star light of reason, as a man though born naked may by help of reason, make shift for garments to infants, which beasts void of reason cannot do: for thus the comparison must run, and it shall be indeed a cavilling at Gods wisdom, as Papists do calling the Scriptures inky Divinity: 2. The word of God maketh it aTheologia, Atramen­taria. great love of God, and a work of Free grace, that the great things of Gods Law are written to Ephraim, Hos. 8. 12. And their sin the greater, that they should dare to multiply Altars, v. 11. without warrant of Gods word, as Formalists multiplied, Altars, Saints­dayes, Surplices, &c. And it is an act of singular love, that God gave his judgements, Word, and Statutes, even of Ceremonies, and policy to Israel and Iacob, and did not so to every Nation, Psal. 149. 19, 20. Ezek. 20. 11, 12, 13. This was Israels excellency above all Nations on earth, Deut. 4. 6. Deut. 20. 33. Rom. 3. 1, 2. Rom. 9. 4. that God gave them particular Lawes, Iudgements, Statutes, not only in Morals, but also in Ceremonials, and Policy: yet Hooker dare say, We may not measure the affection of God towards us, by [Page 30] [...] [Page 31] [...] [Page 32] [...] [Page 33] [...] [Page 34] such differences. 3. It shall not hence follow God hath a greater love to the Iews then to us, because he gave them Laws, concer­ning civill policy, which he gave not to us. Except the Lord had given us power to make civill Laws, which laid Morall obligation on our consciences, even in civill things, which morality He expressed in particular Laws written to them, and not to us, as Formalists teach, for then he hath left us in Moralls, to the darknesse of naturall rea­son, in which condition we could not but erre and sin, and make that morally good and obligatory of conscience, which is morally evil, for reason knoweth not what is positive Morally good, except the light of Gods Word teach us; and in Morals, such as judiciall Laws were to the Jews, the Lord should have been more carefull in his particular directing of them, then of us, and more tender to have them preserved from the sin of will-worship, then us, which cannot consist with the Dispensation of lesse light; greater obscu­rity in regard of types and shadows toward them, and of the Day­light of the Gospel, and the arising of the Day-star, and the filling of the earth with knowledge of the Lord toward us, under the New Testament: But the comparison must go upon this supposition, that the Lord purposed to make Politick Laws in their Positives, Morall and Obligatory of the Conscience of the Jews, and the Civill Laws of the Gentiles under the New Testament in their Positives (such as is not to carry Armour in the night, and the like) not to be Morall nor Obligatory of the Conscience. But as touching that which is Morall in all Civill Laws, the Lord is as carefull of our Temporall state, as of theirs, in condescending to particularize all Morals to us, as well as to them.

Hooker, That Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Book of Eccles. Po­lici [...], 3. pag. 113, 114. Laws for all things, in such sort as Moses did; the very different manner of delivering the Laws of Moses and the Laws of Christ, doth plainly shew, Moses had Commandement to gather the Ordinances of God to­gether distinctly, and orderly to set them down according to their kindes, for each Publique duty and Law: But the Laws of Christ we rather finde mentioned by occasion in the writings of the Apostles, then any solemn thing directly written to comprehend them in a Legall sort. 1. The Law Moral and Ceremonial were not delivered one & the same way; the former was uttered by the Voice of God, in the hearing of six hundred thousand. 2. Written with Gods finger. 3. Termed [...]a Co­venant. [Page 35] 4. Given to be kept without time, how long, or place where. The latter not so, and restricted to the Land of Jury, Deut. 4. 5. 12. Deut. 5. 22. And if God had respect in Positive Laws, to time and place, and the Manners of that Nation, seeing Nations are not all a­like, then the giving of one kinde of Positive Laws unto one only people, without any Liberty to alter them, is but a slender proof, that therefore one kinde should be given to serve everlastingly for all. Ans. This Argument reduced to form, shall want both matter, and form, and reason. If the Laws of Moses be distinctly and orderly set down, and gathered together according to their severall kindes for each Duty; and The occa­sionall writing of things in Scripture, no reason why they are altera­ble. the Laws of Christ be occasionally only written; then Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws, for all things in such sort as Moses did. But this difference is true, Ergo, &c. Both the Ma­jor Proposition and the Assumption are false, and neither of them can be proved: For the occasionall writing of some Articles of Faith, and of Dogmaticall points, should then prove that Christ meant not to set down all Articles of Faith particularly; for Christ, Matth. 22. upon occasion of the Saduces tempting; Paul, upon occasion of some at Corinth who denied the Resurrecti­on, 1 Cor. 15. And of some that mourned for the dead, 1 Thess. 4. Set down and proved an Article of Faith, to wit, the Resurrection of the dead: By this Argument the Scripture is not full and perfect, in Fundamentals, as Moses is in Ceremonials, but hath left such and such Fundamentals to be altered, added or omitted by the Church, in that way, that Surplice, Crosse, and Altars, are alterable things. Most of Dogmatick points concerning Christs sufferings, are occasionall, as his taking, his betraying by Judas, who knew the place he was in, the valuing of him at Thirty pieces, the giving him Gall and Vinegar, a punishment not intended by the Iudge, but oc­casionall, in that Christ said he thirsted; Yea, the Crucifying of him rather then Barrabas, upon occasion of the malice of the people, when Pilate had scourged him upon a Policie, to see if the people would demand he might be released, the casting Lots for his gar­ment, the Crucifying of him between two Theeves, the not breaking of his bones upon occasion he was dead, the piercing of his side; all which in regard of second causes, were occasionall, and so though Dogmaticall and Doctrinall, these must be all such alterable and Ambulatory points of Doctrine, as the Church and Prelats may [Page 36] change at their godly discretion, and Christ meant not in these, to set down particular Positive Laws in such sort as Moses did. Yea, the Evangel according to Luke, is set forth occasionally; because many have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed; therefore is seemed good to Luke also to write, Luk. 1. 1, 2, 3, 4. Upon occasion of Onesimus his fleeing from his master; The Epistle to Philemon was written upon occasion of the un­constancy of the Galathians, whose faith was perverted by false tea­chers, that of Iustification by Faith, without the works of the Law: And the Epistle to the Galathians was written, most, if not all the Canonic [...] Epistles were written either upon occasion of false Teach­ers, or for fear they should be scandalized at Pauls bonds. By this vain Argument, the most part of Canonick Scripture should be al­terable, imperfect, not particular in most Doctrinals, no lesse then in Ceremonials; And so the Major Proposition is most false, for its a vain thing to Collect Christs meaning, to set down particulars of either Doctrine or Ceremonies, from occasions of Providence; for most of the Scripture is penned upon occasions from men, and from second causes, shall these things leave off to be of Divine In­stitution, that hath their rise from occasions, even sinfull occasions? Yea, the death of Christ is occasioned from mans fall in sin. What then? Is it an alterable Doctrine left to the determination of the Church that Christ died? But this is no other then the shift of Pa­pists for their unwritten Tradition. Sanderus de Visib. Monarch. Lib. 1. c. 5. pag. 13. Si ergo per solas conscriptas leges dei civitas Papists pretend that things are not written in the word, because of the various occurrences of Provi­dence. gubernaretur in valdè magnâ parte corum que passim contingunt, quid faceret, nesciret, quia legem de his loquent [...]m non haberet; Imo si tantum una Lex toti reipub: necessaria esse posset, eaque ipsa scriberetur a prudentissimis viris, ac singulis annis ab orbe condito novae interpre­tationes eidem adderentur: tamen nunquam eveniret, ut ea lex tam plenè interpretata foret, quin causae novae possent intervenire▪ ob quas lex et legis interpretatio novam iterim postularet interpretationem, a­deo et foecunda est natura in suis eventis, et Angustum ingenium huma­num, et varia surisperitorum sententia, et verba tum pauca, tum am­bigua. All cometh to this, that this Papist saith, That there cannot be one written unchangeable Law that is necessary for the whole Church, for new events, occasions and occurences of Providence, should so change the case, that there should be a necessity of a new [Page 37] interpretation, and of a new Law. 2. Nor can we say that Laws made upon occasion, as that Law of transferring the inheritance to the Daughter, made upon occasion of the Daughters of Zelophehad, are in this sense occasionall, that the Iews might at their pleasure alter, or change a Law made by God, and substitute one of their own in place thereof; for then might the Iews change all the Ceremonies and Iudgements that God gave them for a time and occasionally: Now then they might have abolished Circumcision, the passeover, and substitute other Sacraments in their place, for these Sacraments were not given by Gods own voice. 2. Nor written by Gods own finger. Nor, 3. Are they termed a Covenant, in that sense thatHorantius Loc. Com. lib. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. Quaecunque audi [...]t, lo­qu [...]tur, & que futura sunt, annun­ciabit vobis, quasi dice­r [...], Quoti [...]s r [...]i occasio fuerit, reve­labit vobis. Quae [...] re vestra esse viderit, sug­gerit, ac quoties re­velare expe­d [...]e [...]it. l. 2. c. 12. fol. 132. Sed quis non vi­de [...] multa verbo esse tradita, quae Ecclesiae so­lum memo­riae, & muli­us [...]mirum Scriptis sunt man­data? the Morall Law is termed a Covenant. 4. Nor are they given without limitting of time and place, expresly when and where: Now if the Church of the Iews could change Sacraments at their pleasure, because their Sacraments were no part of the Eternall Law Morall, they might alter all Gods Law, as the Church may al­ter Surplice, Crossing; and I see not, but the Church of the New Testament upon the same ground, may alter the Sacraments of the New Testament. Papists, as Vasquez Becanus, and others say, that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith: Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice. l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach, That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament, but that the holy spirit, shall to the end of the world, teach other new things as occasion shall require. And this he bringeth as an Argu­ment to prove, that there must be unwritten Traditions, not contained in Scripture; even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Posi­tives of Church-Policie.

3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law, do more respect occasions of Providence, customes, Laws, and the manners of people (they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise) then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us, and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged; for the Morall Law should be ra­ther alterable at the Churches lust, then Ceremonials, for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching, what is Sabbath breaking, whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath? (the Jews held the affirmative, Christ the negative) touching obedience to Su­periors, [Page 38] Homicide, Polygamie, Incest, Fornication, Oppression, Ly­ing, Equivocating: Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing, which clearly did adumbrat Christ, who was to be of­fered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; yea, all significant Sym­bolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence, and depending on the meer will of the Instituter; Surplice, or white linnen, signifieth the Priests holinesse, without any regard to time, place, or nationall customes; for Christ might have made an immutable Law, touching the Sym­bolicall, and Religious signification, and use of Saints-dayes, white linnen, Crossing, and all the rest of humane Ceremonies, which should stand to Christs second coming, notwithstanding of any oc­currences of Providence, no lesse then he made an immutable Law, touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme, and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper, if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse myste­ries as humane positives: 4. The assumption is false, for divers Ce­remoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to oc­casions of Providence, and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences: 5. If positives of Policy be alterable, because the occasions of such are alterable by God; it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Pro­vidence in his hand, must change these Positives, and not the Au­thority of the Church: and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God, not by men, which is now our question; for Christ hath given a Commandment; Take ye, Eat ye, Drink ye all of this: Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick, and Celebrate the Lords Supper; but the Church doth not then change the Law, nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God, but God liberateth us himself.

Hooker. But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this Hooker, 3. Book, pag. 114. 115. point, is, that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining, and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do, were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant, and such as their Laws had not provided for, and so for one thing, which we have left to the order of the Church; they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God; so that by this reason, if we may devise one Law, they may devise twenty: Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith, there [Page 39] was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers, nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath. And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven, what to do: Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same, or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them? Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age; Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us, but they would (as learned Master Prynne with them saith) take out of our hand the Apostolick Church, that it should be no rule to us; for saith he, There was no Ʋniforme Church-government in the Apostles times, at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren, Acts 1. 13. no Elders, or Deacons: Their Churches increasing, they ordained D [...]a­cons, Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church, after that widowes in some Churches, not at all. In the pri­mitive times some Congregations had Apostles, Acts 4. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists, Prophets, workers of miracles, Healers, &c. Horantius, loc. Catho. Lib. 2. c. 12 f [...]l. 131. Turrian. to. de fide, spe. et Charit. disp, 20. duo. 2. Bell [...]rm. de Verb dei non script. l. 4. c. 3. That there was no V­nif [...]rm Platform of Govern­ment in the time of Moses and the Apostles, is no Argument that there is none now. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members, and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes. Ans. 1. What Hooker saith, is that which Bellarmine, Sanderus, Ho­rantius, and all Popists say, for their Traditions against the perfection of the word, to wit, that the word of God, for 2373. years between Adam and Moses (saith Horantius) was not written, so Turrianus, Bellarmine, and the reason is just nothing, to say the Jews might de­vise twenty Laws, where we may devise one, because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant, such as their written Laws had not provided for. This must be said which is in question, and so is a begging of the controversie, that the Iews of their own head, and Moses without any speciall word from God, or without any pattern shown in the mount, might devise what Laws they pleased, and might punish the blasphemer, and the man that gathered st [...]cks on the Sabbath, and determine, without God, the matter of the Daughters o [...] Zelophehad, as the Formalists teach, that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word, may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats, Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth, in the Antichrists head, and the Kings Court, the Surplice, the Crosse in Baptisme, and the like. Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer, that it is true, there was no writ­ten [Page 40] Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years: Yea, nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai: But withall, what God spake in visions, dreams, and apparitions to the Patriarchs, was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven, as the written word is to us, so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head, without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition, which was the same very will and truth of God, which Moses committed to writing; if then Formalists will assure us of that which Pa­pists could never assure us, we shall receive both the un­written Traditions of the one, and the unwritten Positive in­ventions of Crosse and Surplice, devised by the other: as 1. Make us sure, as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs, and to Moses, nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment, as Papists say, their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word, and though be­side Scripture, yet not against it: And the very will of God no lesse then the written word; and let Formalists assure us, that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures, by the Prophets and Apostles, and though beside, yet not contrary to the vvord: But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord, not contrary to the vvord of God, out of the mouth of Papists, to maintain unvvritten Traditions, which to them is the expresse word of God, then out of the mouth of Formalists, for their unwritten Positives, which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God, by their own grant? 2. Let the Formalist assure us, that after this, some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture tou­ching the Surplice and Crosse, that they are the very minde of God, as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses, that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition, should in Gods due time be written in Scripture, by Moses, the Prophets and Apostles: I think they shall here fail in their undertakings. Hence the Argument standeth strong, the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine, Worship, or Government; nay, neither the Patriarchs nor Moses, nor the Prophets of their own head, without Gods im­mediate Tradition, or the written Scripture (which are all one) [Page 41] Ergo, Neither can the Church, except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures. 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimili­cude of Gods g [...]iding his Ch [...]rch, is his fancy: This variety we ad­mire, as it is expressed, He [...]. 1. 1. But Hooker would say (for he hath reference to that place) God at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, and now to us by hi [...] Son: But test of all, he hath revealed his Will, by the Pope of Rome, and his cursed Clergy, that we should Worship Images, pray to Saints, and for the dead, beleeve Purgatory, &c. and now by humane Pre­lates, he hath shown his will to us, touching Crossing, Surplice: Now Papists, as Horantius, Sanderus, Malderus, Bellarmine, and othersHorantius, in loe. Ca­tholic▪ l▪ 2. c. 12. fol. 1 [...]1. Sanderus, de visib. Monarch. l. 1. c. 5. [...]. 13. Malderus▪ in 22. de virtu. The­olog. q. 1. de Object. fi­dei tract. de trad. q. unic. dub. 1. Funda­mentals were by succession delivered to the church, yet are they not altera­ble. say, Most of the points that are in Question between them and Pro­testants, and particularly Church-Ceremonies, are unwritten Tradi­tions delivered by the Church; beside the warrant of Scripture▪ 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time, Deacons were not at the first, Elders were not ordained [...], in every Church: But this is nothing against a Plat­form of Ʋniform Government▪ which cannot be altered in Gods Word. For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne, because points of Government did grow by succession of time; cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apo­stles did ordain in Scripture, is alterable by men; then because, 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation, were not all delivered at first by God; there is no Uniform, no unalterable Platform of Do­ctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture. For first, the Ar­ticle of Christs death and incarnation, was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise: Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked, of his being put to death for out Transgres­sions, though he himself was innocent; his justifying of many by Faith, were after delivered by Isaiah, Chap. 53. And by succession [...]f time, many other Fundamentals, as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law, in the Moral Positives thereof, were delivered to the Church: But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals, no man can infer▪ 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith, set down in the Old Testament. 2. None can hence infer, because all points▪ Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first; the refore the Church▪ without any expresse warrant from God, may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith, as they take [Page 42] on them to adde Surplice, Crossing, &c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word. 3. Our Argument is close mistaken, we argue not from the Patern of Government, which was in the Apostles times, at the lay­ing of the first stone in that Church; then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers; but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece, but from the whole frame, as perfect­ed by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles. 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church, as it is such a Church; for Apostles were ne­cessary then, as was community of goods, miracles, speaking with tongues, &c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church; as the first Christian Church, and since the Law was to come from The church of Ierusa­lem as per­fected in Doctrine, and Disci­pline, is our patern. Acts 1. 4. Zion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem, Isai. 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem before his An­cients gloriously, Isai. 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion, from henceforth and for ever, Micah 4. 2, 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples, not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which they had heard from Christ; therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule, a patern and copy for the Government of the Vi­sible Kingdom and Church of Christ, in which Christ was to reign by his own Word▪ and Law, Mi [...]. 4. 2, 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church, in so far, as it was a Christian Church, and they were to act all, not of their own heads, but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth, in these things that are of perpetual necessity; and in such as these, the first Church is propounded as imitable: Now we do not say in Apostles, which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture, in Miracles, speaking with Tongues, and such like, that agreed to the Apostolike Church, not as a Church, but as such a de­terminate Church in relation to these times, when the Gospel and Mystery of God, now manifested in the flesh, was new taught, and never heard of before, did require Miracles, gift of Tongues, that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles, we do not (I say) urge the Apost [...]like Church and all the particulars for Govern­ment in it, for a rule and patern to be imitated. And if Master Prynne deny, that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles [Page 43] times, because God himself added to them Deacons & Elders, which at first they had not, & removed Apostles, miracles, gifts of healing, and tongues: then say I; First, the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual: Why, for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses, and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes, and the Prophets; and after the Nativity and As­cension of our Lord to Heaven, the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture: I hope, this is but a poor Argument to infer, that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament, and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way, as it is the other: 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word; as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde, and alter at his pleasure, only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable, that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon, or alterable at the will of men, without expresse warrant of the Lords Word, and to rise and fall with the climate, and the elevation of Nationall cu­stomes; and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent, and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne: Mr. Prynne, Truth Tri­umphing, &c. p. 128. The Government and Officers of all Churches, not being De facto, one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times, as well as since, it can never be proved to be of Divine right, and the self same in all succeeding Ages, without the least variation, [...]inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes: For this is all one as to say, the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same, in the Apostles and Prophets times, but admitted of divers additions; Ergo, now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same, but may also suffer the like additions: 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture, and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes; Ergo, men may without Warrant from God, adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture, and to the Government and Officers of the Church: 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right, but alterable by God; Ergo, A­postles, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times, but might have been alte­red by men, without the expresse Warrant of God: But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable, and might be changed by the Church? Since he saith, Gal. [...]. 1. Paul an Apostle, [Page 44] not of men, neither by men, but by Iesus Christ, and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith, And God hath set [...], or instituted some in the Church; first, Apostles, secondly, Prophets, thirdly, Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, &c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high, he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some to be Pastors and Teachers, 12. For the per­fecting of the Saints, &c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say, some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists, and Pastors, and miracles, and some not; Ergo, Apostles, and Pastors, are not by Divine right; Ergo, because they were not in all Churches, there­fore they were alterable at the will of men? and a Surplice, and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution, as the cal­ling of the Apostle, or of a Pastor, and truly to me, it is bold Di­vinity to say, that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost, Act. 20. 28. and whose due qualifications are so specified, 1 Tim. 3. and Elders, 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church, 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church, by men, as ha­ving no Divine right to be there, and that men may set up other al­terable Officers in their place; for by this reason the Apostles, by that ordinary spirit, that is now in Church-Rulers, might without their Apostolick spirit, or any immediate Warrant from Christ, have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government, and Church-Officers, as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word, turne out Surplice, Crosse, and all such stuffe out of the Church.

Master Prynne. The Apostles speech, 1 Cor▪ 12. 4, 5, 6. There are Mr. Prynne, Truth Tri­umphing, p. 128. diversity of gifts, but the same spirit, there are diversity of operations, but the same God, compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all, that I might gain all, &c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision, Purification, and other Iewish Rites, which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe, and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple, and Synagogues (conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof) and their own private Christian Assemblies; all this will clear, that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Govern­ment. Ans. If diversity of Gifts, as to be a speaker with Tongues, a Prophet, a Pastor, will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the [Page 45] Churches will, as are Surplice, Crosse, &c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture; and that to be A­postles, Past [...]rs, are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats, 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth, 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say; for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats, as the Apostle doth, 1 Cor. 8. We should call that, and do call it, in the Romish Church, a Doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4▪ 1, 2, 3. All brought for this, from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this, the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews, of meerThe indif­ferency of some things in the A­postolick Church, cannot in­fer that the Govern­ment is al­terable. indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent, and abstained from, in the case of scandall: Therefore Circumcision, Purifica­tion, Sacrifices of Bullocks, and sheep; And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law, may be commanded by the Church, so they have another signification then they had before, and shadow out Christ who is already come: But because God hath made some things in­different, shall it follow that the Pope, yea, or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things? they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law, and take from them their moral badnes, & disconveniency to Gods Law, which to me is to change the nature of things, and to abrogate and change Gods Laws: it is true, P. Martyr, 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith, Paul was made all things to all men, Quoad Ceremonias, & res medias, in that he Circumcised Timotheus: The Law (saith he) was abro­gated, V [...]rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat; The Jews were to be spa­red for a time, but only for a time, and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated; Paul said, Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ, and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing, Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face: Now, certain it is, Peter knew Christ was come in the flesh, and that his Iudaizing did not lay bands on his conscience, he preached the contrary, Act. 11. And if Peter did Iudaize, as Formalists observe Ceremonies, and the Galathians were circumcised the same way (for they knew Cir­cumcision had no Typicall Relation to Christ to come, they belie­ved he was already come) then without cause, Paul, Gal. 2. and 5. did rebuke, and argue either Peter or the Galathians of sinfull Iu­daizing; which to say, were to speak against the Gospel. But cer­tainly the Vniformity, and immutability of all these Ceremonies was, that then when the Gospel was sufficiently Proclaimed to all, [Page 46] to be under the Law of Ceremonies in any sort was damnable, and so is it now: And as the Apostles and Church then set up no Cere­monies, no Surplice, no Crossing, because they had no word of Christ to warrant them, neither can we do the like now; and they complyed for a time with the Iewish Ceremonies, being yet indif­ferent, but not but by warrant of the commandment and resolu­tion of the Apostles, and the like are we obliged unto now, had we a Warrant of the like indifferency of Prelates, Surplice, Crosse, and that we were obliged to use them to gain the weak, in regard: 1. They were once obligatory Ordinances of God: 2. And if the day light of the Gospel were not yet sufficiently risen to shine upon those who are not wilfully ignorant, and had not yet acknowledged the Gospel to be Gods word, we should also be obliged to Cere­monies; yea, we durst not yield to any Law to lay them aside, as many Formalists, who hold them lawfull, have done.

Mr. Prynne. From the Creation till Moses, there was no one Ʋni­versallIbid. set Form of Church-Government, to be observed in all the world: Nor one Form of Discipline under the Tabernacle, another under the Temple.

Ans. All this concludeth not what is in question; its but the Po­pish Argument: This is to be concluded, that Enoch, Seth, Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs and Moses did set up a Church-Govern­ment of such timber as Humane Prelates, Crosse, Surplice, without any expresse Warrant from Gods mouth, and which they might al­ter by their own spirit; for this Argument is, God might alter; Ergo, The Church now may alter without a warrant from God. And shall we believe that the Patriarchs and Moses by their own spirit without any Commandment of God, might at their pleasure set up, and put down Prophets, Circumcision, Tabernacle, Temple, Laws for Sacrifices, Priests, Levites, Arke, putting the Leaper in, or putting him out of the Campe, cutting any soul off from the Congregation of the Lord, as our men will cry up, and down Ceremonies, and put on them the weight of a Talent, or a Feather, without any word of God? The Scripture cryeth the contrary so often, saying, And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak thou unto the children of Israel: Could Formalists say that, and Christ spake unto the Prelats, and the Church, and said, Command the Pastor to crosse the Infant, and ap­point unto your selves a Prelate over the Pastors: I should gladly a­gree [Page 47] to the mutable frame of humane Government.

Mr. Prynne. There are but for the most part, generall rules pre­scribedIb. p. 129. to us for the very ordering and regulating of our thoughts, words, actions, lives, apparell, Children, servants, families, calling, &c. in the Word; Ergo, there be but generall rules for Discipline and Church-Government, which admit variety; the former do more im­mediately concern every man, the other more remotely.

Ans. If the Word of God do not more particularly regulate our thoughts, as, Psal. 10. 4. Psal. 5. 9. Isa. 55. 7. Ier. 4. 14. Act. 8. 22. And our words and actions by which we must be judged, Isa. 3. 8. Ier. 8. 6. Mal. 3. 13. Ier. 9. 3. Matth. 12. 36, 37. Rev. 22. 12. Rev. 20. 13. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Prov. 5. 21. 1 Sam. 2, 3. Psal. 119. 9. Prov. 3. 23, 24. Then the Scripture doth warrant Surplice, and Crossing, and kneeling to Creatures, and humane Prelats, which are changeable, and alterable circumstances and adjuncts of Worship, that may be, and may not be, and things indifferent; it shall follow, that for the most part, it is indifferent to do evil or well, sin or not sin, in thought, word and actions; and we have no warrant in Scripture for eschewing sin, or not eschewing it in the most of our actions. I confesse there is little need to walk, [...] accurately, Eph. 5. 15. And to cleanse our wayes, Psal. 119. 9. according to the Word; If words, thoughts and actions, may go at random, as if they were va­riable and indifferent Ceremonies, God throweth not men in hells torments, to be eternally miserable, for circumstances▪ 2. For the acts of our calling, if they be Morall, they are regulated as particu­larly by the word, as to believe, love and fear God, or the crea­ture;Mr. Prynne, Truth tri­uphing, p. 130, 131, 132, 133. The Ar­gument of Moses his doing all to the least pin, in the Tabernacle by speciall direction, considered. if artificiall, they are not of our consideration. 3. That Mo­rall acts of decent usage of the Ordinances, do not immediately concern men, is admirable to me.

Mr. Prynne: To the Argument of Moses his doing all according to the patern shown in the Mount, It is Answered: 1. The Tabernacle wa [...] no part of the Church of the Israelites; but only the place of meeting for Worship, answerable to our Churches and Chappels, and so was the Temple; But I pray you, God prescribed the height, length, bredth, form of Tabernacles, Ark, Altar, of every Pin, Ergo, Hath Christ as punctually prescribed to all Christians, and Nations, in expresse words, the form, matter, dimensions of all Christian Churches, Tem­ples, Chappels, Tables, Challices, Pulpits, Pews, not varying in one [Page 48] pin. 2. God named the men, Bezaliel, and Aholiah, who should make the Tabernacle and all the implements thereof. 3. God expressed the frame, fashion, colours, of the holy Garments of Aaron and his sons: shall it follow, Ergo, only the Artificers whom God nameth, immediate­ly, and none but Embroyderers, Goldsmiths, Carpenters, &c. Not Pastors and Elders are to build up the spirituall Churches of Christ, Ergo, The form, matter and colour of Ministers, and Elders garments are particularly set down in the New Testament. 4. The Taberna­cle and Temple were corporall things made by mens hands, not spiritu­all buildings of mens spirits. 5. All these of the patern were delivered to Moses the Temporall Magistrate, not to Aaron the Priest; Ergo, the Church under the Gospel is not a spirituall building, whose maker and builder is God; and all is to be ordered by the Civill Magistrate, and Lay-Artificers, not by Pastors: I wonder also you alledge not Noahs Ark: And all in the New Testament, are not so particularly set down, as in the Old. Ans. The Tabernacle was no part of the Church; but being a Type and the implements of it, to the least pin, particu­larly expressed by God to Moses; far more must we have from God an expresse for every Ceremony, not to retort this also, that a Cor­ner-Cap, or a Surplice, is no part of the Church, and is indeed a teaching sign, and so should not be counted a Positive of Church-Policy. 2. Most false it is that the Tabernacle and Temple were nothing but a meeting place of the people for Worship, as our Churches or Chappels, are, 1. Because it is to Argue the Holy Ghost of want of wisdom, to spend so much Canonick Scripture in setting down things idely, not tending, at all to edification, and tea­ching us nothing of God, and in specifying the Form, Height, Length, Bredth, Curtains, Candlesticks, Sockets, Rings, of naturall places that contained their bodies; for what should it edifie us, if God should describe so particularly all the Churches and meeting places of the people under the New Testament? Now certain it is, What­soever things were written afore time, were written for our Learning, Rom. 15. 4. 2. Many things in the Tabernacle, as Candles in day light, Rings, Sockets, Shew-bread, belonged nothing to a na­turall place, as our Chappels, or Meeting houses do. 3. Expresly the Scripture maketh them more then places; to wit, Holy, Religi­ous, and Typicall signes of Divine institution; as the Tahernacle was a Type, Heb. 8. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 1, 2. &c. Heb. 10. 1, 2, 3. And the [Page 49] Temple a Type of Christs body, Ioh. 2. 19. Ioh. 1. 14, 15. And all these were Types and shadows of Heavenly things, Heb. chap. 8, 9, 10. Gal. 4. 1. 2. &c. Col. 2. 16. 17. Which our Churches and Chappels are not, being only places common to sacred and Civill actions. 2. God therefore can no more in expresse words set down, the form, matter, dimensions of Christian Churches and Chappels, then of the Synagogues of the Iews which had no Morall use for e­dification and instruction. 3. Yea, because the Tabernacle and Tem­ple and their implements, were teaching shadows of good things to come, and our Churches and Chappels are not so, nor have they any Morall or Religious use or influence on our spirits as the Taberna­cle and Temple had; therefore the Lord, who is expresse in all Mo­rals, which of their own nature do teach and edifie; he behoved to name Bezaliel, and Aholiah, and the form and colour of the Priests garments, which also are Typicall, and could not name our Elders, or the colour or form of their Garments. 4. All these weak retortions, suppose that the Tabernacle and Temple were types of our meeting houses for Worship, which is a meer conjecture; they were no more types of our Chappels, then of the Iewish Synagogues; we may not expound types at will, but as the Holy Ghost expound­eth them to us in the New Testament: And this is a conjecturall Exposition, and a dream to make Bezaliel and Aholiah, types of Embroyderers and Tradesmen.

5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands, and that they are things different from the spiri­tuall things that they signifie; as the sign and the thing signified; as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord, because all of them, Bread, Wine, taking, eating, breaking, pouring out the Wine, drinking, are teaching and edifying signes; and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men, to devise signes to teach themselves: so in like manner, should the Lord ex­presly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Te­stament; and as Moses might devise none of his own, but was tyed to follow the patern, which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount: So are we now under the New Testament, tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word; and it is laid on us, Not to be wise above that which was written; and it is of perpe­tuall equity: The supream Law-giver, never left it to the wisdom [Page 50] of Angels, or Men, or Prophet, Apostle or Church, to serve and Worship God as they thought good: But he himself particularly prescribed the way, signes, and means: And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ in­carnate, and come in the flesh already; therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe, and practise no more, either in Doctrinals, or teaching types, or Positives of Church-Policy, then our Patern in the Mount, the Scripture hath warranted to us, to be the will of God, and in this and this only, standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions, and not in these loose consequences, that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had, which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them, not ours; for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Ie­wish High Priest, their Surplice, from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests; their Humane Holidayes, from the Iewish dayes; their kneeling to bread, from their bowing toward the Ark. 6. It is not true, that the Tabernacle and Temple were meer corporall things, no more then bread and wine in their spirituall relation, are meer corporall things: The Lords end, use and intent, in the Tabernacle and Temple, was, that they should be to the people Images, and shadows of heavenly and spirituall things, Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. 7. That all the things of the Tabernacle, were delivered to Moses as a King, and not as a Prophet and writer of Canonick Scripture, Heb. 3. 5. Heb. 8. Luk. 24. 44. 27. Luk. 16. 31. is an untruth, ex­cept Formalists make the King so the head of the Church, in pre­scribing Laws for the Policy thereof, as they make him a Canonick writer, as were David, Moses, Solomon, from whose example they would prove the King to be the head of the Church: But I judge Moses saw the patern in the Mount, and God face to face, as a Prophet whose words are Scripture to us, Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knevv face to face; And as a Prophet, not as a King, his face did shine, Exod. 34▪ 27, 28, 29. And he was commanded as a Prophet, to write the Law not as a King, Numb. 12. 6. 7. Moses is made the most eminent Prophet that was in the Old Testament. And why? Because God spake to other Prophets by Dreams and Visions▪ But he spake the Law and written Scripture to Moses, mouth to mouth: This [Page 51] should not be a comparison between Prophet and Prophet, but be­tweenThe Ark of Noah pro­veth the same. Prophet and King, by this learning. 8. We judge Noahs Ark doth prove the same, it being a speciall type of the Church, 1 Pet. 3. 20, 21. And he built it by Faith, Heb. 11. 7. And so by a Word of God, and at Gods speciall direction, in all the length, bredth, formes of it, and not of his own head, Gen. 6. 14, 15, &c. And isCalvin, Com. in Gen. 6. 22. Quare dis­camus per omnegenus impedimen­ta perrum­p [...]re, nec lo­cum dare pravis cogi­tationibus quae s [...] Dei verbo opponunt, hunc enim honorem haberi sibi, flagitat Deus, ut [...]um si [...]am [...]s pronobis seper [...]. P. Martyr in loc. Nihil negligit fides, omnia pro viribus exoquitur, quaecunque scit deum v [...]lle: Musculus Moses fidem & obedientiam Noah comprehendit, qua secundum verbum dei arcam con­struxit, Vatablus Hebraismus pro, quo fecit Noah prorsus, ut ci preceperat deus. commended by the spirit of God for so doing, Gen. 6. 22. Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And For­malists should deserve the like Testimony, if it could be said of them, And as the Lord commanded the 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 GodHorantius in loc. Ca­tholic. l. 2. c. 12. so. 13 [...] Constatcom plura Dei spiritum post Christi ascensionem ecclesiam do euisse, quo­rum, etsi a Christo uni­versal [...]m quandam, & in genere cognitionem habuissent fideles: non tamen in specie aut certè in numero, & singulariter unde universa fidei nostrae mysteria, & que ad religionem spectarent (intelligit Ceremonias Ecclesiae) omnia literis con­scripta esse non sine igno ratione affirmare potest (Calvinus.) 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 [Page 52] 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, Mr. Prynne, Truth Tri­umphing p. 134. Hooker, 3. book Eccle. pol. p 93. 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, Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge of Tradi­tions pag. 3 [...], 36. 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 on­lyFormalists acknow­ledge ad­ditions to the word of God, con­tra [...]y to Deut 4. 2. & 12. 32. The same way that Papists do. 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 [Page 53] 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 [...]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 depr [...]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 qu [...] 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 a [...] [Page 54] 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 & dicitur Scriptura sacra, aliud est verbum dei non scriptum, & dicitur ecclesiae traditio; There is one vvord of God vvritten, called the holy Scripture; And there is another vvord of God not vvritten, and it is called the Tradition of the Church.

Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture (but ano­ther part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture) then the body is a part of the soul, or Scotland a part of England, for both England and Scotland are collaterall parts of great Brit­tain; the Scripture (say they) is the unperfect rule of Faith, and not the compleat will of God, as touching Faith or manners, but Scrip­ture and Tradition together, are the perfect and totall rule: so say Formalists, that Scripture is the compleat and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Morall acts; But the other part of the distinction is, that Scripture is not a compleat and full rule to regulate all our Morall Acts whatsoever, whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy, as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe, for orders, cause and obedience to my Superiours, and for decency that I am to wear a Religious sig­nificant linnen creature called a Surplice, or not to wear it, or that I am to excercise, or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Crosse the Air above the face of a Baptized Childe vvhile I baptize, to betoken his dedication to Christs service: And hitherto neither Traditions, nor Positives of Church-Policy are added, as necessary parts of written Scripture: 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture, by Papists, as coming from the immediatly inspi­ring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture, more then our Ceremo­niall Positives of policy: Its true, Papists say they come from an in­fallible spirit: But Formalists (I hope) refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood; yet in this, they agree that Traditions are not added by them, as descending from the immediate inspi­ring [Page 55] spirit of written Scripture: Therefore Cornelius a Lapide saith, Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor, aliquid, scilicet tanquam meum, vel a me dictum aut jussum, nulli enim homini licet prescripta aut precepta sua pro preceptis a deo (a spiritu sancto immediatè in­spirante) dictatis, aut pro Scripturis sacris addere; It is not lavvfull for any man to adde to the vvord any thing of his ovvn, as his ovvn, or as spoken and commanded by himself: For no man may broach his own injunctions and precepts, as if they were the precepts taught by the immediate inspiring spirit, speaking in the Scriptures. Hence Papists teach that their Traditions flow from a little lower Spring, then from the immediately inspiring Scripturall spirit; So I make this good from famous Iesuites; Cornelius a Lapide, in Deut. 4. 1, 2. saith, Sed et ipsi judaei multa addiderunt legi, ut coela­turas, omnemque ornatum templi; ut festum sortium sub Eester, fe­stum dati ignis, festum Encaeniorum &c. Hec enim non a de [...], sed a judaeis sancita et instituta sunt, denique hec non sunt addita, sed potius inclusa legi dei: Quia Lex jubet obedire parentibus, Magistratibu [...], pontificibus eorumque legibus. The Jevvs (saith he, objecting the instances of Formalists) added many things to the Lavv, as the in­graving and adorning of the Temple, the feast of Purim, of Dedica­tion &c. And these traditions vvere not ordained and instituted by God (Ergo, not by the immediate inspiring spirit, as is the Holy Scrip­ture) but by the Iews, and they were not added to the Law, but included in the Law, because the Law biddeth obey Superiors and their Laws; whence it is evident, that these very Ceremoniall traditions of Papists, for which Formalists contend, are not added to the word as coming from God, or the immediatly inspiring spirit that diteth scripture; but from the Church, without warrant of Scripture, just as Popish traditions, which we count un­lawfull additions to the word. And Tannerus the Iesuit saith, Tom. 3. in 22. de fide, spe et cha. dis. 1. de fide Q. 1. Dub. 8. That the assistance of the spirit that the Church hath in proposing unwritten traditions, requireth no positive inspiration or speech made by God to the Church; but it is enough that the Church have a very negativehelp of God only, by which she is permitted not to erre: His words are these: Nam assistentia illa dei, quà ecclesiae adest, ne e­jusmodo rebus fidei (in traditionibus non scriptis) proponendis erret, por se non dicit, nec requirit positivam inspirationem, se [...], locu [...]on [...]m [Page 56] Divinam ipsi ecclesiae factam, sed contenta est quovis auxilio dei etiam mere negativo, quo fit ut ecclesia ijs in rebuus non sinatur errare: Cum tamen nova revelatio utique novam inspirrtionem seu Locutionem dei aliquid positivè notificantem significet. And the like saith Malderus, in 22. de virtu. Theolog. That, though traditions come from an infal­lible spirit, no lesse then Scripture; yet traditions are the Word of God, because they are heard and constantly believed: But the Holy Scripture is the Word of God, because written by the inspiration of the holy spirit. Q. 2. Art. 1. Dub. 4. pag. 83. And therefore he maketh two sorts of traditions, some meerly Divine, vvhich the Apostles re­ceived either immediately from the Holy Ghost, or from the mouth of Christ, as those touching the matter and form of the Sacraments: O­thers (saith he) are properly Apostolick, as those touching the Lent Fast, instituted by the Apostles. ib. tract. de trad. Q. Vnic. Dub. 1. Traditiones (inquit) per apostolos traditae, aliae sunt Divin [...], quas im­mediatè ipsi a spiritu sancto dictante, v [...]l ex ore Christi acceperunt; ut de materia et potissimum de formis sacramentorum; aliae autem pro­pri [...] dicuntur Apostolica, ut de Iejunijo Quadragesimali, quod Apo­stoli I [...]stituerunt. Hence it is evident, if Papists cannot but be con­demned of impious additions to the Scriptures, by these places, Deut. 4. Deut. 12. Formalists are equally deep in the same crime: and the same is the answer of Malderus, ibid. Dub. 2. vetat. Apoc. 22. Ne quis audeat Divinam prophetiam depravare, assuendo aliquid aut abradendo. Turrianus, tom. de fide. spe. et cha. de traditio. disp. 20. Dub. 2. pag. 255. Respondetur Joannem planè probibere corrup­tionem Libri illius, non tamen prohibet ne alij Libri scribantur, vel alia Dogmata tradantur. Stapletonus, Relect. Prin. fidei Doct. Contaver. 4. q. 1▪ Art. 3. Sed non prohibet vel legis interpretatio­nem per sacerdotes faciendam (imò hoc disertè prescribit, Deut. 17.) Vel aliquid aliud in fidem admittendum qúod lege scriptâ non conti­neatur. Alioqui quicquid postea prophet [...] predicaverunt, et Divinis Scripturis adjectum est, contra hoc dei mandatum factum cense­ri debet.

Learned D. Roynald Answereth, Apolog. Thes. de sac. Script. pag. 211, 212. and saith: This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart, and, that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses, no Article of Faith ne­cessary to be believed▪ but did expound and apply to the use of the [Page 57] Church, in all the parts of piety and Religion, that vvhich Moses had taught. Lorinus, followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus (inquit) et Apostoli pentateucho, plura adjecerunt, immò in vetere Testamento, Iosue, Prophetae, Reges, Christ (saith he) and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses; yea, in the Old Testament, Ioshua, the Prophets and the Kings, David and Solomon, did also adde to Moses. But the truth is, suppose any should arise after Moses, not called of God to be a Canonick writer, Prophet, or A­postle, and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture, though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Do­ctrine of Faith and manners, which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets; he should violate this Commandment of God: Thou shalt not adde. For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith; it containeth a formall, a heavenly form, stile, Majesty and expression of Language, which for the form, is sharper then a two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joynts and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, Heb. 4. 12. If therefore, the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture, which may be proved from many places of the Word, they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses. But the Answer of D. Roynald, is sufficient and valid against Papists, who hold that their Traditions are beside, not contrary to the Scripture; just as Formalists do, who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy: But our Di­vines Answer, That traditions beside the Scripture, are also traditions against the Scripture, according to that, Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel, [...], beside that which we have preached unto you, Let him be accursed: And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this, confesse, That, if that of the A­postles, Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word, but ap­plyed to the Word of God in its Latitude, as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture, and the unwritten word or Traditions; then beside the word is all one with this, contrary to the word, which Formalists constantly deny. For Lorinus the Je­suit saith, Comment. In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit, Gal. 1. 8. Iis, qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evan­gelizaverit, id est, adversum et contrarium. So doth Cornelius a La­pide, [Page 58] and Estius expound the place, Gal. 1. 8. And they say, that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel: But withall, they teach, that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture, but beside Scripture; and that the Church which cannot e [...]re, and is led in all truth, can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture, then the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses, can be accused of adding to Moses his writings; because the Pro­phets, Apostles and Evangelists, had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture, that Moses had; and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets, Evan­gelists and Apostles did write; which they had to adde to Moses; And therefore the Councel of Trent saith, S. 4. c. 1. That, unwrit­ten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ, or the ditement of the holy spirit, are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received, Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ; And the truth is, laying down this ground, that the Scripture is unperfect, and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners, as Papists do; then it must be inconse­quent, that because Traditions are beside the Scripture, which is to to them but the half of the Word of God; Yea, it followeth not, this Popish ground supposed, that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture, because beside the Scripture, no more then it fol­loweth that the Sacraments of the New Testament, Baptisme, and the Supper of the Lord, in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament; and in that sense [...], beside the Old Testament; that therefore they are against the Old Testament; though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament, without all warrant of speciall direction from God, by the sole will of men; or because some Ceremonials commanded of God, are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue, either expresly or by consequence; and so these Ceremonials, though instituted by the Lord, be beside the Morall Law; that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law: Yea, to come nearer, because the third Chapter of the Book of Ge­nesis, containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery, and Redemp­tion by the promised seed, is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book, it doth not follow that it is contrary, or that Moses [Page 59] adding the third Chapter, and all the rest of the five Books, did therefore [...]ail against this precept, Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee: for certain it is, that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis, which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly, nor by just consequence; but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second, except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it, that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters, and beside also, and a violation of the Command­ment of not adding to the word; so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists, because the Scripture is perfect in all things be­longing to faith and manners, but it excludeth not all Ceremonies, which are left to the disposition of the Church, and be not of Divine, but of Positive and humane Right: Hence it must infer the principle of Papists, that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals, for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification, that a childe be dedi­cated to the service of Christ, by the sign of the crosse. Now what can be said to thi [...], I know not, but that the sufficiency, and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials; but on­ly in setting down doctrinals. Why? and Papists say the same, that the scripture is perfect, though it teach us not any thing of tradionals in speciall, yet in generall it doth hold forth the traditions of the church.

So Tostat. Abulens. in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit. saith, Hic commendatur lex ex perfectione, quia perfecto, nec addi potest, nec auferri debet: Here the Law of God is commended (saith he) from its perfection, and that is perfect, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing should be taken: Yea, so far forth is the scripture perfect, in the Ar­ticles of Faith, that Castro in summa. c. 8. Canus locor. Theolog. l. 2. c. 7. and l. 4. c. 4. and Tannerus tom. 3. in 22. disp. 1. de fide. Q. 1. dub. 7. saith, We are not now to wait for any new revelation of any veri­ty unknown to the Apostles, Et nihil novi definiri ab ecclesia Apostolis incognitum, and all verities now revealed were implicitely believed by the Apostles, and contained in Ʋniversall generall precepts, as that the Saints are to be worshipped, that Canonicall Books containeth the word of God: the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter, and Catholick pastors, &c. and he saith, Quod ecclesia non posset no­vum [Page 60] fidei articulum condere, communiter etiam docent Scholastici in 3. dis. 25. & he subscribeth to that truth of Vincentius Lyrinensis, c. 17. In ecclesia nulla nova Dogmata procudi, sed pretiosam divini Dogma­tis Gemmam exsculpi, fideliter cooptari, adornari sapienter, ut intel­ligatur illustrius, quod antea obscurius credebatur: No new points of saith, or manners are forged in the Church, but the precious pearl of divine truth is in it polished, faithfully applied and wisely illustrated, that they may be more clearly understood, which before was more ob­scurely beleeved; so that to say, the perfection of scripture consist­eth not in particularizing all the small positives of policy, is no more then Papists say of the perfection of the scripture in their traditions. 2. Moses speaketh both of the Morall and Ceremoniall Law, cal­led by the names of [...] Statutes rights, and [...] Judge­ments and Laws whatsoever extolled by David, Psal. 119. As his delight, his joy, his heritage, his songs in the house of his pilgrimages, and of both he saith, that there is life in keeping them: Now the Cere­monies of Moses had an exceeding great excellency in looking to Christ, and being shadows of good things to come, Heb. 10. 1. And our Ceremonies have the same aspect upon Christ: Why? but the day of the commemoration of Christs Death, Nativity, Ascension; Dedi­cation to Christ, by a Crosse in the Aire, should have the same influ­ence and impression on our hearts (if they be lawfull) that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon Davids spirit, Christ being the ob­ject and soul of both? 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws, Moses faith, [...] v. 6. for this is your wisdom, and your understanding in the sight of the Nations: Why? but these same Ceremonies looking with a broader and fuller face on Christ already come (if Christ have put any life of lawfulnesse in them) then their dim shadows of old, should also be our: wisdom in the hearing of Pagans, who know not God? 3. It is a wonder to me that the learned Master Prynne should say that the place, Deut. 4. speaketh nothing of Church-Government and Ceremonies, but only of Doctrines of Canonicall Books: For that is as much as to say the place speaketh nothing of Divine Ceremonies, but only of divine Ceremonies, for what a number of Divine Ceremonies and Laws are in the Law of Moses, which were given by the Lord himself? as is clear by the words, ver. 1. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the Statutes and judgements that I teach you, that ye may live, and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments, which the Lord [Page 61] my God commanded me, v. 8. And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgements so Righteous, as all this Law which I set before you this day? Now of all this Law the Lord saith, v. 2. Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I commanded you, Neither shall ey diminish. The Learned and Reverend Mr Prynne, must restrict this word of the Law, which can admit of no addition, to some speciall Law, either the Morall only, or the judiciall and Ceremo­niall only, not to the former; for then additions to the Decalogue only, should be forbidden; this never man taught: Stapleton, in­deed, Relect. Prin. fid. Doctrin, cont. 4. Q. 1. Art. 3. restricteth it to the Ceremoniall Law only; but Moses maketh it a Law as large, v. 2. as the word which God Commandeth: And, as (saith he) v. 5. the statutes and the judgements which the Lord Commanded me, v. 8. All this Law, Deut. 31. 9. This written Law delivered to the Priests and kept in the Ark, the Law that all Israel heard read, v. 11. Of which it is said, v. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing of the words of this Law in a Book, untill they were finished. Now this was the whole five Books of Moses: And were there nothing of Church-Government in Moses Law? What shall we then say of the High Priest, his calling, Office, habit, of the Priests, Levites, their charge, calling, attire, of the Law of the Leaper, his healing, his extrusion out of the Camp, of the Law of those that were defiled with the dead, of their qualification who were to be Circumcised, who were to eat the Passeover, or who not, who were to enter into the house of God, and Congregation, who not; not a few of these, touching Church-Government, are included in the Law that God Comman­ded Israel, as their wisdom. 4. That there were many additions made to the service of God in the Temple, not mentioned by Moses, is nothing to purpose, except it be proved that these additions were made by the Church, without any word of God, the con [...]rary whereof is evident, for the Temple and whole patern thereof, was delivered in writing by the Lord to David, 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. If Formalists will have no Laws made but by Moses, as the only Law­giver, they have as good reason to say, That Moses was the only Canonick writer, and none but he, which is absurd. Or, 2. That Moses by his own spirit was a Law-giver, and had active influence in excogitating the Law; We conceive that Protestants are to own this Doctrine, which Tostatus imputes to us as Hereticks, Com. in [Page 62] Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister & relator verborum (dti) Moses and Canonick writers, are not Law­givers un­der God, but organs of God in writing, & meer repor­ters of the Law of God. esset, & non legem conderet: As if Moses were a meer servant, and a naked reporter of the Lords Law and words, and not a Law-maker. For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions, we judge that all the Canonick writers were meer patients, as the people are; for God is the Commander, and Moses the person Commanded, and a meer servant, Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3. 3, 4, 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth, and to hear it, Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants; and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles, and the Church that now is, were alike: I know no Authority of the one above the other. In­deed, in writing and relating to the Church, the will of God, and the Scriptures; Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Ho­ly spirit, immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture. But the Proclaimer of a Law, as such hath no influence in making the Law: Let it be also remembred, that as Pa­pistsPapists say, that the Chrch is limited in making Ceremo­nies, both in matter and num­ber, and so do Forma lists. say two things to the place, so do Formalists. 1. That it is not against Ceremonies. 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word, that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome: This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit, who citeth the words of a Learned Papist, approving them.

Lorinus, Coment. in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui, non, posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cul­tum dei: Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris, ut facilius & suavius possint servari: To whom I oppose that gol­den sentence of a man, endued with the spirit of God above any Pa­pist. Calvin. Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus, quo apertè dam­natur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest. Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios, qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur, ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiesce­re positae legi, ne justiores esse appetant, quam illic docentur. All Wor­ship is precisely condemned here, or any thing devised about the Wor­ship by the wit of men. I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker, Eccles. Polic. 3. Book, pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance, and of circumstance, though true, will not serve; for be they great things, or be they small, if God have Commanded them in the Gospel, and (if) his Commanding them in the Gospel do make [Page 63] them unchangeable, there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other; if the authority of the maker do prove their unchan­geablenesse which God hath made, then must all Laws which he hath made, be necessarily for ever permanent, though they be but of cir­cumstances only, and not of Substance.

Ans. 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken, will serve the turn: But the mistake is, in that 1. Ma­ny things are but circumstances of worship, such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists, that are not so to us, for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter, were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit, an act of Religious honour­ing of Jupiter, but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning, rather then at ten, in this place Physicall, rather then this, is no worshipping of Iupiter, but a meer Physicall circumstance, neither up, nor down to the wor­ship, and time and place Physicall, are neither worship, nor Religi­ous means of worship: 2. Time, and Place, Name, Country, Form, Figure, Habit or Garments, to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such [...]re never commanded, never forbidden of God, and there­fore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Com­mandment of God: We never advanced circumstances, as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals; Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies, and therefore if God command Surplice, though by the intervening authority of his Church, such cannot be altered, ex­cept God command to alter the Religious signification of white lin­nen, but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies, except that, the Lords coming in the flesh, as a thing to come, must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come, when the body Christ is come already: Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap, Altar, Surplice, except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple. 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel, is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever, except the Lord hath com­manded it should be for a time only, as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies, and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be un­changeably in his worship, is a reason why it should be unchange­ably in his worship; and his commanding any thing to be for a time only, and alterably in his worship, is a reason why it should be for a [Page 64] time only, & alterably in his worship; so to us Gods Commandment is a reason, why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Te­stament should be in the Church, because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be: and the reason why Hookers sur­plice and crossing should not be, is because he hath command­ed no such thing: Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel, is from God, never from the Church: as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle, and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle, and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle, its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle, and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon: 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church, till the body Christ come, Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come, and his coming sufficiently published to the world, then are his own Ceremonies altered, and removed; but not byFour wayes po­sitives are alterable by God only. the discretion of Peter and Paul, or the Church, but by God himself. 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house, which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of gi­ving gifts essentially required to these Offices, then these offices are so long in his Church, as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts; and when God denyeth these gifts essentially re­quisite, sure it is, his immediate wil hath altered and removed the of­fice, not the will of the Church, so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles, who could speak with tongues, and seal their doctrine with Miracles, Evangelists, Prophets extraordi­narily inspired, gifts of healing, &c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all, but of goods, as the community of goods, love-Feasts,All things though ne­ver so smal, are a like unaltera­ble, if they be stamped with Gods authority▪ speaking in the Scrip­ture. matters of civill conversation, these are only in their mora­lity, as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints, and brotherly kindenesse, unalterable, and no otherwise.

Now for these things that are smaller or weightier, we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be con­sidered, but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them, so are they obligatory to us: I am obliged to receive this as scripture, that Paul left his cloak at Troas; no lesse then this, Christ came into the world to save sinners, in regard of Canonicall authori­ty stamped upon both: R. Hooker with other Formalists, Will have [Page 65] the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable: Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill, being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self, is but a light thing; yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation.

And what else is this, but that which Papists say, that there be two sort of things in scripture? so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem. on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets, these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets; but there are other things in Scripture, as Histories and morall exhortations, which Canonick wri­ters learned either by hearing, seeing, reading or meditation, there was no need these should be dyted, by the inspiration of the holy Spirit, for they know them themselves, though they were assisted: 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write; Conceptum, & memoriam eorum quae sciebant, non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus, sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum, quam illum scriberent, & omnes eorum sententias & conceptus ordi­navit, digessit, & direxit spiritus sanctus, v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò, illam secundò, aliam tertiò collocarent: Yet Estius saith on the place, The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration, ita ut non solum sententiae, sed & verba singula & verborum ordo, ac tota dispo­sitio fit a deo, tanquam per seipsum loquente ac▪ scribente: So as not only the sentences, but every word, and the order and disposition of words is of, or from God, as if he were speaking and writing himself.

Now for the additions Canonicall, that the Prophets and Apostles By what authority Canoni­call additi­ons of the Prophets and Apo­stles were added to the Books of Moses. made to the writing of Moses: I hope Papists and Formalists can­not with any forehead alledge them, to prove that the Church may adde Traditions, and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God, except upon the same ground, they conclude, That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit, that the Prophets and Apostles had, and that our Prelats saw the visions of God, when they saw but the visiones aulae; the visions of Court, and that their calling was, as Pauls was, Gal. 1. 1. not of men, neither by men, but by Iesus Christ: When as it is not by Di­vine right, and was both of the King, and by Court: 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is, may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture; for such additions the Pro­phets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses: and 3. that that precept, Thou shalt not adde, &c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands, that no Canonick Scripture should ever be, [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 66] but the only writings of Moses, which is (as some write) the dream of Saduces, whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God, not to God himself, for what the Prophets and Apostles added, God him­self added; yea, to me it is a doubt (while I be better informed) if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all, without his own immediate inspiration, to either Prophet or Apostle; or that God did never command Moses, or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head, or that his Com­mandment to write Scripture, was any other then an immediate inspiration, which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write: For I do not coa­ceive, that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it: I suppose Angels or men could not have devi­sed it; yea, that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature, then they could create such a piece, as a reasonable soul, which to me is a rare and curious book, on which essentially is writ­ten by the immediate finger of God, that naturall Theology, that we had in our first creation. 2. I do not conceive, that as Princes andCanonick writers how imme­diatly led by God. Nobles do give the Contents, or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince, to their Secretary, and go to bed and sleep, and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary, to put it in forme and stile, and then signes it, and seals it without any more a­do; so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel, and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple, Church-officers, and Govern­ment, and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds, Heardsmen, Fishers, such as were the Prophets, Moses, David, Amos; and Peter and divers of the Apostles, who were unlettered men, to write words and stile as they pleased, but that in writing every jot, tittle, or word of Scripture, they were immediatly inspired, as touching the matter, words, phrases, expression, order, method, majesty, stile and all: So I think they were but Organs, the mouth, pen and Amanuenses; God as it were, immediately dyting, and leading their hand at the pen, Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24, 25, 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20, 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets; As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets, which hath been since the world began: Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall, or acci­dentall worship, touching Surplice, Crosse, and other Religious Po­sitives [Page 67] of Church▪ Policy, it is, that they are warranted to adde to the word, and how they are distinguished from Scriptures, Doctri­nals: They give us these Characters of it, 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals, and hath expressed them fully in scripture: But theThe Cha­racters of Forma­lists, Cere­monies, & Papists Traditions one and the same. Church is the Author of their Accidentals, and this is essentiall to it, that it is not specified particularly in scripture, as Bread and Wine, Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is; for then it should be a Doctrinall point, and not Accidentall. 2. It is not in the particu­lar a point of faith and manners, as Doctrinals are: But hear the very Language of Papists; for Papists putteth this essentiall Cha­racter on their Tradition, that it is not written, but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles, and so distinguished from the written word; for if it were written in scripture, it should not be a Tradition.

So the Jesuit Malderus, in 22. tom. de virtut. de obj. fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est, quod eum non inve­neatur in Divinis literis, tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia, nec consiliis in­stitutum, sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessa­ry, and how far Papists do clear, as I have before said; for the Church may coin no Articles of faith, these are all in Scripture. For the Iews two Suppers, and their additions to the passeover, as Hooker saith, and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day, we reject as dreams, because they are not warranted by any word of institu­tion; not to adde, that the Church of the Jews never took on them to command the observation of these forgeries, under the pain of Church-censures, as Papists and prelats did their Crossing and their Surplice.

Hooker saith, A Question it is, whither containing in Scripture,1 Book, eccles. Pol. p. 42. do import expresse setting down in plain terms, or else comprehending in such sort, that by reason, we may thence conclude all things which are necessary to salvation. The Faith of the Trinity, the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father, are not the former way in Scripture; for the other, let us not think, that as long as the World doth indure, the wit of man shall be able to sound to the bottom of that which may be concluded out of Scripture.—Traditions we do not reject, because they are notPag. 44. in Scripture; but because they are neither in Scripture, nor can other­wise sufficiently, by any reason, be proved to be of God. That which is of God, and may be evidently proved to be so, we deny not; but it [Page 68] hath in its kinde, although unwritten, yet the self same force and au­thority with the Written Laws of God.—Such as are alterable Rites and Cystomes, for being Apostolicall, it is not the manner of delivering them to the Church; but the Author from whom they proceed, which gave them their force and credit.

Ans. 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many, andWhat is it to be con­tained in Scripture, and how far it ma­keth any thing un­lawfull ac­cording to Hooker. more then are known to us, and the particulars of that Government that we contend for, are in Scripture, that is, there should be no Go­vernment, but what is either expresly in Scripture, or may be made our, by just consequence, we believe, if they cannot be proved from Scripture, let them fall as mens hay and stubble. But in the mean time, these are two different questions: Whither there be an immu­table Platform of Discipline in the Word? Or whither ours be the only Platform and no other? If we carry the first, Ceremonies must fall. And certainly, in all reason, we are on the surest side: If we cannot observe all that is written, it is not like that God hath laid upon us unwritten burdens. 2. Hooker doth not reject all the Po­pish Traditions, as our Divines Reformed do; because they are not warranted by the Word; so, that if the Images of God and Christ, and the Worshipping of them, and Purgatory, and the Suprema­cy of the Pope, can be proved to be of God, though they be no more in Scripture, then Crossing and Surplice; then would he receive all these, as Having the self same force and authority with the Written Laws. Now we know no other weightier Argument to prove there's no Purgatory, but because the scripture speaketh of Heaven and Hell, and is silent of Purgatory. 2. That naturall reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship, such as Surplice, betokening Pastorall Holinesse, without any Scripture, is a great untruth▪ for naturall reason may warrant new Sacraments, as well as new Sa­cramentals. 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God, not from the manner of delivering them, that is, from being contained in scripture, or not contained in it; then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture: For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah, by the Vocall Preaching of Paul, or by the written scriptures of the Pro­phets and Apostles, it is all one, it is the same word, and coming from Christ, must be of the same Divine authority: But this is to beg the question, for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition; [Page 69] because it is unwritten, to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God. For Lorinus, Cornelius a Lapide, Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius, Com. in. 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine, Tan­nerus, Malderus, Becanus, say, Whither the Lord deliver his minde to us in his Written Scripture, or by Tradition, it is still the Word of God, and hath authority from God. But the truth is, to us it is not the Word of God, if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses, or the Prophets and Apostles; for though the Word have authority only from God, not from the Church, nor from men, or the manner of delivering of it, by word or writ; yet we with the Fa­thers and Protestant Divines, and evidence of scripture, stand to thatThe Fa­thers teach that all things in Worship, are to be rejected that are no [...] in scripture of Basilius, Homil. 29. Advers. c [...]l [...]mnian [...]es. S. Trinit. [...]; Believe what are written, vvhat are not vvritten [...]eek not after: And so, seek not after Sur [...]lice, Crossi [...]g, and the like: And that [...]; Every word (and so this, That Crossing Surplice, are Religious signes of spirituall duties) and every thing or action, must be made good by the Testimony of the hea­venly inspired Scripture; these things that are good (and so Religi­ouslyBasil. in Ethicis, Reg 26. decent and significant) may be fully confirmed, and these that are evil, corfounded: And to us, for our Faith and practise, if it be not Law and Testimony, it is darknesse, and not light. And as Gre­gor. Nyssen. the Brother of Basyl saith, Dialog. de anim. et Resur­rect. tom. 2. ed. Grecola [...]. pag. 639. Edit. Gre [...]. pag. 325. That only must be acknowledged for truth, in which is the [...], the seal of the Scriptures Testimony, [...]. And how shall it Cyril Alex. Glaphyro in G [...]t. l. 2. [...]. be true to us i [...] Scripture say it not? Or how shall it appear to us to be from God? For Cyril Alexandrin. saith, What the holy Scripture saith not (such as are your Positives of mens devising) how shall we receive it, and account it, amongst things that are true? And it is not that which Hereticks of old said, for their Heresies to say ( [...]s Hooker doth) that any thing may be proved to be of God, which is not written in Scripture: For saith Hieronimus, in Hag. c. 1. Sed & alia quae absque authoritate & testimoniis Scripturarum, quasi Tradi­tione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit Gladius dei. The Scripture doth bar the door upon Hereticks, saith Chryso­stome, [Page 70]And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then Chrys. hom. 10. in Ioan. 59. [...]. the Scripture. And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Crosse and Suplice are of God: But by that same reason, Papists without Scripture, can, and may prove their Traditions to be of God? And if we admit reason, and exclude Scripture, it is as easie to prove their Traditions, as our Positive additions to Wor­ship: And what Answers Papists give for their Traditions, to [...]lude the power of Scripture, and evidence of Testimonies of fathers, all these same are given by Prelats for their additions; to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be Gods Word; and in the very stile of the Councel of Trent, we are to acknowledge Traditions, though unwritten, yet to have the self same authority and force with the Written Laws of God. And shal the Surplice and CrosseConcilen▪ Tridenti. c. 1. Sess. 4. Synodus traditiones [...]ine scripto, atque scrip­turam pari­pictat is af­fectu, ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur. Ibib. p. 46. and such stuffe, be of the self same force and authority with the Evan­gel according to Luke and John: But what wonder? For Hooker holdeth, that we have no other way to know the scripture to be the Word of God, but by Tradition, which Popish Assertion holden by him and Chillingworth, to me, is to make the Traditions of men the object of our Faith.

Hooker: About things easie and manifest to all men by Common sense, there needeth no higher Consultation, because a man whose wis­dom is for weighty affairs admired, would take it in some disdain to have his Counsel solemnly asked about a toy; so the meannesse of some things is such, that to search the Scriptures of God for the ordering of them, were to derogate from the Reverend Authority of the Scripture, no lesse then they do, by whom Scriptures are in ordinary talking very idely applied unto vain and Childish trifles.

Ans. 1. It is a vain comparison to resemble God to an earthly wiseIt deroga­teth no­thing from the honour of God in Scripture. that he be consulted in the mean­est things. man in this; for a King of Kings, such as Artaxerxes, if he were building a stately Palace for his Honour and Magnificence, would commit the drawing of it, the frame, the small pins, rings, bowles, to the wisdom of a Master of work, skilled in the Mathematicks, and not trouble his own Princely head with every small pin; but this is because he is a man, and cometh short of the wisdom, skill, and learning of his servants. 2. Because, how his Honour and Magnificence be declared in every small pin of that Palace, is a bu­sinesse that taketh not much up the thoughts of a stately Prince. The contrary of both these are true in the Lord our God, his wisdom [Page 71] is above the wisdom of Moses, and Moses cannot frame a Taberna­cle or a Temple for Gods Honour in the least pin or s [...]uffer, with such wisdom as the only wise God can do. 2. The Lord is more jealous and tender of his own Honour, in the meanes and smallest way of Illustrating of it: Yea, in the smallest Pin, then earthly Princes are, for earthly Princes may Communi­cate with their inferiours the glory of curious works set forth, as speaking monuments of their honour; the Lord who will not give his glory to another; never did communicate the glory of devising worship, or the Religious means of worshipping and ho­nouring his glorious Majesty to men. 2. God hath thus [...]ar condis­cended in his wisdom, to speak particularly in written Oracles of every Pin, Ring, tittle, Officer of his house, of every Signe, Sacra­ment, Sacramentall never so mean and small; Ergo, It is no dero­gation from the dignity of Scripture, to have a mouth to aske coun­sell, where God hath opened his mouth to give Counsell in written Oracles: 3. There is nothing positive in Gods worship so small, as that we may dare to take on us to devise it of our own head. 4. Hooker contradicteth himself; he said the Ceremonies have their authority from God, and though unwritten have the self same force and authority with the written Laws of God, pag. 44. Here he will have the unwritten positives so small and far inferiour to written Scripture, that to aske for scripture to warrant such small toys, is to derogate from the reverend Authority and Dignity of the Scrip­ture: so Ceremonies pag. 46. are but Toyes, unworthy to be written with Scripture, but p. 44. They have the self same force and authori­ty with written Scripture.

Hooker. It is unpossible to be proved, that only the Schoole of ChristHooker l. 2. p. 60. in his word is able to resolve us, what is good and evil: for what if it were true concerning things indifferent, that unlesse the word of the Lord had determined of the free use of them, there could have been no Lawfull use of them at all, which notwithstanding is untrue; because it is not the Scriptures setting down things indifferent, but their not set­ting them down as necessary, that doth make them to be indifferent.

Ans. Then because the scrip [...]ure hath not forbidden the killingHow things are in Scrip­ture. of our children to God, as a [...]alse worship against the second Commandment, but only as an act of Homicide against the sixth Com­mandment, and hath not forbidden all the Jewish Ceremonies, so they [Page 72] have a new signification to point forth Christ already come in the flesh, these must all be indifferent: For let Formalists give me a Scripture to prove, that Circumcision, killing of Children, sacrificing of Beasts, are any wayes forbidden in this notion, but in that they are not commanded, or set down in the word as not necessary? 2. Such Divinity I have not read; That only the Schoole of Christ is not able to resolve us what is good and evil: I mean Morally good and evil. For Hooker pag. 54. Book 2. saith, The controversie would end, in which we contend, that all our actions are ruled by the word: If 1. we would keep our selves vvithin the compasse of morall actions, actions which have in them vice or vertue: 2. If we vvould not exact at their hands for every action, the knowledge of some place of Scripture, out of vvhich vve must stand bound to deduce it. Then it is like the School of Christ, the word can and doth teach us, what is a Morall acti­on good or ill, an action in vvhich there is vertue or vice; and to me it is a wonder, that the Old and New Testament, which containeth an exact systeme and body of all Morals, whither naturall or Ci­vill, or supernaturall, should not be the only rule of all Morals.

Now I finde that Mr. Hooker saith two things to this; 1. That Scripture doth regulate all our Morall actions but not scripture only,Pag. 56. for the Lavv of nature, and the most concealed instincts of nature, and other principles may vvarrant our actions: We move, (saith he) we sleep, vve take the Cup at the hand of our friend; a number of things vve often do, only to satisfie some naturall desire, vvithout present expresse and actuall reference to any Commandment of God; unto his glory, even these things are done vvhich vve naturally perform, and not only that vvhich naturally and spiritually vve do, for by every ef­fect proceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature, his povver is made manifest. But it doth not therefore follovv, that of necessity we shall sin, unlesse vve expresly intend the glory of God, in every such particular.Some acti­ons super naturally morall, some mo­rall natu­rally or ci­villy, o­thers are mixt.

Ans. I speak of these more distinctly hereafter, here I answer, that as there be some actions in man purely and spiritually, but super­naturally morall, as to believe in Christ for Remission of sins, to love God in Christ: These the Gospel doth regulate. 2. There be some actions naturally morall in the substance of the act, as many things commanded, and forbidden in the Morall Law; and these are to be regulated by the Law of nature and the Morall Law: 3. There be [Page 73] some actions mixed, as such actions in which nature, or concealed instincts of nature are the chief principles, yet in, and about these actions, as in their modification of time, place, and manner, and measure, there is a speciall morality, in regard of which they are to be ruled by the word, such mixed actions as these, that are mentio­ned by Hooker, As to move, sleep, take the cup at the hand of a friend, cannot be called simply morall, for to move may be purely naturall, as if a man against his will fall off a high place, or off a horse, to start in the sleep are so naturall, that I know not any morality in them; but sure I am, for Nathaniel to come to Christ, which was also done by a naturall motion, is not a meer naturall action, pro­ceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature; so to sleep hath somewhat naturall in it, for beasts do sleep, beasts do move; I grant they cannot take a cup at the hand of a friend, they cannot sa­lute one another: (It is Hookers instance) but fancy sometimes in men do these, whereas conscience should do them: What is natu­rall in moving and sleeping, and what is common to men with beasts, I grant, Scripture doth not direct or regulate these acts of moving and sleeping; we grant actions naturall and common to us, with beasts, need not the rule of the Word to regulate them: But this I must say (I speak it, my Record is in Heaven, not to offend any) Formalists, as such, and as Prelaticall, are irreligious and Profane: One of them asked a godly man, Will you have Scripture for gi­ving your horse a peck of Oats, and for breaking winde, and easing or obeying nature? And therefore they bring in these instances to make sport: But I conceive, sleeping moderately, to inable you to the service of God, as eating, drinking, that God may be glorified, 1 Cor. 10. 31. are also in the measure, & manner of doing, Morall, & so ruled by Scripture, and Scripture only, and not regulated by na­turall instincts: But what is all this to the purpose? are Surplice, Crossing, Saints-dayes, such actions as are common to us with beasts, as moving and sleeping are? Or is there no more need that the Pre­late be regulated in wearing his corner-Cap, his Surplice in Crossing, Some habi­tuall refe­rence to Scripture is required in all our Morall actions. then a beast is to be ruled by Scripture in moving, in sleeping, in eating grasse?

2. Expresse and actuall reference and intention to every Com­mandment of God, or to Gods glory in every particular action; I do not urge, a habituall reference and intention I conceive is hol­den [Page 74] forth to us in Scripture: 1 Cor. 10. 31. 3. God by every effect, proceeding from the most concealed instinct of nature is made manifest in his power. What then? the power of God is manifest in the Swallows building her nest; Ergo, neither the Swallow in building her nest, nor the Prelate in Crossing an Infant in Baptisme to dedi­cate him to Christ, have need of any expresse or actuall reference to any Commandment of God or Gods glory: Truly, it is a vain con­sequence in the latter part, except Hooker make Surplice, Crossing, and all the mutable Frame of Church-Government to proceed from the most concealed instincts of nature, which shall be n [...]w Divinity to both Protestants and Papists: And I pray you, what power of God is manifest in a Surplice? I conceive it is a strong Argument against this mutable frame of Government, that it is not in the power of men to devise, what Positive signes they please, without the word to manifest the power, wisdom and other attributes of God: For what other thing doth the two Books opened to us, Psal. 19. The Book of Creation and Providence; and the Book of the Scripture, but manifest God in his nature and works, and mans misery and Re­demption in Christ?

Now the Prelats and Papists devise a third blanke book of un­written Traditions and mutable Ceremonials▪ We see no Warrant for this book: 4. Hooker maketh a man in many Morall Actions, as in wearing a Surplice, in many actions flowing from concealed in­stincts of nature, as in moving, sleeping, like either the Philosophers, Civilian or Morall Athiest, or like a beast to act things, or to do by the meer instinct of nature. Whereas being created according to Gods Image, especially, he living in the visible Church, he is to do all his actions deliberate, even naturall and morall in Faith, and with a Warrant from scripture, to make good their Morality, Psa. 119. 9. Prov. 3. 23, 24. 2 Cor. 5. 7. And truly Formalists give men in their Morals to live at random, and to walk, without taking heed to their wayes, according to Gods word.

Hooker. It sufficeth that our Morall actions be framed, accordingBook [...]. Eccl. pol. p. 54. to the Law of reason; the generall axiomes, rules, and principles of which being so frequent in holy Scripture, there is no let, but in that regard, oven out of Scripture, such duties may be deduced by some kinde of consequence (as by long circuit of deduction it may be, that even all truth out of any truth may be concluded) howbeit no man be bound in [Page 75] such sort to deduce all his actions out of Scripture, as if either the place be to him unknown, whereon they may be concluded, or the reference to that place, not presently considered of, the action shall in that be con­demned as unlawfull.

Ans. 1. The Law of reason in Morals (for of such we now speak) is nothing but the Morall Law and will of God, contained fully in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; and therefore is not to be divided from the Scriptures; if a man be ruled in that, he is ruled by Scripture: for a great part of the Bible, of the De­calogue, is Printed in the reasonable soul▪ of man: As when he loveth his Parents, obeyeth his superiors, saveth his Neighbour in extream danger of death, because he doth these according to the Law of Reason, shall it follow that these actions which are expresly cal­led [...], Rom. 2. 14. the things or duties of the Law, are not warranted by expresse Scripture, because they are done ac­cording to the Law of naturall reason? I should think the contra­ry most true. 2. Such duties (saith he) Morall duties (I hope he must mean) to God and our Neighbour, may be deduced by some kinde of consequence out of Scripture: But by what consequence? Such as to Argue, Quidlibet ex quolibet. The Catechisme taught me long ago of duties to God and my Neighbour, that they are taught in the ten Commandments. Now if some Morall duties to God and man be taught in the ten Commandments, and some not taught there: 1. Who made this distinction of duties? None surely but the Prelats and the Papists; if the Scripture warrant some duties to God and our Neighbour, and do not warrant some, the Scrip­ture must be unperfect. 2. The warranting of actions that may be service to God, or will-worship, or homicide by no better ground then Surplice and Crosse, can be warranted, or by such a conse­quence, as you may deduce all truth out of any truth, is no warrant at all; the Traditions of Papists may thus be warranted. 3. Nor is the action to be condemned, as unlawfull in it self, because the agent cannot see by what consequence it is warranted by Scripture, it fol­loweth only to him that so doth, it is unlawfull, Rom. 14. 14. In that he doth Bonum, non benè, a thing lawfull, not lawfully. 4. It is unpossible to deduce all truth out of any truth: For then because the Sun riseth to day, it should follow, Ergo, Crosse and Surplice are Law­full: I might as well deduce the contrary, Ergo, they are unlawfull.

[Page 76]

Hooker: Some things are good in so mean a degree of goodnesse,2. Book. p. 78. that men are only not disproved, nor disallowed of God for them, as, Eph. 5. 20. No man hateth his own flesh, Matth. 5. 46. If ye do good unto them that do so to you, the very Publicans themselves do as much: They are worse then Infidels that provide not for their own, 1. Tim. 5. 8. The light of nature alone, maketh these actions in the sight of God al­lowable. 2. Some things are required to salvation by way of direct, immediate and proper necessity finall, so that without performance of them, we cannot in ordinary course be saved.—In these, our chiefest direction is from Scipture, for nature is no sufficient director what we should do to attain life Eternall. 3. Some things although not so re­quired of necessity, that to leave them undone excludeth from salvati­on, are yet of so great dignity and acceptation with God, that most am­ple reward is laid up in Heaven for them, as Matth. 10. A Cup of cold Water shall not go unrewarded: And the first Christians sold their possessions, and 1 Thess. 2. 7. 9. Paul would not be burdensome to the Thessalonians: Hence nothing can be evil that God approveth, and he approveth much more then he doth Command, and the precepts of the law of Nature may be otherwise known then by the Scripture, then the bare mandat of Scripture is not the only rule of all good and evil, in the actions of Morall men.

Ans. 1. The Popery in this Author (in disputing for a Plat­form of Government) that is up and down, and changeable at the will of men, made me first out of love with their way: for his first classe of things allowable by the light of Nature without Scripture, is far wide; for Eph. 5. 20. That a man love his own flesh, is Com­manded in the sixth Commandment, and the contrary forbidden: otherwise for a man to kill himself, which is self-hatred, should not be forbidden in Scripture, the very light of nature alone will for­bid ungratitude in Publicans, and condemn a man that provideth not for his own: But that this light of nature excludeth Scripture and the Doctrine of Faith, is an untruth: for Hooker leaveth out the words that are in the Text, and most against his cause: He that provideth not for his own, is worse then an Infidel, and hath denied the Faith: Ergo, the Doctrine of Faith commandeth a man to provide for his own. What Morall goodnesse nature teacheth, that same doth the Morall Law teach, so the one excludeth not the other. 2. It is false, that Scripture only as con [...]adistinguished from the [Page 77] Law of Nature, doth direct us to Heaven: for both concurreth in a speciall manner, nor is the one exclusive of the other. 3. For his third classe its expresly the Popish Works of supererogation, of which Hooker and Papists both give two Characters. 1. That they are not Commanded 2. That they merit a greater degree of glory: BothWorks of Superoga­tion hol­den by Hooker. are false: To give a Cup of cold water to a needy Disciple, is com­manded in Scripture, Isa. 57. 9, 10. Matth. 25. 41, 42. And the con­trary punished with everlasting fire in Hell: For Paul not to be bur­densome to the Thessalonians, and not to take stipend or wages for Preaching, is commanded, for considering the condition that Paul was in, was, 1 Thess. 2. 6. To seek glory of men, was a thing forbidden in Scripture, and so the contrary cannot be a thing not commanded; and not to be gentle, v. 7. As the servant of God ought to be, even to the enemies of the truth, 1 Tim. 2. 24. Not to be affe­ctionately desirous to impart soul & Gospel and all, to those to whom he Preached, as it is v. 8. is a sin forbidden, and for the merit of in­crease of glory, it is a dream. Hence I draw an Argument against this mutable form of Government: The changeable Positives of this Government, such as Crossing, Surplice and the like, are none of these three enumerated by Hooker. 1. They are not warranted by the Law of nature, for then all Nations should know by the light of nature, that God is decently worshipped in Crosse and linnen Surplice, which is against experience. 2. That these Positives are not necessary to salvation, with a proper finall necessity, as I take, is granted by all. 3. I think Crosse and Surplice, cannot deserve a greater measure of glory: for Formalists deny either merit or effi­cacy to their Positives. The Jesuit Tannerus, confirmeth all which is said by Hooker, as did Aquinas before him: And E [...]ki [...]s in his conference with Luther, and Oecolampadius, who say, for ima­geryTanner. in 22. to 3. disp. 5. de Relig. q. 2. Dub. 3. Aquinas 22. q. 25. Art. 3. Quando dicitur adorationem imaginum, non esse Scriptam adeoque non esse lici­tam in cultu dei respondetur. Apostoli familiari spiritus instinctu quaedam ecclesiis tradiderunt servanda, quae non reliquerunt in scriptis; sed in observatione fidelium per successionem: Collo­quio Helv [...]tiorum ita. Eckius, Collat. 44. concl. 4. Audet▪ Hen. Linick disserit enim. Cont. Luther, Zwinglium) dicere deum in nostris imaginibus Christianis nullam habere Complacentiam: Quis [...]oe ei retulit, sacrae literae non contradicunt. and their Traditions; that it is sufficient that the Church say such a thing is truth and to be done, and the scripture doth not gain-say it.

SECT. V.

Morall Obedience resolved ultimately in Scripture.

FOR farther light in this point, it is a Question: What is the for­mall object of our obedience in all our our Morall actions? that is, Whether is the Faith practicall of our obedience, & the obedience itself, in all the externals of Church Government resolved in this ul­timately and finally. This and this we do, and this point of Government Whither our obedi­ence in Church­policy, be ultimately resolved in this saith the Lord, or in this saith the church. we believe and practise: because the Lord hath so appointed it, in an immutable Platform of Government in Scripture: or because the Church hath so appointed, or because there is an intrinsecall conve­niency in the thing it self, which is discernable by the light of na­ture? Ans. This Question is near of blood to the Controversie between Papists and us, concerning the formall object of our faith▪ that is, Whither are we to believe the scripture to be the Word of God, because so saith the Church: or upon this objective ground, because the Lord so speaketh in his own Word: Now we hold, that scripture it self furnisheth light and faith of it self, from it self; and that the Church doth but hold forth the light: as I see the light of the Candle, because of the light itself, not because of the Candlestick. Hence in this same very Question, the Iews were not to believe, that the smallest pin of the Tabernacle, or that any officer, High-Priest, Priest or Levite, were necessary, nor were they to obey in the smallest Ceremoniall observance; because Moses and the Priests or Church, at their godly discretion, without Gods own spe­ciall warrant said so: But, because so the Lord spake to Moses, so the Lord gave in writing to David and Solomon, 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. And so must it be in the Church of the New Testament, in all the Positives of Government; otherwise, if we observe Saints­dayes, and believe Crossing and Surplice, hath this Religious signifi­cation, because the Church saith so; then is our obedience of con­science finally resolved in the Testimony of men so speaking, at their own discretion without any warrant of scripture. 2. To believe and obey in any Religious Positives, because it is the pleasure of men so to Command, is to be servants of men, and to make their will the formall reason of our obedience, which is unlawfull. If it be said, that we are to believe and Practise many things in naturall neces­sity, as to eat, move, sleep, and many circumstantials of Church-Po­licy, because the Law of naturall reason saith so; and because there [Page 79] is an intrinsecall conveniency, and an aptitude to edifie, & to decore and beautifie in an orderly and a decent way the service of God, and not simply, because the Church saith so, nor yet because the Lord speaketh so in the Scripture, and therefore all our obedience is not Ultimately and finally resolved into the Testimony of the Scripture. I Answer, That there be some things that the Law of Nature commandeth, as to move, eat, sleepe; and here with leave I distinguish Factum, the common practise of men from the jus, what men in conscience ought to do, as concerning the former, mo­rall and naturall mens practise is all resolved in their own carnall will, and lusts, and so they eat, move and sleep, because nature, and carnall will, leadeth them thereinto, not because God in the Law of nature (which I humbly conceive to be a part of the first ele­ments and principles of the Morall Law, or Decalogue, and so a part of Scripture) doth so warrant us to do; and therefore the moving, eating, drinking of naturall Moralists, are materially lawfull and conforme to scripture, for God by the Law of nature commandeth both Heathen men, and pure Moralists within the vi­sible Church, to do naturall acts of this kinde; because the Lord hath revealed that to be his will in the Book of nature: But these Heathen do these acts, because they are suitable to their Lusts and carnall will, and not because God hath commanded them so to do in the Book of nature; and this is their sin in the manner of doing though materially, Et quod substantiam actus, the action be good; and the same is the sin of naturall men within the visible Church, and a greater sin; for God not only commandeth them in the Law of nature, but also in Scripture to do all these naturall acts, because God hath revealed his will in these naturall actions, as they are mo­rall to naturall men within the visible Church, both in the Law of nature, and in the scripture, and De jure they ought to obey, because God so commandeth in both, and in regard all within the visible Church, are obliged to all naturall actions in a spirituall way, though their eating, moving, sleeping be lawfull materially, Et quod substan­tiam actus, yet because they do them without any the least habituall reference to God, so commanding in natures Law and scripture, they are in the manner of doing, sinfull; otherwise Formalists go on with Papists and Arminians to justifie the actions of the unregene­rated, as simply Lawfull and good, though performed by them with [Page 80] no respect to God or his Commandment: 2. As concerning actions of Church-Policy, that cannot be warranted by the light of nature, and yet have intrinsecall conveniency and aptitude to edifie and de­cently to Accomodate the worship of God. I conceive these may be done, but not because the Church so commandeth, as if their com­mandment were the formall reason of our obedience, but because partly the light of the Law of reason, partly scripture doth warrant them; but that Crosse and Surplice can be thus warranted is utter­ly denied: Again I conceive that there be two sort of positives in the externals of Government or worship: 1. Some Divine, as that there be in the Publique Worship, Prayers, Praising, Preaching, Sa­craments, and these are substantials; that there be such Officers, Pastors, Teachers, Elders and Deacons; that there be such censures, as rebuking, Excommunication and the like, are morally Divine, or Divinely Morall: and when the Church formeth a Directory for worship and Government, the Directory it self is in the Form not simply Divine. And if it be said that neither the Church of the Jews, nor the Church Apostolique had more a written Directory, nor Two things in the ex­ternall worship. 1. Substan­tials. 2. Ac­cidentals. they had a written Leiturgy or book of Common Prayers or Publick Church-service: I answer, nor had either the Iewish or Apostolick Church any written Creed or systeme, written of fundamentall Ar­ticles, such as is that, which is commonly called the Apostolick Creed; but they had materially in the scripture the Apostolick Creed; and the Directory they had also the same way, for they practised all the Ordinances directed, though they had no written Directory in a formall contexture or frame: for Prayers, Preaching, Praising, Sacraments and Censures never Church wanted in some one order or other▪ though we cannot say that the Apostolick Church had this same very order and forme: But a Leiturgy which is a commanded, imposed, stinted Form, in such words and no other, is another thing then a Directory as an unlawfull thing is different from a Lawfull: 2. There be some things Positive humane, as the Ordering of some parts, or worship, or Prayer, the forme of words or phrases, and some things of the Circumstantials of the Sacra­ment, as what Cups, Wood or Mettall, in these the Directory lay­eth a tie upon no man, nor can the Church in this make a Directory to be a Church Compulsory to strain men: And this way the Di­rectory is not ordered and commanded in the frame and contexture, [Page 81] as was the Service-Book; and the Pastor or people in these, are not properly Morall Agents, nor do we presse that scripture should re­gulate men in these. But sure in Crossing, in Surplice men must be Morall Agents, no lesse then in eating and drinking at the Lords-Supper, and therefore they ought to be as particularly regulated by Scripture in the one, as in the other.

Quest. But who shall be judge of these things which you say are Circumstantials only, as time, place, &c. and of these that Forma­lists say are adjuncts and Circumstances of worship, though also they have a Symbolicall and Religious signification: must not the Church judge, what things are indifferent, what necessary, what are expedient, what Lawfull? Answer, There is no such question imaginable, but in the Synagogue of Antichrist; For as concerning Norma judi [...]andi, the Rule of judging, without all exception, the scripture ought to be the only rule and measure of all practicall truths, how Formalists can make the Scripture the rule of judging of unwritten Ceremonies which have no warrant in Scrip­ture, more then Papists can admit scripture to regulate and warrant their unwritten Traditions, I see not, we yield that the Church is the Politick, Ministeriall, and visible judge of things necessary andThe que­stion who should be judge of things ne­cessary or indifferent is nothing to the pre­sent con­troversie. expedient, or of things not necessary and expedient: But we know no such question in this Controversie, as who shall be judge: but supposing the Church to be a ministeriall judge, and the Scrip­ture the infallible Rule, the question is, whether this judge have any such power, as to prescribe Laws touching things in­different, and to injoyne these, though they have no warrant from Scripture, as things necessary, and to binde where God hath not bound.

Quest. But doth not the Church determine things, that of them­selves are indifferent; as whether Sermon should begin at nine of clock, or ten in the morning, and after the Church hath past a de­termination for the dyet of ten a clock, the indifferency of either nine or ten is removed, and the practise without any warrant of Scripture restricted to one, for order and peace sake; and why may not the like be done in Positives of Church-Government? Ans. The truth is, the Church by her will putteth no determination on the time, but only ministerially declareth that which Gods provi­dence accomodating it self to the season, climate, the conveniency [Page 28] of the congregation as they lie in distance from the place of mee­ting, hath determined already: But neither Providence, scripture, nor naturall reason hath determined, that there should be in every Diocesan Church a Monarch-Prelate, Pastor of Pastors, with ma­jority of power of jurisdiction and ordination over Pastors, more then there should be one Pope, Catholick Pastor of the Catholick visible Church, or that Crossing should betoken Dedication to Christs service, only will as will must determine positive Religious observances, such as these are.

SECT. VI.

What Honour, Praise, Glory, Reverence, Veneration, Devotion, Service, Worship, &c. are.

FOr the more clear opening of the ensuing Treatise, it is ne­cessary to speak somewhat of worship and Adoration, and espe­cially of these, 1. Honour. 2. Praise. 3. Glory, 4. Reverence. 5. Ve­neration. 1. Honour. 2. Praise. 3. Glory. 4. Reve­rence. 5. Venera­tion. 6. Devo­tion. 7. Religion 8. Service. 9. Worship 10. Love. 11. Ado­ration, what they are. 6. Devotion. 7. Religion. 8. Service. 9. Worship. 10. Love. 11. Obedience. 12. Adoration. 1. Honour, is a testification of the ex­cellency of any, Arist. Ethic. l. 8. c. 8. Aquinas. Honos est signum quod­dam excellentiae. Honour is a signe or expression of Excellency in any, it doth not import any superiority in the party whom we honor, as Adoration doth. Praise, is a speciall honouring of any, consisting in words. Glory, is formally the effect of Honour, though it be taken, Pro claritatè, for the celebrity or renownednesse of any; yet glo­ry seemeth to be founded upon celebrity, as its foundation. Reve­rence is a sort of Veneration of a person for excellency connotating a sort of fear. Veneration is a sort of fear, and reverencing of a per­son: I see not well any difference between Reverence and Venera­tion, except that Veneration seemeth to be some more, and cometh nearer to Adoration: Devotion is the promptitude, cheerfulnesse, or spirituall propension of the will to serve God; Religion is formally in this, when a man subjecteth himself to God, as to his supreame Lord, and thence ariseth to give him honour, as his God, and abso­lute Lord. The two integral parts of Religion, are the subjection of the reasonable creature to God. 2. An exhibition of honour; if any object that the subjection of the creature to God is humility, not Re­ligion, Raphael de la Torres in 22. tom. 1. de obj. adorat. q. 81. art. 1. disp. unic. n. 8. answereth that subjection to God, as it issueth from [Page 83] a principle of tendering due Honour to God for his excellency, its Religion; but as it abandoneth the passion of hope in the way of attaining honour, it is an act of humility to God, as the giving of money for the paying of debt, is an act of justice; but as it is given toTwo acts of Religi­on, impe­rated, or command­ed, and eli­cite▪ moderate the desire of money, it is an act of Liberality. The acts of Riligion are of two sorts, some internall and elicite, as to Adore, Sacrifice, Pray, by these a man is rightly ordered toward the Honouring of God only: But there be other acts imperated and Commanded by Religion, which flow immediately from other vertues, as it may be from mercy and compassion to our brother, but are Commanded by Religion, as Jam. 1. 27. Pure Religion and un­defiled before God and the Father, is this, to visit the father lesse and the widows, &c. Service is from the bond of subjection, to reverence God as an inferior or servant doth his Lord and Master: A ser­vant doth properly do the will of his Master, for the gain or profit that redoundeth to his Master; but, because we cannot be profi­table to the Almighty by way of gain; therefore we are to serve him in relation to an higher end, then accession of gain (of which the Lord is not capable, Psal. 16. 2. Iob 22. 3.) For the declaration of his glory: For Worship formally is to give reverence to God for his excellency; in one and the same act we may both Worship God and serve him. Only service doth include the obligation of a servant to a Lord. As concerning Love, Faith and Hope, they are internall Worship, not properly Adoration: Love as Love doth ra­ther import an equality with the thing loved, and a desire of an U­nion, rather then a submission. It is true, there is a perfection in that which we Love, but not essentially to perfect the Lover, that possibly may agree to the Love between man and man, but not to Love as Love: for the Father Loves Christ his Son, and did delight in him from eternity, Prov. 8. 30. A superior Angel may Love an inferior; yet the Father cannot be perfected by Loving Christ, nor a superior Ang [...]l, by Loving any inferior; Faith and Hope may suppose a resting on a helper as a helper, and so are internall Worship; if they be adoration formally may be a Question.

It is an untruth which Raphael de la Torres, with other school­menRaphael. to. [...]. in 22. q. 81. Art. 4. disp. vnica. say, That with the same Religion by which we Honour holy men, we Honour God; upon this reason, because holinesse in them is a parti­cipation of the Divine Nature, therefore God must be the intrinsecall [Page 84] end, and formall reason, for which we Honour the Saints. For Holi­nesseHonoring of Holy men is not worship. in Saints, is a participation of the Divine nature; but it is a Temporary and a created participation, it is not the same very ho­linesse that is in God; but the created effect thereof: and so the Love I bear to any Creature, because there is somewhat of God in every Creature; And the Love to our Neighbour, Commanded in the second Table of the Law, should be the Love of God, Comman­ded in the first Table of the Law. 2. When I bow to the gray­haired, and to the King; I then do an act of obedience to the fifth Commandment: No man can say, that when I bow to the King, or to an holy man, that I am then bowing to the God of heaven, and Worshipping God: No acts terminated upon Saints living or dead, are acts of Worshipping God; yea, reverencing of the Or­dinances of God, as the delighting in, or trembling at the Word, are not properly acts of adoring God.

Obedience is founded, not formally upon Gods excellency, pro­perlyObedience. so called; but upon his jurisdiction and Authority to Com­mand.

Adoration is the subjection or prostration of soul or body to GodAdoration. in the due recognition and acknowledgement of his absolute supre­macy. There is no need, that Vasquez should deny, that there is any internall Adoration, for that Adoration is only an externall and bo­dily Worship of God, can hardly be defended; for there may be, and is Adoration in the blessed Angels, as may be gathered from Isa. 6. 1, 2, 3. H [...]b. 1. 6. And it is hard to say, that the glorified spi­rits loosed out of the body, and received by Christ, Act. 7. 59. Psal. 73. 27. Into Paradice, Luk. 23. 43. And so with him, Philip. 1. 23. And Praying under the Altar, Rev. 6. 9, 10. And falling down before the Lamb, and acknowledging that he hath Redeemed them, Rev. 5. 8, 9, 10. do not Adore God and his Son Christ; be­cause they have nor bodies and knees to bow to him, and yet they Adore him, Phil. 2. 9, 10. in a way suitable to their spirituall estate. It is an untruth that Rapha. de la Torres, in 22. q. 84. Art. 2. disp. 2. n. 1. saith, That Protestants detest all externall Worship now under the New Testament, as contrary to Grace, and Adoration of God in spirit and truth. For things subordinate are not contrary; we should deny the necessity of Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, and of vocall praying and praising under the New Testament, which are in their [Page 85] externals, externall worship. I grant internall Adoration, is more hardly known: But 'tis enough for us to say, as externall Adora­tion is an act by which we offer our bodies to God, and subject the utter man to him, in sign of service and reverence to so supream a Lord; so there is a heart-prostration, and inward bowing of the soul, answerable thereunto.

As the profession, whither actuall or habituall, in a locall and bodily approach, or in verball titles of Honour, in which we Ho­nour great personages, by bowing to them, in prostration and kneel­ing, is an act in its state Civill, not Religious, we intending (I presse not the necessity of a [...]ormall or actuall intention) only to conciliate Honour to them, suitable to their place and dignity: so a profession, whither actuall or habituall, in a Religious bodily approach to God, either by prayer or prostration, or in [...]lination of the body tending to the Honour of God is a Religious act. Now bodily prostration of it self, is a thing in its nature indifferent, and according as is the ob­ject, so is it either Artificiall: as if one should stoop down to drive a wedge in an image; or civill, if one bow to Honour the King; or Religious, when God and Divine things are the object thereof: But with this difference, the intention of the minde, added to ex­ternall prostration to a creature reasonable, may make that prostra­tion idolatrous, and more then civill honour. Thus bowing to Ha­man, The Reli­gious object, with the act of reve­rencing, maketh a­doration to be Religi­ous; but a civill ob­ject, except the inten­tion concur maketh not Religious adoration of a civill object. Honoured by Ahasuerus, who hath power to confer honours, if people bow to him as to God, is more then civill honour: And Cornelius his bowing to Peter, Act. 10. as to more then a man, is Idolatrous, and not civill honour; and the Carpenters bowing to an Image, as to a piece of Timber formed by Art, is only Artificiall bowing; and if any stumble at a stone before an Image, and so fall before it, it is a casuall and naturall fall; whereas a falling down with intention to Adore, had been Religious Adoring: But when the object of bodily prostration or kneeling, is God, or any Reli­gious representation of God, whither it be the elements of bread and wine, which are Lawfull Images of Christ, or devised pictures or portraicts of God or Christ; because these objects are not capa­ble of artificiall, naturall, or civill prostration, if therefore they be terminating objects of bodily kneeling or prostration; these Religi­ous objects, to wit, God, and Religious things, must so specifie these bodily acts, as that they must make them Religious, not civill acts, [Page 86] though there be no intention to bow to God; for bowing to God hath from the object, that it is a Religious bowing, though you in­tend not to direct that bowing to God, as bowing to Jupiters Por­traict, is a Religious Worshipping of that Portraict, though you intend not to worship the Portraict: for the act and Religious ob­ject together, maketh the act of prostration or kneeling, to be es­sentially Religious, though there be no intention to bow to these; indeed the intention to bow to God, maketh kneeling to God to be more Morally good, laudable and acceptable before God, then if therewere no such intention, but the want of the intention, maketh it not to be no Religious worship, nor can it make it to be civill worship. Hence let this be observed, that intention of bowing can, or may change that bowing which otherwayes were but civill (if there were no such intention of over-esteeming the creature) into a Reli­gious bowing, but neither our over or under-intention can change a Religious kneeling to God, or to an Image into a civill kneeling, because civill or naturall bowing to creatures, is more under the power of an humane and voluntary institution of men, then Reli­gious bowing, which hath from God without any act of mans free will, its compleat nature. When we kneel to Kings, we signifie by that gesture, that we submit our selves to higher powers, not sim­ply (saith P. Martyr.) but in so far as they Command not thingsMartyr, comment. in 1 King. c. 1. v. 16. against the Word of the Lord. When we Adore God, we Adore him as the Supream Majesty, being ready to obey him in what he shall Command, without any exception; the Adoration of men, sig­nifieth a submission limited, if it go above bounds, it is the sinfull in­tention of the Adorer, who may change the civil Adoration into Re­ligious, and may ascend: But the Aderation of God cannot so des­cend, as it can turn into Civill Adoration, only keeping the same object it had before.

Worship is an action, or performance, or thing, by which we ten­derWhat wor­ship is? our immediate honour to God, from the nature of the thing it self: 1. I call it an action, because the passion of dying or suffering, is not formally worship; but only dying comparatively, rather then denying of Christ, or dying so, and so qualified, dying with Patience and Faith, may be called a worship. 2. I call it not an action only, but a performance or thing; because an office, as the Priest­hood, the Ministery is a worship, and yet not an action; Some­time, [Page 87] Time it self, as the Sabbath Day is a Worship; yet it is not an action: So the Lord calleth it His Holy Day: and undenyably the lewish dayes, the High Priests garment, and many things of that kinde, were Divine or Religious performances, things, or adjuncts of Divine Worship, but so, as they are not meer­ly adjuncts of Worship, but also worship; for the High Priests E­phod was not only a civil ornament, nor was it a meer Physicall or naturall means to [...]ence off the injuries of sun, and Heaven, we do not think that the Lord in all, or any place of the Old or New Testament setteth down any Laws concerning garments simply, as they do fence off cold or heat, that belongeth to Art, only he speaketh of garments as contrary to gravity, as signes of vanity and lightnesse, Isa. 3. 16, &c. Zepha. 1. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 3, 4. And of garments as Religious observances, of which sort was the attire and garments of the Priests and High-Priests in their service, in which conside­ration the Religious times, holy places, and Mosaicall garments were Divine Worship, by which God was immediatly honored, but not adjuncts only, or actions; but Religious things or performan­ces. 3. It is such a performance, as from thence honour doth imme­diatly redound to God, but that this may be the clearer; I conceiveWorship is an imme­diate hono­ring of God, but some wor­ship hon [...] ­reth him more im­mediately, some lesse. that there is a twofold immediate honouring of God, in the wor­ship of God: 1. An honouring of God lesse immediate, as hearing of the word, is an immediate honouring of God, because honour floweth immediatly from God, both Ex conditione operis, and Ex conditione operantis; from the nature of the work, and intention of the worker: yet it is a lesse immediate honouring of God, in re­gard, that I may also hear the word even from the condition of the work, and so from the intrinsecall end of the worker, that I may learn to know God, and believe, for thus far I am led to honour God immediatly in hearing the word; that action of its own nature conveying honour to God; there interveeneth also a medium amidst between me and honouring of God, to wit, the Preacher, or the Bible; to which no externall adoration is due: There is ano­ther more immediate worship, to wit, praising of God, from which by an immediate result, God is honoured, and in worship especi­ally strictly immediate, God is immediatly honoured both in the in­tention of the work, and the intrinsecall end of it, and the inten­tion of the worker; though no other thing be done, and others be [Page 88] not edified either in knowledge, increase of Faith, or any other wayes: And in this, duties of the second Table, of mercy and ju­stice, differ from worship, in that such acts of love and mercy, as to give almes to save the life of my brother, or of his beast, are not acts of worshipping God; their intrinsecall end, and the nature of the work being to do good to the creature, principally, Ex naturâ, & conditione operis, though God also thereby be honoured; yet in a more secundary consideration: For I praying to God, do immedi­ately from the nature of the action honour God, though no good should either redound to my self, or to the creature; thereby, it is true, God, by acts of love and mercy to our neighbour, is honoured two wayes: 1. In that men seeing our good works do thence take occasion to glorifie our Heavenly [...]ather, whose truth teacheth us by the grace of God to do these works, but the intrinsecall and proper use of these, is to do good to our selves as in works of sobrie­ty, and to our neighbour, as in works of righteous dealing, but not immediatly, and i [...] the first and primary consideration to honour God, as in works of Piety, holinesse and worship, the honouring of God by secondary resultance, doth issue also from these duties of righteousnesse, but not as from the acts of praying, praising, Sacra­mentall eating, drinking. 2. The doer of these acts of mercy, may, and is to intend the honouring of God.

There is a twofold intention in worship, one formall and proper­lyA twofold intention in worship. Religious, and is expounded Morall, Ex naturâ rei, to be Reli­gious, it being such an intention, as can have no other state in wor­ship, but a Religious State, as if the three Children should bow at the Commmandment of the King of Babylon, though inten­ding to worship the true God. Here should be an intrinsecall in­tention, Ex naturâ & conditione operis, to worship, and that from two grounds conjoyned together: 1. Here is bowing down: 2. Bowing down to a Religious Object, commanded by a Prince, and so cometh under the Morall notion of the command of a Judge. When the object of bowing down is Religious, the signi­cation that we give divine honour to God by kneeling is as insepa­rable (saith Raphael de la Torres) from kneeling or bowing down, as a bearing testimony by word, that God is true, and knoweth all secrets, and will be avenged on perjury, is inseparable from vocall swearing by the name of God, or as any man should be an Idolater, [Page 89] who in expresse words should say to an Idol, O my God Jupiter help De la Tor. tom. 2. in 22. q. 94. Art. 2. Si quis in­ter [...]ellarit i­dolum di­cens expres­sis verbis, Jupiter, de­us meus ad­juva me, quamvis co­narctur fin­gere istam invocatio­nem, de [...]e­stans interi­us Jovem, et omnes falsos d [...]os, vere idolatra es­set, quia ab illis verbis in separabi­lis est signi­ficatio ex hibendi cul­tum Divi­num idolo. me, though that Adoration were fained, and he who so prayeth, should in his heart abhor and detest Jupiter and all false Gods: But there is another intention not Religious; if a Childe reade a Chap­ter of the Bible, that he may learn to read and spell, that is an acti­on of Art, not of Worship; because the object of the Childes rea­ding, is not Scripture as Scripture, but only the Printed Characters as they are, Signa rerum ut rerum, non ut rerum sacrarum, signes of things, not of holy things, and here the object not being Religious, the intrinsecall operation cannot raise up any Religious intention of the Childe. Upon this ground, it is easie to determine whether or no an intention of Worship be essentiall to Worship or not, the former intention which is intrinsecall, and Intentio operis, may be essentiall, it resulting from the object; but the latter intention of the worker, is so far extraneous to Worship, as whether it be, or be not, the nature of Worship is not impaired nor violated.

Hence, Adoration is worship; But every worship is not Ado­ration. Uncovering the head, seemeth to be little older then Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians. The Learned Salmasius, thinketh it but a Nationall sign of honour, no wayes universally received: But certainly it is not Adoration: Though therefore we receive the Supper of the Lord uncovered, no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements, as we do from kneeling conclude the same, as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our af­fection to the means of graces (though these means be but crea­tures) is not Adoration properly either of God, or of these means, it is Lawfull to tremble at the word, and for Josiah to weep before the Book of the Law read, and for the Martyrs to kisse the Stake,Vncover­ing of the head, is Ve­neration, not Adora­tion. as the Instrument by which they glorified God, in dying for the truth; all these being Objectam quo, and means by the which they conveyed their worship to the true God, and naturall and Lawfull expressions of their affection to God: For uncovering the head, it is a sort of Veneration or Reverence, not Adoration; and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith, 1 Cor. 11. 4. Every man praying and prophecying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head: But it is not his meaning, that he dishonoreth God. 2. The Jewes to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honour: If therefore [Page 90] the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lords Sup­per, and Pray and Prophecy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonouring of their head, or not of dis-respect of the Ordi­nances of God: Though Paul having regard to a Nationall Custome in Corinth, did so esteem of it.

Antonius Corduba a Franciscan, enumerateth nine externall actsCorduba, l. 1. q. 5. dub. 6. of Adoration, but speaketh nothing of uncovering the head; as 1. Sa­crificing. 2. Martyrdome. 3. Giving and Receiving the Sacraments. 4. Suiting of Pardon. 5. Suiting of Grace. 6. Smiting the breast. 7. Building of Churches. 8. Institution of Feasts. 9. Vows and Oaths. Prelaticall Formalists side with them, in Building and Consecrating of Churches, and Holy-dayes, which are but will▪worship, as used by them: And for Martyrdome, it is formally an act of Christian fortitude, not worship, the confession of Gods truth a Conc [...] ­mitant of Martyrdome, is indeed worship. How suiting of Pardon, and suiting of Grace are two externall acts of Adoration, I see not: for by this way, if we regard the multitude of things that we suit,Consecra­tion of Churches taken two wayes. there should be moe then two: Consecrating of Churches is taken two wayes: 1. For a meer dedication or Civill destination of any thing to its end and use: As when a house is builded, a garment is first put on, when we refresh our selves with a draught of water, we may pray for a blessing on these, and on all the Creatures for our use, and the very habituall intention of the builder of an house to dwell in, is a Civill dedication of it to that use for which it is Or­dained. Prayer added to it for a blessing of it in the use, maketh not a Consecrated thing; for then my clothes every day put on, my sleep, my dayly walking in and out, my Physick, my meals, my horse, my ship I sail in, should all be Holy, Consecrated, and Reli­gious things, which I were to Reverence as Religious things; for all these may be blessed in their use: But here is that we condemnConsecra­tion of Churches condemned in Religious dedication of Churches: 1. That the end being sacred, to wit, the habituall worshipping of God in that place. 2. The praying for the Church or house of worship, to say nothing of the vain Ceremonies used in the dedication of Churches: These two are applyed to make the Church holy, and to denominate it the house of God, and capable of Religious veneration, and salutation: Then certainly, all the Synagogues of Judea, should be Religiously holy, as was the Temple. 2. And Prayers should be more accept­able [Page 91] to God in the Synagogue for the houses sake, then prayers in any other place. 3. God shall binde himself by promise to hear prayers in the Synagogue, or made with the face toward the Syna­gogue, as he did toward the Temple: we were obliged in the New Testament to pray with our faces toward the Churches or meeting places in the New Testament, and we should have one fa­mous and celebrious Church for all Iews and Gentiles, more ho­ly then all the little holy Temples now consecrated as holy places, and where shall this be? And what typicall signification shall it have? It must signifie Christ to come, or already come, both is un­lawfull.

2. Again, if habituall Dedication by vertue of Prayer make a place holy, by the same reason actuall Dedication should make a place holy; and the belly of the Whale should have been holy be­cause there Jonah prayed, and every place a believer prayeth shall be holy, his closet, a private corner of his Orchard or Garden where he prayeth shall be holy, for these may be habitually desti­ned and appointed (if you call this Dedication) for prayer only, and it shall be unlawfull to do any civill businesse there, more then it is unlawfull (as Formalists teach) to do any other civil businesse in the Churches, or places of meeting in the New-Testament: 3. God himself appointed the place, the Time when it should be built, the person, by whom, by Solomon, not David; the length, the breadth, the Chambers, Porches, Ornaments of the only holy place at Jeru­salem; he hath no where appointed and prescribed these for the meeting places of the New Testament, but hath said that all places are alike, as touching any Religious holinesse, Ioh. 4. 23. 1 Tim. 2. 8. 4. Shall we think God is not acceptably served, and that the Syna­gogues of the Iews, of which we read not any patern or rule for Dedication, are Prophane, because they are not Dedicated by theDurand▪ Rati. l. 1. c. 6. Eusebius, l. 8. c. 8. 9, l. 10. c. 2, 3. Bishops laying the first foundation stone of the house? Or be­cause they want the ornaments of whorish Ceremonies, that Du­randus enumerateth? or because they have not the surpassing beau­ty of admirable Temples, that Christians now a little overswelling with the zeal of prosperity builded for the worship of God, out of superlative detestation of Dioclesian, and Maximinus, who had de­molished all the Churches which Christians had leave to build un­der tollerable Emperors, such as Severus, Gordianus, Philip, and [Page 92] Galienus, as Eusebius teacheth? Or that we are to give a Testimo­ny of as cheerfull affection for the beautifying of Temples, void of all typicall relation to the glory of Iesus Christ, as David did show, 1 Chron. 28 14. 2 Chron. 2. 5. And that it is Morall and perpetual­ly obligatory under the New Testament; that we bestow charges upon sumptuous Temples, upon these fancied grounds of Master Hooker? For his first Morall ground is, Nothing is too dear to be be­stowed about the furniture of Gods service: 2. Because sumptuous Temples serve to the world for a witnesse of his almightinesse, whom we outwardly serve, and honour with the chiefest of outward things, as being of all things himself incomparably the greatest: 3. It were Hooker. ecl. pol. 5. book p, 208. Mr. Hookers fancied Morall grounds of the holi­nesse of Churches under the New Te­stament answered. strange, that God should have made such store of glorious creatures on earth, & leave them all to be consumed on secular vanity, allowing none but the baser sort to be imployed in his own service: 4. Rarest and most gorgeous treasures are too little for earthly Kings. 5. If the cor­ruptible Temples of the holy spirit are to be served with rich almes, what should be done for houses to edifie the living Temples redeemed by Iesus Christ: To all which I say: 1. The Temple of Ierusalem in its glory, proportion and beauty, was a Positive worship, and so must be warranted by the positive Warrant of the Word, and the like Warrant must all our Churches in the New-Testament have: 2. If we must extend our liberality and bounty towards God to the highest, and to testifie the greatnesse and Almightinesse of him whom we serve: then did David and Solomon in both fail, there were more glorious and rich houses on earth, and divers times have been builded to the honour of false gods, and to declare the Royall mag­nificence of mortall Kings: God never for his own honour appoin­ted such a banquet as Ahasureosh did, to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes, Esther 1. 4. More might, and ought to have been done by David and Solomon, if it had been a morall ground to build a house, to be a witnesse of Almightinesse: 3. And God ap­pointed sacrifices, and Sacraments in both Testaments, as Testimo­nies of the great Lord Iesus; yet in base and obvious creatures; we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve, at our pleasure: 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice, especially under the New Testament, when his worship must be more spirituall: Then the Argument may be strongly retorted, we are to bestow more on feeding [Page 93] the living Members of Christs body (which yet is not secular vani­ty) then on dead stones; except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold, for which we can see no Warrant: 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists, for Images and rich Churches: Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this, but what Papists gave beforeThe place 1 Cor 11. Have ye not houses, &c. Makethno­thing for hallowing of Chur­ches. him: Have ye not houses (saith he) to eat and drink in; Ergo, He teacheth a difference between house and house, and what is fit for the dwelling place of God, and what for mans habitation, the one for com­mon food, the other for none but for heavenly food.

Ans. That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth, now under Heathen Rulers, 1 Cor. 6. is denyed, by all both Protestant and Popish writers, far lesse had they then any consecra­ted Churches, and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Sup­per was Celebrated, whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses: to infer that the Church is a holier place, then their own house, I professe is Logick, I do not understand, it only con­cludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of dif­ferent uses, sacred and prophane and no more.

Neither am I much moved at that, Psal. 74. which is said, ver. 8. [...] Nor the place, Psal. 74. 8. They have burnt all the convening places, or all the Congregations of God in the land: Vatablus, expoundeth it of the Temple: Exusse­runt totum Templum Dei terrenum: Or all the question will be, why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues, as they called the Temple, Ier. 7. 4. [...] The Temple of the Lord, and [...], The house of the Lord: Whither because every Syna­gogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple: Certainly there is no rationall ground to say, that Sy­nagogues were Typicall, that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue, and to offer Sacrifices in the Syna­gogue: But that a Synagogue is called the house of God, from the use and end, because it was ordained for the worship of God, as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work, in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself, so saith the Lord of Cyrus, Isa. 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed, to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden; yet was not Cyrus Typically, or Religiously holy, as the Temple of Ierusalem, and c. 44. v. 28. He [Page 94] saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd: and why? He shall perform all The Syna­gue not Gods house as the Temple was. my pleasure, so Hos. 2. 9. Therefore will I returne (saith God) and take away my corne in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax (given) to cover her nakednesse, To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land, Hos. 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land; and consequently all the Synago­gues were Gods houses; and the enemy of whom the Church com­plaineth to God in that Psalme, was thus bold, as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner, yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies, even these houses that God was worshipped in, not being spared; But how God was so present in every Synagogue, and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it, as he was in the Temple, and that it was so holy a place, as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue, God shewing his own immediate presence in e­very synagogue, as he did, Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush, Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God; for if every synagogue had been thus holy: 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way, as was the Temple: 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then, & in every Church un­der the New Testament now, as he said he would dwell in the Tem­ple. 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue, or any Church under the New Testa­ment, the contrary whereof was evident in scripture; none were for­bidden to enter in the Synagogues, Paul, 1 Cor. 14. 23, 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christi­ans are worshipping God. 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it, or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament, then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy, yea, our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy, as our worship is more spi­rituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were, and the body must be more holy then the shadow; yea, all the earth now from the rising of the sun, to the going down of the same, in regard of more spirituall worship, even the Stables and Alehouses, where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God, and offer the sacrifices of praises, Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy, as either our Churches or the Temple was of old.

CAP. I.

Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship, can consist with the perfection of Gods Word?

THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds;

Our first Argument is: Every positive and Reli­gious observance, and Rite in Gods worship, notArg. 1. warranted by Gods Word, is unlawfull: But humane Ceremonies are such: Ergo,

The Proposition is sure, the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argu­ment,The nega­tive Argu­ment from Scripture valid. Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment, Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5, 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this, Ergo, It is not Lawfull.

Formalists, Answer: Every worship holden to be of Divine ne­cessity and yet not Commanded by God, is unlawfull; but not every worship holden as free, and not binding the Conscience, requireth that God Command it.

Ans. 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull effi­cient and Author; you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship: But all worship hath necessity, and Divinity, and a bin­ding power only from the Author God. For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or 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 [Page 96] Gods Commandments of the first Table (I Command it not.) They Answer, To kill Children, is Man slaughter; but I Reply: God doth no [...], 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 defense of Cere. gener. q▪ 1. Sect. 12. Morton, and Burges, rejoynder, p. 41. D. Burges.) that is, I discommanded, or forbade. Ans. So Gregor. de Valent. to. 3 dis 6. q. 2. re [...]. ad. 2. obj. Constat quandoquo dici non preceptum id quod adeo non est pre­ceptum, ut sit etiam con­tra precep­tum. 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 Not to command, is to forbid 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 b [...]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 Morton gener. defe, c. 1. Sect. 6, 7. Burges Burges, rejoynder, c. 1. Sect. 7. p. 34. Of Davids purpose to build the Temple, how far it was law­full. 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 [Page 97] 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. I [...] 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, its 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 [Page 98] common equity, whether he should act it or no [...]; 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▪ [...]. Deut. 12.Arg. 2. Of Addi­tions. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18. Ioh. 20. 31. Luk. 16. 29, 30. 2 Tim 3▪ 17. Psalme 19. 7, 8. So, Basil. in morall. Basilius, Hieron. in Matth. 23. Hieron, Cyprian epist. 68. Cy­prian, Chrys. in 2 Tim. 1. Chrysostome, Procopi­us, in Deut. 12. Procopius, Tur­tullian, de prescript adver. he­ret. 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, Burges, su­pra. c. 2, 3. p. 136. 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 [...]plaining his Word▪ a [...] Commentaries and Annotations of the text.

So do Papists Answer, Duvallius, Duval­lius, 2. de­legibus, q. 5. art. 1. res. ad. 3. Hoc tantum fa­cito, id est, non offer as alia victi­marum ge­nera filios aut fili [...]s d [...]o, ut Gentiles. a Sorbonist▪ He forbiddeth o­ther new Sacrifices, as of the Gentiles, who offered their Sons and Daughters: So Valent. tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 2. resp. ad. 2▪ Valentia, Vasquez, tom▪ 2. in 12. desp. 152. c. 14. Qui addit novum, non dicitur declinare. Vasquez, Bellarm. de pont. l. 4. c. 17. Moses non alloquitur Principes, quorum est leges condere (et sic addere) sed populum e [...]ius est obedire. Bellarmine, Suarez de trip. virit. disp. 5. Sect. 4. Additiones non▪ corrumpentes sed per­ficientes, non sunt additiones, dat [...] enim sunt a Spiritu sancto. Suarez, Ita Cajeta. Cajetan, They are not added which the Church addeth▪ they are from the spirit of God: So Bannes, in 22. q. 1. Art. 10. Non adduntur▪ verbis dei ipsa dei verba. Bannes; but all these do elude, not expound the Texts: 1. Because▪ if the Iewish Princes had Commanded Arbitrary and conditionall Ar [...]s, Sacrifices, pla­ces of worship, so they add [...] not heathenish and wicked, as the Gentiles Sacrificing their Children, they had no [...] failed by this an­swer; yet Moses the Prince, is Commanded to make all according to the Patern in the Mount. 2. God speaketh to all Israel, and not to the Princes only, Deut. 4. 1. Hearken O Israel, he speaketh to these who are bidden to keep their soul diligently, v. 6. 3. It is Bellar­mines groundlesse charity, to think private heads who were not Princes and Law-givers, did not take on an h [...]iry Mantle to de­ceive, Zach. 13. 4. And say, Thus saith the Lord▪ when God had not spoken to them, Ier. 23. 16. 32. Yea, and Private women added their [Page 99] own dreams to the word of God, Ezech. 13. 17, 18. 3. They say Tra­ditionsAll additi­ons, even these which perfecteth the word are unlaw­full. are from Gods Spirit: But hath Gods Spirit lost all Maje­sty, Divinity and power in speaking? If the Popes Decretals, the Councels, the dirty Traditions, wanting life, Language, and power, be from Gods Spirit: Formalists admit Traditions from an humane spirit, and in this are shamed even by Papists, who say, God only [...]an adde to his own Word, whereas they say, men, and the worst of men, Prelates may adde to Gods vvord: 4. But that additions per­fecting are forbidden is clear: 1. Additions perfecting, as Dido­clavius Didocl. in alt. Da­masc. p. 504, 505. saith, argueth the word of imperfection, and that Bap­tisme is not perfect without Crossing. 2. It is Gods Prerogative to adde Canonick Scripture to the five books of Moses, and the Nevv-Testament, and the doctrine of the Sacraments which cannot be Syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament, Matth. 28. 19, 20. Ioh. 21. 31. Heb. 3. 2. Rev. 1. 19. and these are perfecting and ex­plaining additions, therefore men may by as good reason adde Ca­nonick Scripture to the Revelation, as adde new Positive Doctrines like this (The holy Surplice is a sacred signe of Pastorall Holinesse) (Crossing is a signe of dedicating the childe to Christs service) for Pa­pists [...]ay, even Vasquez Vasqu. to. 2. in 12. disp. 154. cap. 3. Respondetu [...] pontificem quidem nec extra gene­rale concili­um nec inill [...] posse Statu­ere aliquid de fide quod non conti­neatur in principiis & articulis re­velatis aut certissime ex iis colli­gatur. That the Pope neither in a generall Coun­cell, nor out of it, can ordain any nevv points of Faith, vvhich are not contained in the principles or Articles revealed, and may not be evi­dently concluded out of them.

Formalists answer, It is not lavvfull to adde any thing as a part of divine worship, but it is Lawfull to add [...] something as an indifferent Rite, coming from Authority grounded upon common equity▪ And this is the ansvver of the Jesuite Vasquez Vasq. ib. The Pope and Church cannot make an Article of Faith, for that is believed by divine Faith, to come from God only, but as Law­givers they may give Laws that bindeth the conscience, and yet are not altogether essentiall in worship. If additions, as divine parts of Gods worship (say we) be forbidden; God then forbidding to adde such Traditions, forbiddeth his own spirit to adde to Gods word, for no man but God can adde additions Divine, that is, coming from God, but God himself, & by good consequence the forbidding men to add additions, as really coming from God, should forbid men to be Gods, for divine additions are essentially additions coming from God; but if he forbid additions only of mens divising, but obtruded to [Page 100] have the like efficacy and power over the conscience, that Canonick Scripture hath, then were it lawfull to adde killing of our children to Molech, so it were counted not really to come from God, with o­pinion of divine necessity; and by this, God should not forbid things to be added to his Word, by either private or publick men, but only he should forbid things to be added with such a quality, as that they should by Divine Faith be received as coming from God, and having the heavenly stamp of Canonick Scripture, when as they are come only from the Pope and his bastard Bishops; so all the fables of the Evangell of Nicodemus; The materials of the Iewish and Tur­kish Religion might be received as lawfull additions, so they do not contradict the Scripture, as contrary to what is written, but only beside what is written, and with all, so they be received as from the Church: Also 3. Additions contrary to the word, are diminutions; to adde to the eight Command this addition (The Church saith it is lawfull to steal) were no addition to the ten Commandments, but should destroy the eight Commandment, and make nine Command­ments only, and the meaning of Gods precept, Deut. 12. Thou shalt neither adde, nor diminish; should be, Thou shalt neither diminish, neither shalt thou diminish: And so our Masters make Moses to for­bid no additions at all: 6. Commentaries and Expositions of the Word, if sound, shall be the word of God it self; the true sense of a speech, is the form and essence of a speech, and so no additions thereunto but explanations, except you make all sound Sermons, Ar­bitrary Ceremonies and Traditions, whereas Articles of Faith ex­pounded are Sermons, and so the Scripture it self materially taken, is but a Tradition.

QUEST. II.

Whether Scripture be such a perfect rule of all our Morall Actions; a [...] that the distinction of essentiall and necessary, and of accidentall and Arbitrary worship cannot stand? And if it forbid all worship not only contrary, but also beside the word of God as false, though it be not reputed as divine and necessary.

FOrmalists do acknowledge, as Morton, Burges, Hooker, and o­thers teach us, that Ceremonies which are meer Ceremonies, in­different in nature and opinion, are not forbidden: yea, that in the ge­nerall [Page 101] they are commanded upon common equity, and in particular ac­cording to their specification, Surplice, Crossing, Kn [...]eling before con­secrated Images, and representations of Christ are not forbidden, and negatively Lawfull, having Gods allowing if not his commanding will; but only God forbiddeth such Ceremonies, wherein men place opinion of divine necessity, holinesse and efficacy, in which case they become Doctri­nall, and essentiall, and so mens inventions are not Arbitrary and acci­dentall worship: But let these considerations be weighed.

1. Distinct. The Word of Go▪ being given to man, as a Morall A­gent, is a rule of all his Morall Actions, but not of actions of Art, Sciences, Disciplines; yea, on of meer nature.

2. Distinct. (Beside the Word) in actions Morall, and in Gods worship, is all one with that (which is contrary to the Word) and what is not commanded is forbidden, as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindenesse.

3. Lawfulnesse is essentiall to worship instituted of God, but it is not essentiall to worship i [...] generall: neither is opinion of sanctity, efficacy, or Divine necessity essentiall to worship, but only to Divine worship, and its opinion not actuall nor formall, but fundamentall and materiall.

4. Seeing the Apostles were no lesse immediatly inspired of God, then the Prophets, it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush, and put a diffe­rence betwixt Apostolick Commandments or Traditions and divine Commandments, as it is a vain and Scripturelesse curiosity to difference betwixt the Propheticall truths of Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Ieremiah, Ezekiel, &c. And Divine Prophecies, which is, as if you would dif­ference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer, and the writing made by the pen of Titus, or betwixt Peters words, and the words spo­ken by Pete [...] 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.

[Page 102]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, [...]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 [...]vvo Every Mo­rall Act is to be war­ranted by the word. 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 [Page 103] 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 abideArg. 3. What is mans in worship is not Law­full. 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, Com. in Hos. Col­ligimus bin [...] omnes cultus qui non sunt ex Deo, ex vo­luntate Dei, ex cius ver­bo legeque desumpti, sed ex nobis ali­isqite homi­nibus exeo­gitati sine Dei verbo damnari. Zanchius, and Pareus, Humanum inventum. What is ours in Gods wor­ship, is un­lawfull. Pareus infer, all invented by men, are false and vain, and so are condemned, Ier. 18. 12. The imaginations of their [...]vil heart, and, Psal. 106. 39. Their own devises, their ovvn vvorks, their ovvn inventions, as, Act. 7. 41. Figures vvhich y [...] 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 I [...]rob [...]ams heart, 1 King. 12. 32, 33. The light of your ovv [...]ir [...], 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, [Page 104] v. 105. If the Wisdom of God cause us to understand Equity, Iudge­ment, Scripture teacheth us us every practicall way. 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 Rich. Hooker, dis­cip. book 2. p. 55, 56. 58, 59. 8. 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;Not all a­ctions in man, but Morall a­ctions one­ly are re­gulated by the word. these 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. Eccles. 3, 4. 2. 4. Luk. 21. 24 1 Thess. 5, 6, 7. 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. [Page 105] 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,Helps of faith, and the formall object of faith are different. 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 in his Sermon. 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: [Page 106] 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 2 book, Ec­cles. Pol. p. 60, 61. 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,Naturall reason is a part of Scripture. 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 withIackson on the Creed, 1. Part. 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) faithSanderson. [Page 107] 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: Its 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 adviseWhat cer­titude of Faith is re­quired in all our acti­ons of our daily con­versation. 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 in the first Table; yet the Morallity of the second Table, is as expresly in Gods Word, as the Worship of the first Table. 1. Because what is justice and mercy, and love toward man in the second Table, doth no more depend upon mans sole will, but upon Gods Morall Law & the Law of nature, then it dependeth upon mans will or human wisdom, how God should be worshipped according to the first Table. For Gods will in his Word, is called by our Divines, a perfect Canon and rule of Faith, and also of Manners: And as the grace of God, Tit 2.Tit. 2. 11. 12. The Scrip­ture a war­rant for the morality of our acts of the se­cond table, as for the acts of worship. teacheth us what is Piety, so also what is Righteousnesse and Sobrie­ty. 2. Because as Gods Word condemneth will-worship, which is come of no Nobler blood, then mans will, so condemneth it idle words, and idle actions, which are but will-works, and will-words, and deeds of will-justice, and will-mercy: and a will-conscience in the second Table, putteth no lesse a rub upon the wisdom of the Lord, the Law▪giver, then a will conscience in the first Table. But For­malists say, If mans will and authority cannot appoint Crossing, Holy humane-dayes, Surplice, and such, the decent expressions and incite­ments of Devotion, in the kinde of Arbitrary, Mutable, and Ambula­tory Many acti­ons of the 2. table are mixt, and not purely Morall, all the actions of the first table are purely mo­rall. Worship; but they must be therein guilty of adding to the Doctrine of Piety and Religion in the first Table: by that same reason they can­not make humane Civill and Positive Laws in War and Peace, to be means of conserving justice and mercy tovvard humane societies in the kinde of duties of Righteousnesse and sobriety tovvards our selves and Neighbours; but they must be guilty of adding to the Doctrine of the second Table. I Answer: 1. The case is not alike, we cannot be Agents in the performing of any worship to God; nor can we use [Page 114] any Religious means for honouring God, which belong to the firstThe con­tr [...]ry is the clear judgement of Papists, as S [...]rc [...] teacheth us, tom. de virt. et statu Relig. l. 2. de superst. Cap. 1. Scriptura ipsa praecipit [...]bscr [...]are vot [...] que qua tamen voluntarie non ex precepto promittuntur, et ratio naturalis dictat, non solum esse facienda bona prae­cepta, sed etiam esse utile, plura bona et honesta facere, quam prec [...]pta sunt.—Und [...] etiam H [...]r [...]tici ipsi suos pe [...]uliares modos et ritus introducunt in modo colendi Deum, qui non sunt in Evangelio vel Divina lege praecepti, imo nec ipsi inter se in bujusmodi ritibus comveniunt, &c. Table: But in these we are Morall Agents, doing with speciall re­ference to conscience, and to true happinesse and the glory of God, as the ends both of the work and workers: and therefore in these we are precisely ruled by the wisdom of God, who hath in his word set down what Worship, and what means of exciting Devotion, and decoring of his Worship pleaseth him, and hath not left men to Lord-will, or Lord-wit; but in many actions that belong to hu­mane societies, we are not Morall Agents, but often Agents by Art, as in Military discipline, Trades usefull for mans life, Oeconomy and Policy in Kingdoms and Cities, in Sciences, as Logick, Physick, Mathematicks, in these Finis operis, the end of the work is opera­tion, according to the principles of Arts and Policy, and we are not in them Morall Agents, and so not to be regulated by Gods Word.

For the Scripture giveth not to us, precepts of Grammar, of War, of Trades, and Arts, teaching us to speak right Latine, to make accurat demonstrations: nor is the end of the work here a thing that pitcheth upon that tender and excellentest peece in us, our Conscience, and our Morall duties to God and men, but to make such humane Laws, just and suitable with sobriety and justice, is not left to Lord-will, but right reason, the principles of a naturall Conscience (which are parts to us of Scripture) and the Word of God it self hath determined; whether, to carry Armour in the The Iesuit speaketh of the Cere­monies of Lutherans▪ and the Prelaticall faction in England. night, in such a case? Whether to eat flesh in such a season of the year▪ when the eating thereof hurteth the Common-Wealth, and the like belong to works of justice and mercy, or no? Now it is no marvel that in things belonging to our naturall life, peace, societies, policy, where the end of the work is naturall or civill, and belongeth not, as such, to the Conscience, and Salvation of the soul, that there men be Artificers or Agents according to Art, Oeconomy, Policy, where­as the end of the work, Finis operis, in the Worship of God, is Mo­rall, and a matter of an higher nature; and so the means and man­ner of Worship here, are determined by Gods Word. But when [Page 119] actions of Arts, Sciences, Trades, Oeconomy, Policy, and Laws po­sitive, are elevated above themselves, Ad finem operantium, to the end that Agents are to look unto, as they be Morall Agents; Gods Word is as perfect a rule for acts of good manners in the second Table, as in the first: For example, that I speak good Latine, I am to see to Disputers Precepts; but that I lie not, and speak not Scandals or Blasphemies, while I speak Latine, there I am to look to Gods Law given by Moses. That a Tradesman make works according to Art, he is to advise with Art, but that he sell not his work at too dear a price, he is to advise with the eight Command­ment; and when all these acts of Art are referred to Conscience▪ Salvation, and the glory of God, as they ought to be Respectus finis operantis▪ in respect of the Morall intention of the doer, all their Morallity is squared by Gods-Word. Hence there be no actions of Worshipping God, but they be purely Morall, Et respectu finis ope­ris, Et respectu finis operantiis; but many actions belonging to the second Table, are either purely not Morall, as actions of meer Art, or they be mixed, and Respectu finis operis, in respect of the end of the work, they are not Morall, nor to be squared by the Word at all; and in respect of the Morall intention of the doer, they be Mo­rall, and so mixed actions, and partly ruled by the Word, and partly ruled by Art or Policy, according to our seventh distinction.

II. Conclusion: In actions or Religious means of Worship, and actions Morall, whatever is beside the Word of God, is against theWhat is beside the Word of God in Morals, is contrary to the Word of God. Word of God; I say in Religious means, for there be means of Worship, or Circumstances Physicall, not Morall, not Religious, as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber, the Bell of this or this Mettall, the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation.

Our Formalists will have it in the power of rulers to Command in the matter of Worship, that which is beside the Word of God, and so is negatively Lawfull, though it be not Positively conform to Gods Word, nor Commanded or warranted by practice; which I grant is a witty way of Romes devising, to make entry for Religious humane Ceremonies.

But 1. Whatever is not of Faith, and a sure perswasion, that what I do pleaseth God, is sin, Rom. 14. 14. 23. And therefore nei­ther can be Commanded by Rulers, nor practiced by inferiours: But things besides Scripture, and negatively Lawfull, are things not [Page 110] of Faith; Ergo, The Assumption I Prove: 1. I doubt if Lord-will, be the Lord-carver, of what pleaseth God. 2. If it may stand with the wisdom of Christ the Law-giver; for no Ceremonies maketh Christ a perfect Law-giver: 3. In things doubtsome, abstinence is the surest side; Ergo; Rulers ought not to command them: 4. Samuel, David, even wicked Saul abstained in things doubtsome, while the Oracle of God removed the doubts, and answered him. 5. Paul in eating or not eating, which are things most indifferent, requireth a certain perswasion of positive assu­rance, Rom. 14. 14. I know, and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus, that there is nothing unclean of it self, but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, it is unclean.

Sander­son Sermo. Master Sanderson saith, In things substantiall of Gods Wor­ship, and in things to be done upon necessity of salvation, what is not of Faith; certainly assuring us it is conforme positively to Gods word, it is sin, so we abhor Popish Additions: But in the actions of our life, as the lifting of a straw, and in Ceremoniall worship, or accidentals, it holdeth not (saith Morton Burges Supra. Morton, and Doctor Burges) not in all par­ticulars (saith Paybod. par. 2. S. 14. p. 45. Paybodie) for there should be no end (saith D. Iack­son on the Creed, l. 3. c▪ 7. p. 275. Doct. Iackson) of doubting, for Papists might doubt to assist our King a­gainst Roman Catholicks.

Ans. 1. Let Formalists explain themselves; Doctrinals, Substan­tials, and essentiall worship, is such as God hath commanded in the Proposition, and in the Assumption, and particularly in Gods word; Accidentals are such, as he hath commanded in generall, but left particulars to mens will, so they define, like M [...]sters of Arts.

But this our Masters say, in all that Christ hath particularly Com­manded, his Testament is perfect, and so I believe, what God hath set down, he hath set down, and so we have Scripture right down as per­fect as the Fables of Esop, & Nasoes Metamorphosis: what is in Esopes and Nasoes books, is in their books, and what they command you,The vani­ty of the perfection of Scrip­ture in es­sentials, not in ac­cidentals. are with certainty of Faith to believe they command, and what the Prophets and Apostles writ, that they writ, and that is essentiall worship; what they writ not, they writ not. 2. Mr. Sandersons lifting up a straw, is a straw for an instance; actions of imagination are not Morall, we give him leave to ruh his beard without Faith, as he weareth white sheets above his garments in Divine service against Faith. 3. To do in Faith, is to know, that, in that I serve Christ, and [Page 111] am accepted of God, Rom. 14. 2. To do that which condemneth me not, and maketh me happy in the doing thereof, v. 21. 3. It is a Faith that I have before God in my conscience, v. 2 [...]. 4. It is a perswasion by the Lord Iesus, that it is clean. 5. It is such, as I know is positive­ly Lawfull by Scriptures expresse warrant, 1▪ Cor. 10. 26. The earth is the Lords and the fulnesse thereof; Ergo, I have certainty of faith, that it is positively conform to Scripture what I do: but in things nega­tively Lawfull, as lifting a straw, wearing a Surplice, I have no per­swasion by the Lord Iesus, that I serve Christ, and am accepted of God in so doing, and know not from Psa. 24. 1. or from any other scripture, that it is lawfull what I do. 3. A generall warrant is either when the major Proposition only is sure by Scripture, but you must take the Assumption upon the Formalists Merchant-word, or where both Proposition and assumption can indure, [...] according as it is written; this latter wee imbrace with both our hands, but Formalists deny it to us: The first is their meaning. This, what is decent and not contrary to Gods Word, that the Rulers may command: But Surplice, Crossing, &c. are decent and not contrary to Gods Word; Ergo. So one Giles Widdows Giles Widows, in his law­lesse kneel­les Puritan saith▪ Man and Wife are one flesh: Ergo, the Ring in Marriage is good. And, Fine linnen is the Righteousnesse of the Saints, Rev. 19. Ergo, a Surplice is good. And, Matth. 16. Take up your crosse: Ergo, the Crossing in Baptisme is lawfull. Enough of this▪ But so the worship of the Devil is lawfull▪ and, Aarons golden Calf is lawfull; for I can finde a major Proposition for them in Scripture, of which you have a Faith both Negative and Positive; as this, Whatever God (g) Bannes to. 3. 22. q. 1. art. 1. Omne quod non est ex fide, idest, quod fit con­tra propriam conscienti [...] est pecca­tum. commandeth in his Word, that is lawfull: But God commandeth the In­dians Devil vvorship in his Word: Ergo, &c. I am not holden to give my Faith for the Assumption: Yet it is as good as our Masters reasoning. 4. Jackson is wide in his lawfull Negatives, for to fight against Roman Catholicks, at our Kings Command, upon good grounds, is not an indifferent thing, Except to kill men, and shed blood, be indifferent and lawfull Negatively: I thought, to make War, had been amongst the Substantials, and Positively conform to Gods Word. 5. The Fathers, as Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theo­phylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Anselm and Ierome, upon the place Rom. 14. 23. as Vasquez saith Vasquez to. 1. 12. dis. 59. q. 19. Art 6. c. 2. from this place, Rom: 14▪ 23. that What any doth, must be warranted by the light of the conscience as law­full. [Page 121] If Formalist; stand to this, they must give us some things a­gainst conscience, and something beside conscience, that is morally lawfull, and therefore if conscience see not such a thing against Scripture, though it have no warrant in Scripture, yet it is lawfull, and done in a certain perswasion of a well informed conscience; but these who eat things thought to be unclean by Gods Law, to the scandall of others, who knew these meats were not against Piety and Gods Lavv, nor yet that the eating of them was against charity, while Paul delivered the Doctrine of Scandall, yet their eating was unlawfull. 6. Formalists say nothing here, but what Papists said before them, they say, Men may go to War, doubting of the lawfulnesse thereof; and therefore Vasquez to. 1. disp. 65. c. 1. Vasquez, Angelus verbo Du­bium c. 1. Angelus, Corduba l. 3. q. 4. Corduba, and Navir. in cap. de Penitentia dub. 7. n. 8. Navarr. will us, While the doubt remaineth, to choose the surest side, as conscience ought to do: And Vasquez to. 1. disp. 66. cap. 9. Nec subdi­tus dubius de justitia belli potest parere, quamdiu dubius manet. Vasquez saith, Manente dubio, &c. To do so long as the doubt remaineth, is to do against the judgement of conscience: And Adrianus in quod libet, punct. 2. ad art. 2. Milites dubii cligerent sic partem dubiam & expo [...]erent se periculo injuste occidendi et praedandi non eundo tantum pecearent non obediendo. Adrianus saith, While they doubt, and yet go to War, they expose themselves to the danger of Man-slaughter, and by not going to War, they should onely sin by not obeying. Suarez de Tripl. virt. Theol. Tract. 3. disp. 14. Sect. 6. Suarez saith, It is a speculative doubt, vvhen Superiors commandeth it: And Sil­vester verbo belli. 3. q. 1, c. 4. Sylvester saith, Such a doubt should be ex­pelled at the commandment of Superiors. And no marvell the com­mand of Superiors to Papists is an Oracle, and blinde obedience is good meriting; therefore Gratian. d. 23. quest. 1. Quod culpatur. Gratian and the Iesuit Sanches je­suita Cordubensis in decal. Tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 3. Num. 3. Sanches saith, Inferiors are not holden to examine the commandments of Superiors.

5. Iackson saith, This (Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin) holdeth in omission of good, as in commission of evil: Ergo, Your not practi­sing What­soever is not of faith, &c. how true. indifferent Ceremonies, is not of Faith, and so Sin. Ans. He that obeyeth doubtingly, is condemned, and he that obeyeth not doubt­ingly, is condemned; But, Master Doctor, your enumeration is not sufficient, and may strike against doubting to worship a Romish Idol, at the command of Superiors; for I shew you a third, and [Page 113] its Pauls way, Eat not, obey not, and abstain with perswasion of Faith, that what you do is agreeable Positively to Gods Word.

Jackson saith, They sin, not by doubting, if the fear of evil after ma­ture deliberation, be not extraordinary, and such as cannot be recom­penced by the goodnes which appeareth in the act of Obedience. Doubt­ing is no internall part or essentiall cause of sin, vve sin not because vve doubt, but because vvhile vve doubt, vve prefer an evil, or a lesse good, before a good, or a greater good. So their sin vvas not doubting, but they preferred not eating, vvhich vvas a bodily losse onely, to the evil feared, vvhich vvas to be partakers of the Table of Devils, and being Apostates from the Israel of God. Ans. Paul expresly saith, doubting is sin, and condemneth it ver. 23. and requireth, ver. 5. Let every man be perswaded in his conscience, v. 21. Happy is he that con­demneth not himself in that which he alloweth, v. 23. Whatsoever (more or lesse in Morall actions) is not of Faith, is sin: 2. Internall perswasion, Rom. 14. 14. Is an internall cause of obedience, as v. 21. And therefore doubting being a sin that condemneth, Rom. 14. 23. must be such a sinfull ingredient, as maketh the action sinfull. 3. We both sin, because we doubt, and also because we prefer a lesseDoubting condem­neth. good, or an evil to a greater good. 4. No feared evil, though never so evil, whether of sin or punishment if it follow not kindly, but only by accident, and through the corruption of our nature, should or can make us do any thing doubtingly or sinfully, for then we might do evil, that good might come of it: No good of obedience can warrant me to sin, and disobey God, nor should that be called obedience, nor is it obedience to men, which is disobedience to God. 5. It is an untruth that non-eating was only a bodily losse, for non-eating Physicall, is a bodily losse, but Paul urgeth non-eating morall, to eschew the fall of one for whom Christ died. 6. The Do­ctor saith Ibidem. No power under the Heaven could make a Law o­ver the Romans, injoyning such meats, because Gods law (as they conceive) condemned them. Now how pleasant are right words? I assume, we conceive God hath denounced all the plagues written in his Book, upon practisers of humane Ceremonies, as upon adders to the word of God, Rev. 22. 19. Yea Heresies, to with, that Christ is not the consubstantiall Son of God, may seem probable to us; shall the good of obedience in believing my Pastor, whom God hath set over me, hinder me to obey? 7. Papists say also, that Scripture is [Page 114] perfect in generall, allowing that Ceremonies should be, whenPapists say the Srcip­ture in ge­nerall is perfect, but not in par­ticulars of worship, and so say Formalists. Paul saith, Let all things be done in order and decency, 1 Cor. 14. But the Scripture giveth no particular warrant for these, but one­ly the Churches determination. So Scotus, Prolog. in senten. q. 3. ad art. 3. Terminus praefixus [Theologiae] quantum ad revelationem▪ Divinam est [...]orum qu [...] [...]u [...] in [...]sadra Scriptura, sicut habetur ult. Apocalyps. Si quis [...]pposucrit ad ista, apponet ei Deus plagas quae contine [...]ur in Scriptura, & que possunt clici de ipsis Scotus, Suarez de tripl. virt. Theolog. Tract. 1. disp. 5. Sect. 4. Ad perfectionem non est, quod omnia credenda contineat explicite, satis est enim quod contineat my­steria nostrae redemptionis, & substantialia fundamenta Ecclesiae, cum mediis necessarijs ad salu­tem. Suarez, Bellar. de Effec. Sacrament. cap▪ 32. respons. ad Arg. 2. Christus ad plenum nos in­struxit (in Scriptura) de vcro Dei cultu. Bellar. Respondet, id verum est de instructione gene­rali, non autem de particulari. Bel­larmine Vasquez Tom. 2. in 1▪ 2. disp. 151. cap. 3. Nihil novi (pro­positi) Statuere possunt, quod non pertineat ad pristi [...]um statum cujusque conservandum—pro libito ferre legem certe non licet. Vasquez Bannes To. 3. in 22. q. 1. Art. 10. ad. arg. 3. Scriptura in­dicat nobis Divini [...]uminis sensum, non tamen in individuo, & in specie sed in communi & generali quadam ratione. Bannes, And Duvallius in 2. Thomae. tract. de legib. q. 5. Art. 1. ad Arg. 2. Scriptura est sufficiens, quia ipsa omnia, tam ered [...]da quam agenda impli [...]ite contineat, & propterea expresse ad Ecclesiam tanquam ad Columnam veritatis, tam in fide, quam in preceptis bene vivendi nos remittit. and Duvallius. The Scrip­ture implicitely, and generally containeth all the substantials necessary for salvation, but not traditions in particular, that is the Churches part, just as Formalists say, order and decency is commanded in the word, but Crossing, Surplice, Humane dayes and such are left to the Prelates Kalender, to fill up what his Lordship thinketh good. So Hooker (c) Speech is necessary, but it is not necessary that all speak one kinde of Language, Government is necessary, but the particulars, Surplice, Crossing, &c. Are left to the Church.

2. What is negatively Lawfull here, cannot be admitted; IfWhat is only nega­tive in Gods wor­ship, can­not be comman­ded. Rulers may Command one thing that is negatively Lawfull, they may Command all things; because what they Command un­der this formall reason, as not against Scripture, they should not adde nor devise new worship, though they Command all of that kinde: But the latter is absurd, for so they might Command in Gods worship. 1. The actions of sole imagination, the lifting of a straw, and all idle actions that cannot edifie. 2. They might Com­mand a new Ark to represent Christ incarnat, as the Jews Ark did represent him to be incarnat, a new Passeover, to represent the Lambe already slain, and all the materials of the Ceremoniall Law [Page 115] with reference to Christ already incarnat, dead, and risen again: For all these are by Formalists Learning negatively Lawfull; Shew us a Scripture where they are forbidden, more then Surplice, Cros­sing, except because they be not Commanded. If it be said, They do not Command things negatively Lawfull, as such, but as they edifie and teach: Well then, 1. As they edifie and teach, they are posi­tively good, and apt to edifie, and so must be proved by the Word as Commanded, and so not negatively Lawfull, and not as beside, but as Commanded in the Word. 2. Yet it will follow, that all these may be used in Faith, that is, out of a sure perswasion that they are not contrary to Gods Word, and so Lawfull. I might dance in a new linnen Ephod, before a new Iewish Ark, representing Christ al­ready incarnat, and that in the negative Faith of Mr. Sanderson, Hooker, and Jackson, for this Ark is not against Scripture, yet this Ark is not Commanded, and so not forbidden. 3. Idle actions that have no use or end, might be Lawfully Commanded by this, be­cause they are not forbidden, yet are such unlawfull, Quia carent justâ necessitate et utilitate, as Gregorius saith: I prove the connexi­on, because an action Morall, such as (to Sign with the Crosse) per­formed by a Subject of Christs visible Kingdom, for Gods glory and edification of the Church, which yet is neither Commanded nor forbidden by God, nor Commanded by natures light (for none but those that are beside reason will say this) nor light of Gods word, or the habit of Religion, hath no more reason, then the ma­king or forming a Syllogisme in Barbara, which of it self cometh only from Art; and as such hath no Morall use, and by as good rea­son may the Church Command dancing before a new devised Ark; yea, such an action involveth a contradiction, and is Morall, and not Morall: for of its own nature it tendeth to no edification, for then it might be proved by good reason to be edificative, and an action cannot be edificative from the will of men, for Gods will, not mens will▪ giveth being to things.

4. What is beside Scripture, as a thing not repugnant thereunto, wanteth that by which every thing is essentially Lawfull: Ergo, It is not Lawfull. The Consequence is sure, I prove the Antecedent: Gods Commanding will, doth essentially constitute a thing Lawfull, Gods Commanding will only maketh eating and drinking bread and wine in the Lords Supper Lawfull, and the Lords forbidding [Page 116] will should make it unlawfull; and Gods forbidding to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, maketh the non-eating obedience, and the eating disobedience. As the killing of Isaac by Abraham, is Lawfull, and that because God Command­eth it; and the not killing of him, again is Lawfull, when God for­biddeth it. But things negatively Lawfull and beside the word of God, wanteth Gods Commanding will; for God Commandeth not the materials of Jewish Ceremonies to represent Christ already come, and such like: for if he should Command them, they should be according to the word of God, and not beside the word of God: If it be said they have Gods Commanding will, in so far that he doth not forbid any thing not contrary to his own word; but hath gi­ven the Church Authority to adde to his worship, things not con­trary to his word, as they shall see they do promove godlinesse, or may edifie the Church: But then if the Church must see by the light of reason, and naturall judgement, aptitude in these to promove godlinesse, they are Commanded by God, who hath even stamped in them that aptitude to edifie, and so are not beside Gods word. 4. Our Divines condemne all the Traditions of the Church of Rome; as Purgatory, Prayer for the dead, Imagery, Adoring of Re­liques, all the Crossing, Holy water, Chrisme, Oyl, Babies, Bells, Beads, &c. Because God hath no where Commanded them, and sins veniall and beside the Law, and sins mortall and contrary to the Law, we condemne; because, as what is capable of seeing, and life,Opinion of sanctity & Divine necessity, not essenti­all to false worship. and hearing, and yet doth not see, live, nor hear, that in good rea­son we call blinde, dead, and deaf; all beside the word are capable of Morall goodnesse, and yet not Morally good, because not war­ranted by Gods word, therefore they must be Morally evil.

III. Conclus. Opinion of Sanctity, holinesse and Divine necessi­ty, is not essentiall to false worship. Formalists will have their Ceremonies innocent and Lawfull, so they be not contrary to the word of God. 2. So they be not instamped with an opinion that they binde the Conscience, and are of Divine necessity, holinesse and efficacy; So Morton, Innocency of ceremo­nies gene­rall defense c. 1. S. 15. Morton their Prelat, for opinion of justice, necessity, effi­cacy and merit, (saith he) make them Doctrinals and so unlawfull: But this is but that which Papists say: So Suarez Suarcz, to. de trip. vi [...]t. theol. tract. 1. dis. 5. S. 4. Haec vero & similia (traditionalia non scripta) non adduntur scripturis ut fiant qua [...]i partes [...]jus (quod potest etiam censeri prohibitum) sed adduntur ut cr [...]denda & servanda. saith, That their [Page 117] unwritten Traditions are not added to the word of God, as parts of the word of God; but as things to be believed and observed by the Chur­ches Commandment; and these who did swear by Jehovah and Malcom, Zeph. 1. esteemed Malcom, and an oath by Malcom, not so Religiously and so holy, as an oath by Jehovah and Malcom; and yet no doubt, they ascribed some necessity to oaths by Malcom and Jehoram saying, (Am I Jehovah to kill and make alive) who yet worshipped Ieroboams Calves, esteemed the worshipping of these Calves lesse necessary, and lesse holy and meritorious, then the worshipping of the true Yehovah; yet the Calves called their gods, which brought them out of the Land of Aegypt, had some necessity and opinion of holinesse.

For 1. Aaron in making a Calf, and Proclaiming a Feast to the Calf, committed false worship; but Aaron placed not holinesse, justice, or merit in that worship: Because, Exod. 32. 22. for fear of the people who in a tumult gathered themselves together against him, he committed that Idolatry; Ergo, necessity of Sanctity, Me­rit, and Divine obligation, is not essentiall to false worship: Iero­boam Committed Idolatry in saying, These are thy Gods O Israel; but he placed no efficacy or merit therein, because, 1 King. 12. 27. He did it, least the people going to Ierusalem, should return to Reho­boam, and kill him; And the Philistims dis-worship in handling the Ark unreverently, had no such opinion, they doubting whither God or Fortune ruled the Ark, 1 Sam. 6. 9. It were strange if these who say in their heart, There is no God, Ezech. 9. 9. Psal. 94. 6. And so fail against inward worship due to God, should think that the denying of God were service and meritorious service to God; and that Peter denying Christ, and Iudaizing, Gal. 2. 12. for fear, thought and believed he did meritorious service to Christ therein: Pilate in condemning Christ; Iudas in selling him; the Souldiers in scourging him, did dis-worship to their Creator, the Lord of glo­ry: Shall we think that Pilate, who for fear of the people did this▪ believed he was performing necessary, Divine and Meritorious worship to God? 2. If opinion of necessity Divine, of Merit and sanctity, as touching the conscience, were essentiall to false worship; it were impossible for gain and glory, to Commit Idolatry, to preach lies in the Name of the Lord for a handfull of barley, as Ezek. 13. 19. Mic. 3. 5. 1 Kin. 22. 6. 1 Tim. 4▪1, 2. Tit. 1. 11. For its a contradiction to [Page 118] Preach Arrianisme, Turcisme, Popery, against the light of the minde only for gain; and yet to think that in so doing, they be perfor­ming meritorious service to God: Yea, they who devise will-wor­ship, know their own will to be the Lord-carver of that worship, at least they may know it; yet shall we think they hold themselves necessitated, by a Religious obligation so to do? Else it were im­possible, that men could believe the burning their Children were will-worship, indifferent and Arbitrary to the worshippers, which is open war against reason: Now a worship cannot be false, wanting that which is essentaill to false worship. 3. False worship is false worship by order of nature, before we have any opinion, either that there is Religious necessity in it, or meer indifferency: Ergo, Such an opinion is not of the essence of false worship. 4. By that same reason, opinion of unjustice, or opinion of doing justice, should be of the essence of unjustice; Cains killing of his Brother, should not be Man-slaughter, except Cain placed some divine Sanctity in that wic­ked fact, which is against all reason; and the reason is alike in both Gods Commanding will and his forbidding will. They Answer, Gods will constituteth Lawfulnesse in essentiall worship, and mans will in things arbitrary; but this is to beg the question, for when we ask what is essentiall worship, they say, it is that which God commandeth, and what is accidental or arbitrary, it is that which human authority com­mandeth, & this is just, Gods wil is the essentiall cause of that worship whereof it is the essentiall cause, & mans will is the essentiall cause of that, whereof it is the essentiall cause. 5. All the materials of Jewish and Turkish worship, might be appointed for right worship, so we held them to be Arbitrary. 6. God cannot forbid false worship, but in that tenure, that he commandeth true worship; but whether we e­steem it true, or not, holy, or not; he cōmandeth true worship, Erg. &c.

IV. Conclusion, It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to di­vide The distin­ction of worship es­sentiall and accidentall of Gods generall and parti­cular will is to be re­jected. worship in essentiall, which hath Gods; 1. Particular appro­ving will to be the Warrant thereof, and worship accidentall or Ar­bitrary, which hath only Gods generall and permissive will, and hath mans will for its father; so Ceremonies (say they) ‘In these, hath Gods generall will, according to their specification, whether a Sur­plice be decent, or not, is from mans will, therefore they are called wor­ship reductively, because in their particulars, they have no Divine in­stitution, and they tend to the honouring of God, not as worship, but as [Page 119] adjuncts of worship; so Morton gener. def. cap. 1. S. 22. Morton; so Burges Treatise of kneeling. cap. 2. p. 2. Burges.’

Ans. As Sacramentall worship is lawfull essentiall worship, so that this element, bread and wine, and this water is not Arbitrary; Ergo, If decency be of divine institution, and Gods approving will, then that Surplice or Crossing, or not Surplice and Crossing be de­cent, is not Arbitrary, and only from Gods permitting will: If the generall must be warranted by the word, so also specials under the generall, else mens will may make a horned Bullock a decent Sa­crifice to represent Christ already come in the f [...]sh; for if the writ­ten word warrant not the specials of Religious observances, a door is open for all humane inventions: The uniting of these two (The Crossing of the finger in the Air above a childes face) and (the dedication of the childe to Christs service) are every way like to the uniting, Of Bread and Wine eaten and drunken, and the souls nourishing by Christ crucified and apprehended by Faith: If there be oddes, it is in the Authority of the institutors: Our Formalists say, the one is essentiall, because ordained by Christ, and so bindeth the conscience, and the other Arbitrary, accidentall and of lesse au­thority: We owe them thanks indeed, the sin is the greater that the Authority is the lesse, but the externall worship is alike. There be oddes betwixt the kissing of a wife by a stranger, and the kissing by her own husband, and oddes betwixt an act of Royall Majesty performed by the King, and that same Act performed by a Traitor faining the same Act, as there be oddes betwixt money stroken by a Tinker, and by the Kings master of Coyne; will this distinction serve the whorish woman, the kisses of a strange man be Arbitrary, indifferent and accidentall: but the kisses of my own husband be essentiall and kindely. And the Tinker might save his head for his false coyne, the Kings money is essentially Legall and currant, but money stroken by me, is Arbitrary and of lesse Authority, then the Kings Lawfull Coyn. 2. If it be necessary and good to honour God by decency and order, the particular goodnesse and holynesse of Surplice and Crossing is also good and holy. But God hath parti­cularly, Micah 6. 8. Shewed thee what is good O man; Ergo, he hath also shewed what is particularly holy. But God hath not shewed us in his Word any goodnesse in Crossing, Surplice, because they are of mans devising: If it be said, the particular goodnesse of Sur­plice and Crossing is good and shewed to us in the generall. I An­swer, [Page 120] goodnesse of indifferent Rites, is, Repugnantia in adjecto, and a flat contradiction, as who would say, cold fire, indifferent is nei­ther good nor evil, neither Lawfull, nor unlawfull: 2. Then God hath not shewed us all Morall goodnesse in his word, because he hath not shewed to us the goodnesse of Ceremonies. 3. Lawfulnesse is an essentiall property of Divine worship resulting from Gods particular approving will in his word, as is clear, Hosea 8. 5. 1 Chro. 15. 13. Lev. 10. 1. 2 Sam. 7. 7. Ier. 7. 30. Act. 15. 24. Ergo, Arbitrary worship must have Gods approving will, commanding it, else it is not Lawfull: I prove the Antecedent from the causes of worship: 1. The end of worship, which is the honouring of God maketh not worship Lawfull; Idolaters may intend to honour God in their Idolatry, as well as true worshippers. 2. The matter of wor­ship is not essentiall to Lawfull worship, for Lawfull and unlawfull worship may have the same common matter, as Solomons Calves in the Temple were lawfull, because ordained of God, and Samaria's Calves were unlawfull, because they were from men, the matter of both might be one and the same mettall, Hosea 8. 3. The Form of worship in generall, is not the essentiall and specifice Form of Law­full worship, as the specifice Form of a living creature is not the spe­cifice form of a man, the specifice form of a man is not the specifice form of a just man, as just. Also I may conceive Sacramentall eating in generall, and not conceive whether it be Lawfull or unlawfull: For if Lawfulnesse were the specifice form of worship, I could not conceive worship, but I behooved to conceive Lawfulnesse in it. Now then Gods commanding will, being wanting to Arbitrary worship, it can­not be Lawfull; Ergo, unlawfull. If it be answered, Ceremo­nies are negatively lawfull, not positively lawfull, and the Argument proceedeth of Lawfulnesse positive, which is commanded in the word. But this is, 1. a begging of the question. 2. Negative Law­fulnesse, is from mans will, which should not be a Creatrix of the goodnesse of things or of Lawfulnesse, nor can it Create goodnesse, except you make man to be God: 4. Arbitrary goodnesse and Law­fulnesse hath either a particular warrant and cause of its goodnesse, and Lawfulnesse from Gods expresse Commandment, or 2. From the light of nature, or 3. From the sole will of men, or 4. partly from natures light, partly from mans will, but any of these wayes it can­not [Page 121] be Lawfull, I prove the Antecedent: for it cannot have its war­rant from Gods generall will whereby the Proposition of a Syllo­gisme is warranted, but not the Assumption▪ for thu [...] the golden Calse of Ieroboam; the worshipping of Satan should be lawfull: for I can forme a Syllogisme to it from Scripture (all worship com­manded in the Word is Lawfull▪ but Ieroboams golden Calf is Commanded in the Word; Ergo, It is Lawfull. And if both Major▪ Proposition and Assumption be warranted by the Word, then are Ceremonies essentiall and not Arbitrary wor­ship. If Ceremonies be warranted by the light of nature, this is a part of Gods Word, and Rom. 1. 19, 20. God hath shewed it to us, as, Rom. 2. 14, 15. We would see natures light to prove that whitenesse of linnen signifieth Pastorall holinesse, rather then white­nesse in the wall, and that the crosse signifieth dedication of a childe to Christs service, rather then lifting up of the childe toward Hea­ven signifieth the same; and yet Ceremonie [...] must be by this reason essentiall worship; yea, to Sacrifice a sheep to represent Christ al­ready Crucified▪ is as Lawfull this way as all our Ceremonies. If the third be said, that Ceremonies have their goodnesse and Lawful­nesse from the sole will of men; then Ceremonies are Will-wor­ship: for worship instituted by the sole will of men, without light of Scripture, or nature, is Will-worship. 2. The devisers of them are either Brutish, or void of reason, and the practicers are ser­vants of men, because they serve will, or rather lust of men, without any reason Commanding. 3. If Ceremonies come partly from mens will, partly from the light of reason▪ then do they conclude the Lawfulnesse of Ceremonies either [...]allibly or necessarily: If the former be said, we have little warrant of conscience to practice them; nor can God be honoured, nor these things Lawfull, good, and edificative, more then unlawfull, evil and unapt to edifie, seeing there be no light of Scripture, or nature to make them good to us▪ and because a fallible and unnecessary consequence, is over fallible and unnecessary, and standeth (as 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 [Page 122] 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▪ a [...]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 [Page 123] 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 othe [...]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 de Libert Christ. l. 3. c. 3. ad arg. 3. Non est in potestate le­gislatoris prout volue­rit obligare ad mortale & veniale sed hoe pro­vient ex materiaegra­vitate. Driedo, and Vasquez Tom. 2. in 12. disput. 154. c. 3. Neque enim in voluntate legislator is est obligare vel non ob­ligare. 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, [Page 124] 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 Burges rejoynd c. 2. S. 7. p. 179. saith, Some will-worship i [...] not unlavvfull, a [...] 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 will was not determinatrix in this. 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will: they be much different; but for godlinesse in short sleeves, and Crossing a finger in the Aire, I understand it not, nor can reason dream of any warrant for it, but will, as will, that is, mans lust made it.

Neither do Formalists go from Suarez de relig. to. 2. de houest v [...]ti lib. 1. c. 1. n. 8. 9. Suarez, and Bellar. de esfic. Sacram. l. 2 c. 32. ad arg. 2. Bellar­mine, who call that will-worship, which is devised only by a man [...] wit, and is not conforme to the principles of Faith, and wanteth all reason, and the received use of the Church.

But we are disputing here against the Churches use, as if it were not yet a received use. But upon these grounds I go: 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding, is no reason, but meer will. So Ce­remonies have no reason: If the reason binde, they are essentiall worship: 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods wor­ship, [Page 125] and hath no place to invent new worship. 3. Authority as Authority especially humane, giveth no light, nor no warrant of conscience to obey, and therefore authority naked and void of scrip­tures-light is here bastard authority. 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions: for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick, but not infallible and Divine: Suarez de tripl. virtut. tract. 1. dis. 5. Sect. 4. Suarez giveth the difference: God saith he, Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions, and the Apostles only publishers: But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Aposto­lick Traditions, God in speciall manner guiding their will. So Cajetan opusc. to. 1. tract. 27. Ca­jetan Sotus de justific. l. 7 c. 6. ar. 1 Sotus Bellar. de verbo non Scripto. Bellar. So our Formalists Douna. l. 3. c. 36. Duname 3 Book p. 153. Hoo­ker Sutlu­vius, de Presbyt. c. 11. p. 67. Sutluvius; But I like better what Cyprian epist. 74. Vnde ista traditio? &c. si in Evangelio praecipitur, aut in Apo­stolorum Epistolis, aut actibus continetur, & observe­tur Divina et sanctahaes traditio. The distin­ction of di­vine and of Apostolick Traditions rejected. Cyprian saith, That no Tradition, but what is in the word of God, is to be received: But this distinction is blasphemous, and contrary to Scripture, 1 Cor▪ 14▪ 57. The things▪ that I write unto you: (even of decency and order, as v. 29. 40.) Are the Commandment of the Lord, 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before, by the holy Prophets, and of the Commandments of us the A­postles of the Lord and S [...]vio [...]: Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets. But in the Old Testament, there were not some Traditions Divine, and some not every way Divine, but Propheticall, for the Prophets were the mouth of God, as is clear, 2 Pet. [...]. 19, 20, 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God—14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot, unrebukable, untill the ap­pearing of the Lord Iesus. Now the Commandment (as Beza Beza an in loc. no­teth) Are all that he writ of discipline, which Formalists say, are for the most Apostolicke, but not Divine Traditions. 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost▪ as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son, as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture; as Peter proveth, v. 7, 8, 9. and James v. 13, 14, 15, 16. If they come from the Spirit, inspiring the Apostles, they cannot erre in such Traditions; If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost, they come from Scrip­ture. 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scrip­ture, we shall not know, whether they be Lawfull, or not, for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull. 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies, why not also [Page 126] in preaching and praying? How then do many of them turn Ar­minians, Papists, Socinians? 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institu­tors of Ceremonies, doth either infuse light naturall, supernaturall, or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies, and so Eatenus, in so far they were essential worship▪ or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them, with no light at all, which is brutish Enthusiasme: or 3. Gods Aposto­lick spirit infuseth the generall equity, and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths (Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse) and (Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service) Now light, for this we would exceedingly have. If this light be im­mediatly infused, then Surplice, Crossing are as Divine, as if God spake them; for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity, because they come through sinfull men; for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob, was as Divine, in regard of Authority, as if God had spoken it, but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit, we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word. But some may ob­ject; The preaching of the word is somewhat humane, because its not from the infallible spirit that dited the word; Ergo, Ceremo­nies may come from the holy Spirit, though they be not as lawfull as Scripture. Ans. Let them be proved to be from the warrant, that the word is preached, and we yeeld to all▪ 5. Apostolick Ceremo­nies, but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accept­ing of them. Now Sampsons mother, Judg. 13. 23. proveth well, The Lord hath accepted our offering; Ergo, it is Lawfull, and he will not kill us. So God atcepted Abel, and Noah their Sacrifices; Ergo, they were Lawfull, and Divine worship. So Hosea 8. 8. They sacri­fice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings, and they eat it, but the Lord accepteth them not. Ergo, offerings of flesh without offering of them­selves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull: If God ac­cept of Ceremonies, they must be Divine service, if he accept them not, they must be unlawfull. They Answer, He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship, not as essentiall: I Answer, God might have ac­cepted so Sampsons sacrifice, and Noahs, as arbitrary worship, and yet not be gracious to them, nor reward their sacrificing, as good service, contrary to the Texts alledged; but I doubt much, if the Lord be gracious to men, and accept in Christ corner Caps, Surplice, Crossing, humane holy dayes.

They object, Our Circumstances of time, place, persons, &c. are [Page 127] no more warranted by the Scripture, then Ceremonies are. And God might in his wisdom ( [...]aith Burges rejoynder, cap. 1. Sect. 16. p. 90. Circum­stances not positive re­ligious ob­servances as Ceremo­nies are. Burges) have calculated the order of times and places, such climats and seasons; but he hath left these, as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty.

Ans. Time and place (as I observed already) being circumstan­ces Physicall, not Morall, nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature, from that which is commanded in the Law, though they be not expresly in the Word, do not hinder, but you may say, Such an act of worship is according as it is written: for as Praying, Preaching, hearing, is according as it is written: so is Praying and Preaching in this con­venient place, proved by that same Scripture (As it is written) but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice. 2. The question is not, what Gods wisdom can do, for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors, Doctors, Deacons, Elders in the Word; but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be: But 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, [...]. 1. part. 10. cap. 4. This they have from the Fathers, Vincentius Lyrinensis, co [...]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. [Page 128] Haec enim praecepta Ecclesiastica pro universali. Ecclesia tantum sunt quatuor, qut quin (que), quae solum sunt determinationes quaedam juris Divini moraliter necessaria homini.—Reliqua omnia vel pertinent ad particulares status qui voluntarie suscipiuntur, vel ad ordinem ju­dicial [...]m. Et id [...]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 ne (que) Pontifex, ne (que) 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 s [...] ­cri Canonis veritates, quoniam adipsa fit ultima resoluti [...] 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 Hogo Grotius de jure belli, l. c. 20. n. 48. 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, byArg. 4. Against humane Ceremo­nies, be­cause they usurp the essential properties of Divine ordinances. 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 [Page 129] onely sanctifieth people, offices in his house, as the sons of Aaron, Altars, Temples, Vestures, Sacrifices by his expresse institution, as we are taught, Levit. 20. 8. Exod. 20. 11. 16, 17. Exod. 29. 29. 33. 36, 37. Exod. 40. 9. cap. 2. 10. cap. 26. 1, 2, 3. cap. 27. 1, 2. 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, Book 3. p. 129. 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 [Page 130] 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 because what it teacheth is a lie, for what it teacheth is Scripture, Isa. 52. 11. That these who beareth the Vessels of the Lord, (that is Pastors) should be holy: but it is a Doctrine of lies, because it representeth Pastorall ho­linesse by humane institution, without all warrant of the Word of God. And when Paul calleth holidayes Elements, Gal. 4. 6. He meaneth that they spell to us, and teach us some truth, as Estius, 1, 3. dist. 37. S. 14. Estius saith, That holidayes do teach us Articles of Faith: To which mean­ing, Palud. m. 3. d. 9. q. 1. art. 2. Paludanus, Cajet. in 3. q. 25. art. 3. Cajetan, Vasquez to. 3. de Ado. disp. 103. c. 4. Vasquez say, God may well be painted in such expressions, as Scripture putteth on God, as in the like­nesse of a Dove, as a man with hands, eyes, ears, feet, all which are given to God in Scripture. 4. It is essentiall to the Word to set down the means of Gods worship, which is the very scope of the second Commandment; and therefore the Iews washings and Tra­ditions are condemned, because they be Doctrines of men, appoin­ted by men to be means of the fear or worship of God, as Math. 15. 9. Mar. 7. 8. Isa. 29. 13. Hence we owe subjection of Conscience to Ceremonies, as to lawfull means of Worship. 1. Stirring up our dull senses: And 2. as lawfull signes representing in a Sacramentall signification, holy things: 3. As teaching signes: 4. As means of Gods fear and worship: Whereas God (as Ains­worth, com­mu. of Saints. Ainsworth ob­serveth well) in the second Commandment forbiddeth all images and representations: 2. All shapes, Exod. 20. 4. Temniah. 3. Forms of figures, Tabuith, Deut. 4. 16. 5. Any type of shadow, Tselem, Ezek. 7. 20. 16, 17. 6. Any pictured shape, Maskith, Levit. 26. 1. Any Statue, Monument, Pillar, Mattesebah, any Graven, or Molten Portraict, Hos. 13. 2.

5. We are obliged to obey the Word, Exod. 20. 7. Prov. 3. 20, 21. Prov. 8. 13. Ier. 6. 16. Ier. 5. 7. 2. We owe to the Word be­lief, Luk. 1. 20. Love, Psal. 119. 49. 81. Hope: 3. And are to ex­pect a reward therefore, Psal. 19. 11. Rev. 2. 7. 10. 27, 28. Gal. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 23. Coloss. 2. 18. Hebrew. 11. 25. Psal. 34. 9. [Page 131] Psalme 58. 11. Then if Decency be commanded, and order, in the third Commandment, Ergo, this, and that orderly mean of Worship, as Surplice; But can we say, I hope in the Surplice? O how love I crossing and Capping? can we believe in Ceremonies, as means of Gods worship? 6. The word is Gods mean to work su­pernaturall effects, to convert the soul, Psal. 19. 7. To work Faith, John 20. 3. To edifie, Act. 20. 32. To save, Rom. 1. 16. The obedi­ence to Gods word, bringeth Peace, Psal. 119. 165. Comfort, v. 50. Gen. 49. 18. Isa. 38. 3. But Ceremonies, being apt to stir up the dull minde, must be apt to remove Naturall dulnesse, which is a superna­turall effect, and so to bring, Peace, joy, comfort: Organs are now holden by the same right, that they were in Moses-Law, then they must stir up supernaturall joy: There must be peace and comfort in practising them: Hear how this soundeth, This is my comfort, O Lord, in my affliction, that thy Surplice, Organs, and holy-dayes have quickened my dull heart. Now what comfort, except comfort in the Scriptures? Rom. 15. 4. Ceremonies be innocent of all Scriptures.

What joy (a proper fruit of the Kingdom of heaven, Rom. 14. 17.) can be in saplesse Ceremonies? yea, observe, 1. Who truly conver­red from Popery, who inwardly humbled in soul, doth not abhor Ceremonies, by the instinct of the new birth? 2. What slave of hell and prophane person call not for Ceremonies? 3. Who hath peace in dying, that Ceremonies were their joy? 7. All Lawfull Ordinances may by prayer be recommended to God for a blessed successe as all the means of salvation, Psal. 119. 18. Matth. 26. 26. Act. 4. 29, 30. 2. We may thank God for a blessed successe, which they have by the working of the spirit of Grace, 2 Cor. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 4, 5. 2 Thes. 1. 2, 3. Ephes. 1. 3. 3. We are to have heat of zeal against propha­ning of word, Sacraments, Prayer, or other Ordinances of God: But what faith in praying, Lord work with Crossing, Capping, Sur­plice? For where the word is not, nor any promise, there be no Faith, Rom. 10. 14. What praising can there be for Ceremonies working upon the soul? What zeal (except void of knowledge and light of the word, and so but wilde-fire? Gal. 4. 17, 18. Phil. 3. 6. 2 Sam. 21. 2.) can there be, though the Surplice be imployed to cleanse Cups, and Crossing be scorned? If the subject be nothing, the accidents be lesse; if Surplice be not commanded, nor forbidden, the reverent or irreverent usage thereof, cannot be forbidden, nor [Page 132] commanded, true zeal is incensed only at sin, and kindled toward Gods warranted service. 8. I take it to be Gods appointment, that the Spirit worketh by a supernaturall operation, with his own Ordi­nances, in the regenerated, but we desire to know how the Spirit worketh with Ceremonies: Formalists are forced by these grounds to maintain the Lawfulnesse of Images: So 1. They be not adored: 2. If they be reputed as indifferent memorative Objects, and books to help the memory. But 1. It shall be proved that at first, Papists did give no adoration to Images, nor doth Durandus, Hulcot, Pic. Mirandula acknowledge any adoration due to them, but proper to God▪ before the Images as objects. 2. We may liken God and Christ to a stock, so we count it indifferent, to make, or not to make such an image, yet likening him to any thing is forbidden, Isa 40. 18. Al­so we esteem it Idolatry interpretative, to take Gods place in his word, and to make any thing to be a mean of grace, except Gods own Ordinances: Against all these Formalists have diverse exceptions.

As 1. Our Ceremonies (say they) do not respect the honour of God immediatly, and in themselves, but by accident, and as parts of Divine worship by reduction, as it containeth all the adjuncts of worship.

Ans. Such Logick was never heard of: 1. If he mean a Surplice in the materials, to wit, Linnen and Crossing Physically considered, as separated from their signification, do not tend imme­diatly to the honour of God, but as an adjunct, he speaketh non­sense, for so Bread, Wine, eating, drinking, Water in Baptisme do not immediatly respect the honour of God, but only as they have a Morall consideration and stand under Divine institution. But yet so the materiall of worship is not the adjunct thereof, but the mat­ter, as the body of a living man is not one adjunct of a man. If he mean, that Ceremonies in a Morall (not in a Physicall) considera­tion do not immediatly respect the honour of God, but reductive­ly, and by accident. Let him show us, if the Surplice doth not as im­mediatly, and without the intervening mediation of any other thing, signifie and stir up our mindes to the remembrance of Pastorall holi­nesse, as eating all of one bread, doth immediatly stir up our mindes to the remembrance of our Communion of love, that we be all one body in Christ, 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. If he mean Ceremonies as such spe­ciall [Page 133] 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 Sacrament [...], 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. Burges Rejoinder c. 3. Sect. 9. p. 279. And in a Treatise of kneeling, c. 18. q. 4. p. 57.

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 [Page 134] 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 3. p. To. 1. de ador. 103. c. 4. Cum nos eas form as qui­bus Deus ap­paruit d [...] ­pingimus, nolumus aliud quam bistoriam illam, & effectum ob oculos po­n [...]re. 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 Aquin. 12. q. 102. art. 6. ad. 7. Et idco per aspectum hujus signi induccban­tur in me­moriam suae legis. 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 Just. Martyre Dialog. cum Tryph. ante medium. Justine Martyr Irenaeus l. 4. c. 30. Ireneus Epipha­nius heres. Epi­phanius Chrys. hom. 27. in Gen. Chrysostom Ambros lib. 1. de Abraham cap. 4. 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 [...]. is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collaterall Mistresse over the con­science, & who is the other collaterall judge here? who but Christ? [Page 135] 2. We owe this collaterall subjection of Conscience to the Image of We owe subjection of Consci­ence, colla­terall only to the word. 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 unlawfull teaching means doth bring to our memory, because they have no warrant of Christ, to speak or spell us the very language and minde of God, which God hath spoken in his word by his holy Prophets and Apostles: Yea, though crosses and afflictions work only upon us, as occasions, and externall objects; yet are we to submit our Conscience to them, as to warnings, because they be sent as Gods Messengers appointed by him, as Mic. 6. 9. Hear the Rod, and who hath appointed it. 4. Ce­remonies [...] work (saith Burges) as sensible objects, and as other Crea­tures; yea, but he is far wide, the Creature doth book (as the word is, Psal. 19. v. 1.) the glory of God, and that which may be known of God, is made manifest in them: and God hath manifested ( [...]) these [Page 136] things by the Creatures, Rom. 1. 19. But Ceremonies are not books of Gods writing, God hath not written nor booked this upon a Sur­plice (Be holy, ye who bear the Vessels of the Lord) he hath written it in Isaiahs book, c. 52. 11. And we submit to the teaching of the Creatures, though they work not upon the soul, as the Word and Sacraments do, because God hath appointed such books to teach us; Erg [...], we are in no sort to submit to the Devils books, Printed by Prelats, or to their Ceremoniall Volumnes, because God hath written nothing upon them; and here by the way, I say it is un­lawfull, yea▪ and Hypocrisie to be devouter then God will have us, as to enlarge the Phylacteries, and make them above Gods mea­sure, Numb. 15. 38. To be humble by a mean not appointed of God, Ioh. 13. Or to do what God only should do, as to make An­nointing Oyl besides Gods Oyl, Exod. 30. 31, 32, 33. Or to set a threshold and a post, beside Gods own threshold, Ezek. 43. 8. is pre­sumption.

Lastly, Gods spirit worketh not with Ceremonies, and so theyThe spirit worketh not with Ceremo­nies. are as the offering of Swines blood, and the slaying of a man; and so Abomination to God, Isa. 66. 1, 2. The holy spirit is merited to us by Christ, Ioh. 16. 14. He shall receive of mine, and shew unto you: But who can say that the grace of joy in the holy Ghost, wrought by the droning of Organs, and the holinesse taught by Surplice, is a work of the spirit merited by Christ as our High Priest? 3. God hath made no promise that he will work by Ceremonies, for the spirit worketh not without the Word; so then I might resist the working of the spirit, and not sin against the Word; and this is Anabaptists Enthusiasme: If God work not by them, they be vain and fruitlesse; and the Idol is unlawfull for this, that it profiteth not. Also, the spirits action is either naturall or supernaturall here: If naturall, it is a naturall work, and a naturall spirit, and to be rejected: If supernaturall, we may devise means to produce su­pernaturall effects, mens Ceremonies can produce supernaturall joy, comfort, peace, and acts of grace purchased to us by Christs merit; this is a miracle.

3. They say, All this may be said against your Circumstances of time and place, for they are appropriated to Religious uses, and not for that made holy parts of Divine Worship. 2. Time and place, are new things as our Ceremonies are. 3. Spirituall signification maketh [Page 137] Ceremonies so much the better, but hindreth them not, but that theyBurges, re­joynder, c. 1. S. 15. p. 57, 58. may be Rites of meer Order: Burges.

Ans. Time, Place, Pulpit, Table-cloath, are new, Physically, of­ten, not new Morally, or Religiously, they have no Spirituall influ­ence in worship. A civill declamation hath the same time, place,(b) Ammes, his fresh suit against Ceremo­nies, ib. pulpit with a Preaching; for then, if for application, you call them Religious, as D. Ammes saith well, An hill whereon a Preacher Preacheth, a Iudge perswadeth a Law, a Captain speaketh to his Soul­diers, is both a Sacred, a judiciall, a Military hill, 2. Signification spirituall, maketh Ceremonies capable of being ordered: for Sur­plice wearing, and Crossing, being Doctrinall, as teaching signify­ing, stirring up the dull affections, as doth the Word and Sacrament, they require order and decency: Now things of meer order, re­quireth no ordering, as time & place require not other time & place to circumstance them right. 2. This is that which Papists say (as Suarez, tom. de le­gib. lib. 4. cap. 1. n. 10. Praecepta Ecclesiastica feruntur quatenus convenienti [...] sunt ad bo­nos mores, ut res sacrae cum debito honore fiant; consequenter vero interdum habent significationem moralem, quae homines excitat ad virtutem & spem gloriae. Su­arez) that by consequent only, they have signification putupon them.

Now fourthly, The place, Matth. 15. where Christ reprovethThe place, Matth. 15. touching Traditions of the El­ders dis­cussed. the Traditions of Pharisees, as Doctrines of men. The Jesuit Vasquez his Answer is their Answer: Vasquez, Tom. 2. in 12. disp. 152. cap. 4. That Christ reproveth them not because they kept the Tradi­tions of the Elders; Sed quod in falsis praeceptis Divinae legi contrari is­putarent esse summam Religionis: Because they believed all Religion to stand in their Traditions, which were contrary to Gods Law, and for their own, omitted Gods Commandments. And Suarez, Tom. de legib. lib 4. cap. 2. He reproveth what they added, Tanquam nova, as new things: Corduba, Ad. victor. rel. 1. de potestate Ecclesiae, q. 3. Prop. 6. But Chrysostom, Hom. 32. in Matth. Thinketh bet­ter that they had no power to make Laws; yea, Janse­ [...]ius, Con­cord. Evan­ge. p. 120. Becanus the Iesuit, in opusc. to. 2. de. Analog. vet. et New Test. cap. 1. q. 7. n. 13, 14, 15. reckoneth out three causes, why Christ reproved all the Traditions of the Pharisees▪ 1. Because they sought vain glory in some of them, Matth. 23. v. 5. 2. They sought gain of others of their Traditions, Matth. 23. 14. [...]3. They preferred some of them to weightier matters of Gods Law. Ans. None of these toucheth the point in this text, because the Tradition of washing hands, is reproved by Christ for want of a lawfull Author, and so the matter of it also was unlawfull; for Christ calleth it a Doctrine of men. he condem­neth the Laws written in their forehead.

[Page 138]But this exposition is false: 1. They brought in Traditions at first for vain glory, to be called Rabbi, Matth. 23. 7, 8. Ergo, they thought them not at first of Religious necessity: 2. Mark saith, cap. 7. 5. Why walk not thy Disciples according to the Traditions of the Elders? Therefore the externall practice, and not the inter­nall opinion of necessity and holinesse is condemned, as is clear. And when the Pharisees saw some of the Disciples eat bread with unwash­en hands, they found fault. The challenge was for an external omission of an outward observance, which may be seen with the eyes; Ergo, these Traditions are not condemned by Christ, because they were contrary to Gods Word, or impious; but in this, that they were contrary, because not Commanded; for in the externall Religious act of washing hands, there was no other impiety of a wicked opi­nion objected to Christs Disciples: for if the Pharisees eye had been satisfied in that the Disciples should wash before they eat, they would not have contended with Christs Disciples, about the Piety of these Traditions, nor about any inward opinion, that they added under this Reduplication as new, as Suarez saith: But the Church which cannot erre, including the Jewish Pope, the High Priest, can adde nothing as new contrary to Gods Law; nor is there any que­stion betwixt the Pharisees and the Lords Disciples: Whether the Traditions of the Elders, should be esteemed the marrow and sum of all Religion, as Vasquez saith; But only anent externall conformity with walking in the Traditions of the Elders, or not walking, as is most clear in the Text: It is true, Christ objected they accounted more of mens Traditions, nor of Gods Commandments, as Papists and Formalists do: But that was not the state of the question betwixt the Disciples of Christ and the Pharisees. 2. Christ rejecteth these Traditions, by an Argument taken from the want of a lawfull Au­thor, while he calleth them Precepts of men, opposed to the Com­mandments of God, and while he saith v. 13. That every plant not rooted by his heavenly Father, shall be rooted out; Yea, and Christ expresly proveth their worship vain, because they taught the fear and worship of God, by the precepts of men, and not by the word of God; and Ceremonies are the precepts of men. 3. Mar. 7. 10, 11, 12. He alledgeth their corrupt and false exposition of the fifth Com­mandment, in saying, It is a gift whereby Parents may benefit, which Children offer to God, though they help not their Parents in their po­verty; [Page 139] & necessity, & so you free them from obedience to the fifth Com­mandment of God, by setting up your false glosse (saith Christ) which is a human tradition. Then to Christ this is a good argument, your cor­rupting of the fift Cōmandment with your false glosses is a rejecting of Gods 5. Commandment; why? because it is a doctrine of men, and one of the Pharisees Traditions: For whether they placed operative sanctity in preferring mens Commandment to Gods or not; none can deny but Christ reasoneth against these evils, because they were mens Traditions, otherway Formalists shall be forced to say, that if the Pharisees have esteemed them Arbitrary, and of no operative sanctity, mens Commandments had not been vain worship; Christs Argument from Isa. 29. should prove nothing, for false glosses and corrupting the fifth Commandment is not vain worship, because it is a doctrine of men; for Doctrines of men as only coming from men, and esteemed Arbitrary, are not vain, saith Formalists; yea, except they be contrary in the matter to Gods Law, and proffered or equalized in the opinion of sanctity to Gods Law, they are not a whit vain, because they come from men, or are doctrines of men. 4. Christ defendeth his Disciples practice in abstaining from exter­nall not-washing; Ergo, he esteemed the externall washing unlaw­full: But if the Disciples abstinence was because of the impiety of washing, and the opinion of sanctity put upon washing, otherwayes Lawfull; he should have defended his Disciples in a thing unlaw­full; for to disobey the Elders and Church-guides, who sate in Mo­ses's chair, and were to he obeyed, Matth. 23. 2, 3. in an externall indifferent act of washing not contrary to the washings comman­ded in Moses Law, and so negatively conforme to Gods Law, is Lawfull, as Formalists and Papists both teach; but Christ defended his Disciples in their non-obedience externall, for they were not challenged, for denying the opinion of operative holinesse to these Ceremonies: Christ who commanded obedience to sitters in Moses his chair in all things Lawfull, would have obeyed himself, and clea­red his Disciples in so far, as they ought to obey, or not to obey. 5. Vasquez sayes, These Traditions were unlawfull, because they were invented, Sola voluntate hominum absque ratione, by the sole will of men without reason. But so are Popish Ceremonies, for if they can be proved by the word of God, and the light of nature, they are es­sentiall parts of Gods word, and not accidentall, nor left to the [Page 140] Churches will. 2. It is good then the Iesuit confesseth the Church from sole will, and so the Pope and Prelat can make no Laws, but either Scripture or natures light must warrant them, and sole will cannot rule them: 3. They had as good reason in generall from Moses his writings, and the Law-washings, as Pope and Prelats have for their Traditions. But saith Vasquez, Christ complaineth of these traditions, because they held them to be, Summam Religionis, the mar­row of Religion, and took no care of Gods Law. Ans. That will no more prove them to be vain worship, and that the Disciples were to be justified in their non-conformity to these Church washings, then that Gods Disciples, and sound believers under the Old Testament should abstain from keeping Gods Sabbaths, his new-Moons, and from offering Sacrifices, because the people placed all holinesse in these of old, and neglected works of mercy and justice, Isa. 1. 11, &c. Jer. 7. 4, 5, 6. But (say Formalists) Christ condemneth them because the Pharisees thought, eating with unwashen hands defiled the conscience, and meat defiled the soul, when the eaters did not wash as the elders commanded: Whereas Christ saith, It is not that which goeth in at the mouth, which defileth the man, but the wickednesse that cometh out at the heart. Ans. It is true, and I think Pharisees be­lieved meat eaten contrary to the Elders Traditions, defiled the conscience, as is clear, Mat. 15. 16, 17, 18. And that also Christ con­demneth, as a Doctrine of men, and of ignorant men, and so doth non-conformity to your Ceremonies pollute the conscience as a breach of the fifth, and second Command as you say.

QUEST. IV.

Whether humane Ceremonies can consist with Order, Decency, and the sincerity of our profession of true Religion?

CEremonies fight with Order and Decency. 1. These Rites pre­tendedIV. Arg. by Gods command, to adde order and decency to Gods worship, and yet deface his worship, and addeth none thereunto be unlawfull: But humane Ceremonies be such; Ergo, That they pretend Order is proved. D. Burges saith, They have no place in all the New-Testament, save only, 1 Cor. 14. 26. Let all things be done in order, and decency, a place as (a) Estius citeth, Magnified by Pa­pists, Estius l. 3. [...]. 37. p. 139 for all their Ceremonies: The Major is undeniable, I prove [Page 141] the Assumption: 1. Because Magick-like Rites honoured with Gods name as Christian-Masse, Christs-Masse, an Adored Tree called Gods board, when there is no use for a Table, a Crossing ho­noured with dedication to Christs service, is like Gods name used by sorcerers in Charming, Spelling, Divining, where vertue is ascri­bed to signes, characters and words, which have no such vertue from God or nature, and this Valentia justly calleth Superstition. Gregor▪ de valent, to. 3. dis 6. q 13. pun. 1. S [...] effectus intentus superet vim­medii, erit superstitio. Ceremo­nies Magi­call▪ So the Iews called the Calfe Jehovah, Papists call a creature of their making, Agnus Dei, a stile due to Christ only, Joh. 1. 29. 2. All creatures are means of glorifying God, Rev. 4. 11. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36. And may be invited to praise God, as Psal. 148. Now it were strange bleating, to say, O Crossing, Surplice, Praise ye the Lord, when things ordained by mans sole will, and so idle and sinfull, are made means to glorifie God; with as good reason dancing in the Church, and blowing feathers in the Aire, which have by nature or reason, no aptitude for these ends, may be decent means of glori­fying God. 2. Order and decency supernaturall in the Church is in the Word, Cant. 6. 4. Clear as the Sun, terrible as an Army with Banners: Nothing wanting Gods institution can reach a superna­turall end, as our Ceremonies are: 2. But also Ceremonies relative­ly sacred in Religious state must be more then civilly decent, as alsoIf the third Commād­ment, com­mand De­cency in its generality, as they say, then it must com­mand de­cency in this, or this Rite, as in Surplice, Crossing, &c. right order produceth supernaturall joy, Gal. 2. 5. Civill order can­not do this: Or 3. Ceremonies adde naturall order, but this is not in colour, Religions colour is supernaturally white, ingenuous, not whorish: 2. Or then it addeth order of parts, and this is by right, grave, and convenient circumstantiating of things in Gods wor­ship, and Paul dreamed never of Crossing to grace baptizing: 3. Or it addeth due quantity, Religious worship hath no quantity but time. 4. It is against sense, that order is commanded in the third Commandment, but not Surplice, Crossing, because they are by ac­cident orderly; what agreeth essentially to the generall, agreeth not essentially and necessarily to the speces and particulars which are by accident under that generall, as what agreeth to a man, a­greeth not to white and black men. Decency is commanded, but by accident, and by mans will Surplice is decent. But then God commanding Sacraments, should not command Bread and Wine, sor they are by accident, and by Gods will Sacraments, he might have chosen other Elements, yet the will of God commanding Sacra­ments, [Page 142] commandeth this and this Sacrament also: What agreeth essentially to man, agreeth essentially to all men black and white. If Gods will essentially concur to constitute decency in his own worship, then must that same will essentially concur to constitute this decency, in Surplice, Crossing. 2. It supposeth a great untruth, that Crossing is not worship, because not ordained of God, but that proveth it is not Lawfull worship, but not, that it is non-worship, for Crossing used to the honour of Baal, and to edifie souls in per­forming their duty to Baal, is essentially a worshipping of Baal, otherwayes worshipping of Idols is not Worship, and yet it is an Act of Religious honouring of the Idol. 3. The Command that commandeth, or forbiddeth the end, commandeth and forbiddeth the means (Thou shalt not murther) forbiddeth the Master, not to command his servant to ride an extreamly deep and impetuous Ri­ver, though the not riding of such a River be not set down in the word, and it is not forbidden as an Arbitrary action: If therefore decency binde the conscience, then the decency of this Rite, to wit, Crossing bindeth the conscience; Our Ceremonies are not Natio­nall; for Crossing being a Religious Rite, in all the world its alike decent; Ergo, non▪ Crossing in some Country cannot be undecent; Things meerly Religious, as all significant Ceremonies are of alike nature every where, and admit not of heat and cold with divers climates, are of good or evil manners, with divers Nations, there­fore they must be determined in the word; the man who Pre [...]aced on our Service book said, without some Ceremonies it is impossible to keep any order, or quiet Discipline in the Church. I am sure he must think that Paul preached in some Surplice that he might teach ho­linesse with his garments one way or other, he hath a stronger Faith then I can reach; without circumstances worship cannot be, but without Romish dirt, the Worship and Discipline are better kept▪ then with such whorish busking.

Also whatever is a profession in fact, of a false Religion byV. Arg. Iewish and Popish Ce­remonies are profes­sions of a false Reli­gion. Ceremonies indifferent, and yet proper to a false Religion, is a denying of the true Religion, but the using of these Cere­monies, used by Papists and Iews is such; Ergo, The Proposition is Scripture, Gal. 2. 14. Peter lived after the manner of the Iews, in using the Religious materials of the Jews, though he had no Iewish intention or opinion; yea, Acts 10. he disputeth against that: So [Page 143] Circumcision, Galathians 6. 14, 15▪ is put for the Jewish Church. Now Altars, Organs, Iewish Ephods, or Surplice, Masse▪ cloaths, and Romish Crossing, bowing to Altars, Images, are badges of Iewish and Popish Religion: We know the dispute betwixt Augustine and Ierome, who defended Peters d [...]ssimulation, Gal. 2. to gain the Iews: But Augustine saith, Epist. 9. Si propterea illa Sacramen­ta celebravit (Paulus) quia simularet se judaeum, ut illos lucrifaceret, cur non etiam Sacrificavit cum Gentibus, quia & iis, qui sine lege erant, tanquam sine lege factus est, ut eos quo (que) lucrifaceret▪ Yea, then (as Augustine saith to Ierome, Epist▪ ad Hyeronym, 19.) We might use all the Iewish Ceremonies to gain the Ievvs, and so fall in the Herersie of Ebion and the Nazarites. Duvallius, 2. Thom tract. de legib. q. 3. Art. 3. would defend Peter in that; but he saith, Magis placet Barronii Responsio. Tom. 1. Annal. an. 51. Petrum ve­nialiter peccasse: As for Pauls Circumcising of Timothy, Papists clear him. Vasquez, Tom. 1. in 12. disp. 181. cap. 8. Lo [...]o & tem­pore accomodato, He did it when he could not offend the Gentiles: Aquinas, 12. q. 103. Art. 4. Yea, so the Fathers, as Augustine, Epist. 19. Chrysostom, Cyrill, Hyeronym.

Also Papists, Bensonius, tractat▪ de fuga, lib. 1. disp. 1. q. 4. ad Articul. 4. Vasquez, Tom▪ 1. 12. disp. 182. cap. 4. Brove to use Iewish Ceremonies, though with no Iewish minde is unlawfull: Suarez Tom. de legib. lib. 9. de leg. Divin. pos. cap. 14. Ʋsus Circumcisi­onis ex prohibitione est factus malus, & actus malus non honestatur propter intentionem bonam. Aquinas 22. q. 11. c [...] 12. q. 103. Art. 4. As one should mortally sin, who should say, Christum nunc nas [...]itu­rum, Christ is yet to be incarnat, So the using of the Iewish Ceremo­nies were a lie in fact. Cajetan, and Toletus, acknowledge a lie in fact. Salmeron, in Gal. 5. q. 2. saith, It is unlawfull to use the Iewish Ceremonies. Aegidius Comick▪ de actib. supernatural. lib. 2. disp. 15. dub. 3. [...]. 39. Nullo modo licet obullum▪ finem, uti Ceremoniis propriis falsae Religionis. Vasquez, 12. disp. 182. [...]. 48. Patres & Doctores communiter tenent non licere: Lodo. Meratius Iesuita, to. 1. in Thom. tract. de legib. disp. 19. Sect. 2. n. 5. Mentiti fuissent Apostoli usurpantes exteriores legis Mosaicae Ceremonias si non ex ani­m [...] usurpabant, tanquam sibi vere licitas, ex animo vere colendi Deum per illas, sicut ab aliis per easdem colebatur. So Grego. Ʋalent. Tom. 2. disp. 7. punct. 7. q. 7. Soto de justif. l. 2. q. 5.

[Page 144]It is a Religious scandall to the users of these Ceremonies: forArg. 6. Ceremonies devised by men, of no necessary use in Gods worship, are monuments of Idolatry, snares drawing the practisers to Idola­try, and so unlawfull, as the High places, Groves, Images, though not Adored of the Canaanites. This Argument is so learnedlyD. Ammes fresh suit. prosecuted by D. Ammes, that I adde nothing to it.

QUEST. V.

Whether the Ceremonies, especially kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, be guilty of idolatry?

VVHoever presumeth to invent a worship of his own, com­mittethArg. 7. Idolatry interpretatively, because he worshippeth a God whom he conceiveth is pleased with false worship: But that is not the true God, for he is pleased with no worship, but what he hath prescribed himself; but all inventers and practisers of hu­mane Ceremonies, worship such a God: Also, all who usurpethOf Religi­ous kneel­ing. the room and place of God, give the glory of God to creatures; but all Authors and practisers of humane Ceremonies, take the room and place of God, from God, and give it to creatures, because to ordain worship; and all Religious means of worship, is proper to the only wise Law-giver: But for the clearing of this Question, I divide it in some subordinate Questions.

SECT. I.

Whether Religious kneeling, laying aside our intention and will to Adore that before which we kneel, of its own nature be Adoration?

This Question is most necessary, both against Papists and Forma­lists: But first remember, that Ratha­el de la Torres, or▪ din. prae­dicat. tom. 1. in 22. Tho. q. 84. tra. 2. disp. 5. Raphael de la Torres, a late School­man, maketh seaven Adorations: 1. Bowing of the knee. 2. Pro­stration. 3. The lifting up of the eyes. 4. Of the hands to Hea­ven. 5. Kissing. 6. Knocking on the Breast. 7. Uncovering of the head: Though this last be not Adoration, but a Nationall sign of Reverence, and is not every where Adoration; yet Abu­lensis in Le­vit. cap. 13. q. 10. A­bulensis saith, the Iews did pray and Sacrifice with covered heads: So saith Virgil. An. 3. Et capiteante aras phry­gio velatus amictu. Virgill, and Lod. vi­ves com. in August. de civit. dei lib. 15. c. 2. Lod. Vives: Therefore the Corinthians had this from the Grecians as a civil sign of gravity, which should not be banished from Gods worship; and if it be appropriate to an I­dol, it should in that case be made Veneration: But no Reverence [Page 145] at all is due to an Idol. Jesuits, as Suarez. Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. q. 25 art. 5. Sect. 4. Suarez▪ and others, and Formalists, Morton, Burges, Hooker teach us, That Religious bow­ing before a creature, if there be no intention of Adoring, is not A­doration: But it is to be considered;

1. Bowing of the knee Physically or civilly▪ is indifferent and is not Adoration: for we bow to Kings, and Artificers may bow the knee to drive a nail in a bed, and yet are not Adoring; but Religious Adoration, whither ye will or not by natures impression is a Religious note of Religious submission.

2. I consider four acts of the soul that may convoy externall A­doration.Four things in Adoration. 1. One of the minde, a consideration of the excellency of what we Adore: 2. A will to submit to this excellency: 3. The judgements diting this to be honest to submit: 4. A purpose or intention habituall or actuall of Adoring; many of these may be where there is no Adoring: and the Religious externall bowing of the body is essentially Adoring, when that bowing is in a state of worship: kneeling before consecrated Elements for Reverence of either God or the Elements, must be Adoration, though we should wash it with foul water, and say, that there is no intention to ten­der Gods glory to these Elements.

3. Let it be considered what is said by the Joannes de Lugo, de myster. in­carna [...], dis. 23. Sect. 2. n. 23. Jesuit Joannes de Lu­go, the Popes Professor at Rome, which I propound with some change: 1. There is a purpose of externall Adoring, with an inward submis­sion of the heart; whether this be an habituall or actuall intention, it▪ is sure it is an Adoration, when it cometh forth in a gesture of A­doring. 2. A will to bow the body in scorn and derision, as the Souldiers bowed the knee before Iesus; and this being not in a state of worshipping, but in a state and [...]ase of disgracing, is not Religi­ous bowing or Adoration: This is not a naturall expression of in­ward submission, but rather of disgrace. 3. There is a willed or voluntary Religious bowing for fear, for gain, or for glory; yet without any internall estimation of the excellency of the thing A­dored. This Suarez denyeth to be worshipping, it being only a faining of worship, not a worshipping.Intention of worship not essen­tiall to worship.

But I prove the contrary: 1. Because then no enacted wor­shipping of Idols, were indeed a worshipping of an Idol, and yet all the time that the Adorer boweth his knee to the Idol, though he have no inward purpose of heart to Adore the externall bowing, [Page 146] must be a naturall expression of actuall submission to the thing be­fore which we bow, and a conciliating of an opinion with others, of Religious eminency and subjection of Divine dignity, to that thing before which we kneel. 2. Religious kissing of the Calves of Samaria, Hos. 8. is a naturall expression of Religious love to these Calves, though the kisser have no intention of worshipping▪ 3. Act. 14. 11, 12, 13. The men of Lystra are reproved for Sacri­ficing, and so for Adoring-men; 15. Sirs, Why do ye these things for we also, are men of like passions as you, and Preach to you that ye should turn from these Vanities to the living God? Barnabas and Paul rebuketh the men of Lystra, because they worshipped men with humane passions; yet did they not intend to worship men, for they were to them in that act of worshipping, Gods in mens shape, as they say, v. 11. Gods are come down to us in the likenesse of men; if they conceived them not to be men indeed, but Gods come down from heaven; then could they not intend to worship men, but Gods: So Iohn would not, nor had any purpose to worship a cre­ated Angel; but taking him to be God, he fell down and worship­ped, as is clear by the Angels reproofe, Rev. 19. 10. He said unto me, See thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant: Likewise, Act. 17. The Athenians set up an Altar not to the Pourtraict of gold, which yet they worshipped, v. 2. 4, 5. but intended not to worship it;Also to in­tend wor­ship is es­sentiall to worship, as sincere and hearty; Ergo, [...] is not essen­tiall to worship in generall, as what is es­sentiall to the spece as such, is not essentiall to the general that com prehendeth that sp [...]ce. But the God which made heaven and earth, whom Paul preached: So are the Gentiles said to offer to Devils, not to God▪ what they offer, 1 Cor. 10. 20. Deut. 37. 17. Psal. 106. 37. and 2 Chron. 11. 15. Peroboams Calves are Devils; and yet they intended not to wor­ship Devils, but God, that brought them out of the Land of Aegypt, 1 King. 12. 28.

4. If Religious kneeling require that we intend to worship eve­ry thing, before which; as an object, we do Religiously kneel; then Religious kneeling should not signifie in ernall submission of the heart by natures impression or Divine institution; but by the vo­luntary and the free institution of him that kneeleth: But this [...]a [...] ­ter is absurd, for if kneeling should signifie, what it doth signifie by our free and voluntary appointment: Then we might 1. put upon naturall gestures what sig [...]ific [...]tion we pleased, and were not to stand to the signification which God and nature have put upon kneeling. 2. So it were in mans power to impose upon Religious [Page 147] kneeling to God, civill curtesie, such as a subject expresseth to his Prince, or a son to his Father, and it were free to us to kneel to a stock, and that Religiously, and yet put upon kneeling the negative reverence, that we give to the Bible; and it were in the three chil­drens will to kneel to N [...]buchadnezzars Image, and impose this signification on the g [...]sture, that they were kneeling to God only, all which are manifestly false: so Field of the Church, 4. book cap. 31. Field saith, kneeling hath in­stitution from the instinct of nature.

They Object, 1. The externall act of kneeling signifyeth the in­ward submission of heart, but there is no inward submission of the heart to a thing to which we kneel, when we are compelled to kneel on­ly for fear of men, or induced to kneel for hope of glory, or some by­respect without any intention or purpose to adore, therefore this exter­nall Adoration is a false signe, and signifieth not a thing as it is, and so is no worship.

Ans. That externall bowing is not true, but false: I distinguish, it is not true Morally, because it is a false signe, and a sinfull abu­sing of worship, for there ought to be a bow [...]d heart, when there is a bowed knee, but if the meaning be, this externall bowing is not true metaphysically, and partaketh not of the nature of Religious worshipping, it is false, for it is truly worship, and the essence and definition of worship agreeth to it: for from Religious bowing there resulteth by the nature of the externall Act, which is of di­vine institution, an honouring of that before which we do bow, as before a proposed object, what ever be the present purpose or intention of the bower: else if I bow to an Idol intending, and conveying in my heart-purpose all honour to God only, I should not worship an Idol: The three Children cast into the fiery Fur­nace did but refuse externall bowing to Nebuchadnezzar, and would hazard upon burning quick, before they should give that to theReligious bowing of its nature, not by mans free and Arbi­trary in­tention sig­nifieth di­vine Ado­ration. Image; for the Kings commandment was not, that all should give and convey in purpose of heart to that Image all divine glory, but only Religious prostration before it; yet the three Children say, Dan. 3. Well, be it known to thee, O king, that we will not serve thy Gods, nor worship thy golden Image, [...] They expresly re­fuse knee-bowing, & the reason is, because if ye bow your knee Re­ligiously to a stock, it is not in your power or free choice, to stay the flux and motion of Religious honour off, or from the stock; but [Page 148] because Religious bowing doth not convey honour to the thing be­fore which ye bow by your free will, but by God and natures in­stitution, even as weeping naturally expresseth sorrow, laughing, gladnesse, so doth Religious bowing signifie Religious honouring, without any act of the free choice of the worshipped intervening. It is impossible to adore God, in and through an Image, and give no Religious reverence to the Image at all; as it is impossible to hear the word and tremble at it; and yet none of that Religious trem­bling be bounded and terminated upon the Word; as it is impossible to kneel to the Kings Ambassador conveying all and whole that ci­vill honour to the King, but some honour must redound to the Am­bassador; a father cannot love the Doctor for his sons cause, but some love he must confer really upon the Doctor, if not absolute, yet relative, for his sons cause. Jacob could not kisse Joseph his sons coat, and yet refer that whole expressed affection to Ioseph and no­thing at all to the coat, for then should there be no reason, why he should kisse the coat, rather then the skin of the beast supposed to be the devourer of his son; if therefore the Communicant should kisse the Sacramentall Bread, as he boweth Religiously before it, as the object of his Sacramentall worship, which he receiveth, I hope it would be thought very like the kissing of the Calves of Sa­maria, and a Religious expression of love to the bread, and by the same case, Religious bowing to God, by the interveening of bread a representative object, must be an expression of Religious ho­nouring of Bread, but no Religious honouring by Religious bowing can be expressed, but Adoration of bread; for as I have proved, it is not in our free Election that Religious kneeling signifie what ho­nour we please, as if it were in our power, that Religious kneel­ing signifie Religious, or civill honour, or more, or lesse Religious honour, but our will or thoughts cannot change the nature of things; kneeling is essentially Religious, as Ioannes de Lugo, de mystei incarnat, disp. 13. S. 2. n. 14. Iohannes Delugo de­fineth it, Nota submission is internae.

2. Suarez to. 1. in 3. q. 25. art. 5. S. 4. Objection of Suarez contending that inten­tion of a­doring is essentiall to Adora­tion, remo­ved. Suarez objecteth, Adoration is a voluntary action proceed­ing from the will of the Adorer; and therefore excluding this will, it is not Adorations, but only the materiall action of adoring; also ado­ration is honouring, but none can honour without an intention of hono­ring, and therefore he who externally giveth signes of honour to an Idol without an intention to honour the Idol, doth not truly honour and adore the Idol, but only dissembleth.

[Page 149] Ans. Qui bené distinguit benè solvit: Our third distinction doth well answer this: The naked materiall action of bowing Physically considered, wanting all Religious will of adoring is not an honou­ring; if a Carpenter bow before an Image to drive a naile in it, he doth not worship the Image, because that is an action, In statu artis, non in statu Religionis; In a state of Art, not in [...] Religi­ous state: But the voluntary bowing before any thing in a state of worship, or Religion, as its here, is Adoration; for there is vo­luntary bowing in a Religious way of a state, but there is not re­quired a particular intention to Adore the signe, that is accidentall to the nature of worship.

Suarez objecteth, The e [...]nce of Adoration requireth the inten­tion of the Adorer, therefore the adoring of this, or that thing, requi­reth a proportionable intention of adoring the thing.

Ans. 1. The Antecedent is not universally true, and is a begging of the question, because externall adoring of an Idol may be without intention to adore an Idol. 2. Though the Antece­dent were true; that an absolute Adoration of God requi­reth the intention of the doer, as it is not true; Lawfull and sincere Adoration indeed requireth the intention, but not ab­solute adoration: Though (I say) it were true, yet it followeth not that a relative adoration requireth an intention of giving co-adora­tion or relative worship to the signe.

Suarez. 3. Objecteth: The honouring of one thing cannot proper­ly be called the honouring of another thing different therefrom, except that honouring be some way referred by the minde, to that other thing, or except they be partakers one of another; but the Image, and first samplar, or prototype are different things, therefore the honouring of the first samplar cannot be called the honouring of the Image, except the honouring by the intention be referred to the Image. I answer, The Image and Samplar are one in a sinfull imagination, as Jehovah and the Golden Calf are one, but it followeth not, that there must be two distinct intentions, one in adoring the Prototype, and in co­adoring the Image another: But he who intendeth to honour the King in his Ambassadors person, needeth not two intentions, one by which he intendeth to honour the King, another whereby he in­tendeth to honour his Ambassador.

SECT. II.

Whether the Idolatrous Jevvs were charged with the crime of Idola­try, because they adored the creature as such, or because they ado­red the Godhead in, with, or under the creatures shape? and whe­ther or no, do Papists commit Idolatry with them in this point:

LEt these considerations go before.

1. That the Jews believed the Image to be God by vvay ofOf the I­dolatrous worship of the Iews and Pa­pists. representation, not essentially or really; they believed the Image to be God objective, commemorative, representative, relative, declarative, significative; Non essentialiter, non per se, non realiter.

2. There is an honour or negative r [...]verence due to any Image of God, ordained by himself, or to any mean of honouring God, because it is such, though it cannot be expressed in the act of Adoration; but the question is, if the honour of adoration, either relative or absolute be due to the Image?

3. The Jews intended to honour Jehovah in their Images, what inferiour intention they had to honour the Image, we are now to inquire.

4. We bow our knee two wayes before a creature, either be­fore a creature as an object by accident, as while we pray, there of ne­cessity must be before us some creature, a wall, a Table, a Pulpit, none of these are adored, because they are before us by accident, as ha­ving no Religious state. The Image before the Iew, and the Sacra­mentall elements before the kneeler, cannot be thus present: 2. The creature is before the kneeler, of Religious purpose, as a Religious object.

5. The Creature is Religiously present before the kneeler two wayes, 1. Active. 2. Passive. 1. In the meer and naked act of teaching and exciting the memory, so that when that act is past, I turne from the creature, and adore the Creator; So at the sight of the Sun or Moon being taught and instructed of the wisdom and power of God, in crea­ting such excellent creatures, I am to turn from them, and adore the Lord of these creatures. Thus the creatures are kindely and per se objects in the act of teaching, but not objects at all in the act of ado­ration: 2. The creatures are objects passive, when bodily bowing in a religious state is directed toward the creatures really and bodily present by a commandment of the Church, or of purpose, and so they are made objects of Adoration.

[Page 151] I. Conclusion. The relative expression of God which is in theThe rela­tive ex­pression of God in the creature, no ground of Adoring the crea­ture. works of God, is no formall ground of any Adoration of the crea­tures. 1. Because Adoration upon this ground, though the crea­tures, the Hoast of Heaven be excellent, is forbidden, Deut. 4. 19. 2. Not only Images (which cannot represent God) and the Sa­craments, but all the creatures, even, Rats, Mice, Flyes, Frogs, Worms, Iudas and wicked men, yea, and Devils are to be worship­ped, because all things having being, are shadows and footsteps of God, their cause, first Author, and last end, Psal. 19. 1. Psal. 103. 22. Rom. 1. 19, 20. Act. 17. 27, 28, Prov. 16. 4. Rev. 4. 11. Rom. 11. 36, 37▪ 3. Because God is really, and by the diffusion of his blessed essenc [...], present in all creatures, it followeth not that we should A­dore them: The Formalists upon this ground, that Christ is re­ally present in the Sacrament, though the manner we know not, think that Christ should be Adored in the Sacrament, according to that, Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus. But if this be good Logick, because we know not the way of the Spirit, and how the bones grow in a woman with childe, Eccles. 11. v. 5. And God, where he worketh, is present by the immediation of es­sence and power, though we know not the way of his presence, we are to Adore the soul of man, and the bones of a young childe in a womans belly; & though they should say that God-man Christ is in a more powerfull and efficacious manner present in the Sacrament, then in the works of nature; yet should it follow, that God is to be worshipped in the works of nature also▪ for Magis & minus non variant speciem, for then we could not conclude any thing but this: Though there be not so reall a ground of Adoring Lice and Frogs, as Adoring of the Sacrament: Yet there is a ground, seeing God is, in the realli [...]y of his blessed essence, present in all creature [...].

II. Con [...]lusion. The Idolatrous Jews did not. Adore the goldenThe Iews believed not the golden Calf to be really God. Calf, as a crea [...]ure, but as God by representation, Exod. 32. 4. And when Aaron had made thereof a golden Calf, they said, These be thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt. 5. And when Aaron saw it, he built an Altar before it, and Aaron made Proclamation, and said▪ To morrow is a Feast to Iehovah. Now that they believed not the golden Calf to be really and essentially Iehovah, is more then evident: 1. Because they believed not Mo­ses to be essentially God, but their guide and leader under God; but [Page 152] this Calf they made to supply the want of Moses, v. 1. The people gathered themselves together against Aaron, and said unto him, Ʋp▪ make us gods which shall go before us: For as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Aegypt, we know not what is become of him. They made then the Calf only a visible God un­der Iehovah, to lead them in Moses his place. 2. There is no rea­son why they should have made Aaron rather the maker of the Calf then another; but because he being the Lords Priest, they thought by his holinesse, the God head of Jehovah did slide into this Calf; and so they held the Calf to be a thing different from Iehovah. 3. They say to Aaron, Make us gods: Ergo, they believed Iehovah to be before this made Calf. 4. They saw the Calf melted before their eyes, & knew it was made of their ear-rings. 5. They call it Iehovah, & yet they made it Iehovah, and therefore they differenced betwixt the Calf & Iehovah: for they knew that Iehovah brought them out of Aegypt before the Calf was framed, but the Calf was an Image of that Iehovah. Bellar. contr. tom. 2. l. 2 c. 13. Bellar. and Gregor. de Valent. to. 3. dis. 6. q. 11. de I­dolat. punct. 6. Gregor. de Valent. say, They worship­ped not Iehovah, but a vain Idol: Else how is it said, Psa. 106. when they made this Calf, that they forgot the Lord, if they worshipped God in the Calf, they were mindefull of God. It is vain reasoning this, the wife that taketh another Husband to bed with her, Morally forgetteth her husband; and to worship God in a memorative signe forbidden of God, is a forgetting of God, and a false God indeed. 2. Those who acknowledge that the Heathen believe that some Godhead dwelt in Images, and gave Responses and Answers out of them; do there­by acknowledge, that the Image it self had not the honour of giving Responses, as God hath, but that the inclosed Godhead gave these Responses, and therefore the inclosed Godhead was that which they worshipped. So Aqui­nas, par. 3. q. 25. art. 3. ad. 2. A­dorabant Gentiles ip­sas imagi­nes ut res quasdans, credcutes iis in esse al [...] ▪ quid numi nis propter responsa quae daemones in ipsis dabant, & alios mirabilcs effectus. Aquinas, and Vasquez, in 3. tom. 1. q. 25. disp. 91. art. 3. Ver [...]ssimum est quod tradit Augustinus Gentiles pro dijs habuisse ipsamet simulachra, putantes in ipsis numen aliquod latere, cum illis responsa darent. Vasquez saith, The Heathen acknowledged a Godhead to dwell in the Images: And Bellar. ibid. Bel­larmine saith, It is not improbable that the Iews believed that they worshipped the true God in an Idol: Papists then may take to them Heathens Idolatry, for Heathens worshipped God in Images, and not Images as they are such: and Abulensis, in Exodus 23. Abulensis, and Cajetan, in Exodus 23. Caje­tan [Page 153] in the Commentaries of the first Edition, on Exodus, said this same. 3. Though the Iews believed the Calf to be essentially God, yet it was God as God▪ that they intended to worship, not the work of mens hands as such: Papists believe that the Image is not God, and yet give the highest worship that is to them. 4. Bel­larmine saith with us, when he saith, They saw a Calf in Aegypt and Adored it, they believed Jehovah himself to be a Calf, therefore they made the image of a Calf, and Dedicated it to Jehovah. But (I Answer) That Image so Dedicated, they worshipped as Ieho­vah, and called the very materiall Calf Iehovah, and Dedicated it to the Honour of Iehovah; therefore they believed the Lord Ie­hovah, and the Calf Dedicated to his Honour, (which Calf also they worshipped) to be two divers things, as the Image and the thing signified are Relata and opposite: Ergo, they believed not that that Image which Aaron had made, was Iehovah essentially; therefore in setting up that Image, they worshipped it not as a crea­ture. All the Prophets (saith he) proveth that the Idols are not gods, because they speak not, they neither see, nor hear, Isa. 46. Psal. 113. But (say some Papists) there was no question if they did see and hear by way of naked representation, because they represented gods and men in shape, who see and hear. Ans. first, If all granted they were li­ving things, which did hear and see by representation; the Pro­phets did well to prove, they should not be trusted in, nor feared as Images, nor should that Godhead within them inclosed, be feared, because it cannot speak with the mouth, nor see, nor hear, nor walk, with their eyes, eares, and feet: and so it was a vain thing to make it a representation of God, who by serving these dead things did help them. But the Prophets strongly prove these Ima­ges, and the supposed Godheads in them, were dumbe, deafe, blinde, and dead; and therefore neither sign, nor supposed deity repre­sented by the sign, was to be Adored. Also, Isa. 40. 18. To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likenesse will ye compare unto him? 19. The Workman melteth a graven Image, and the Goldsmith sprea­deth it over with gold, &c. Isa. 46. 5, 6. To whom will ye liken me? and make me equall, and compare me, that we may be alike? 9. I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me. Then it is more then clear that they made a likenesse, a comparison, and a similitude betwixt the golden Image and Iehovah: Ergo, they be­lieved [Page 154] not that the Image was essentially God; for every thing like to another, must be divers from that to which it is like (they being relatives and opposites) the one cannot be essentially the other; and he proveth they are not God by representation, Isa. 46. They cannot move out of their places, except they be born upon Asses or mens shoul­ders: And this is the Holy Ghosts Argument, I am God, Ergo, there is none like me by representation to be worshipped: All assimila­tion or comparative likenesse made by man, betwixt Iehovah and God, is an Idolatrous assimilation; yea the Lords Argument, Isa. 46. is this, every thing made like unto me, before which ye fall down to worship, as a memorative Image of me, must be a living thing at least, that can move out of his place, and answer your cry when ye pray, and save you out of trouble, ver. 7. Isa. 46. And yet it is but a likenesse of God, ver. 6. Now I Assume, but the Papists Image, and the Formalists Sacramentall elements before which they Religiously kneel, cannot move out of their place, nor answer the Prayers of those who bow to them, nor save them out of trouble: Ergo, they cannot be Adored as Images, with Religious bowing▪ nor can they say, the Images or Sacramentall elements can teach and represent God. I Answer, So did the Iewish Images repre­sent God, and yet God convinceth them of Idolatry, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 46. 6, 7. Ier. 10. They were but Doctrines of Vanity and Lyes, and Hab. 2 19. Woe be to him who saith to the Wood, Awake, and to the dumbe stone, Arise, it shall teach. And though the Sacramentall elements be lawfull teaching and representing signes, as being the Ordinances of Christ Jesus; yet the office of teaching cannot ele­vate and extoll them to the state of Religious worship, because though the elements be lawfull Images, and in this they differ from Iewish and Popish Images; yet that which is Adored must be such as can hear Prayers, Isa. 46. 7. though it be the Image of God. But the Sacramentall elements are not such as can hear Prayer, &c.

Also, that the Adoring of Images is not forbidden by a Ceremo­niallThe Ado­ring of I­mages not forbidden by the Ce­remoniall, but by the Mo­rall Law. Law only, is clear: 1. By Gods Argument, (Isa. 40. 18.) To whom will ye liken me? That is, no created thing can represent God, which is of mans devising (for the elements of Gods institu­tion do represent Christ) and Isa. 46. 9. I am God, and there is none be­side me: Ergo, no invention of man can represent me. This Argu­ment is taken from Gods nature, and therefore is of perpetuall ve­rity. [Page 155] 2. The Apostle Paul in the New-Testament repeateth this same Argument, Act. 17. to the heathen Athenians who were tyed by no Ceremoniall Law of God, ver. 29. We ought not to think that the God-head is like unto Gold; You see these people are challenged of Idolatry, who did but erect an Altar to the golden likenesse and Image of God, and yet they did not worship that golden Image, as such; but they worshipped in, and by the Image, v. 23, 24. The God preached by Paul who made the world.

Hear what Suarez tom. 3. q. 25. dis. 1. in 54. art. 3 Sect. 2. Suarez Bellar. to. 2. de re­lig. sanct. lib. 2. c. 8. The eva­sions of Bellarmine and Suarez answered. Bellarmine and Papists say, It is not Lawfull to represent God by a proper and formall similitude, which re­presenteth his essence; but it is Lawfull to represent him by Images Analogically, signifying such a forme or shape in the which he appea­red in Scripture, according to these metaphors, and mysticall significa­tions, that are given to him in Gods word.

Ans. 1. Why should not unwritten Traditions (which to Papists are Gods word) expresse to us Gods nature in Images, no lesse then the written word? 2. The Heathen did represent God by the I­mage of a man, with eyes, nose, tongue, ears, head, hands, feet, heart, understanding, all which are given to God in Scripture, yet were they Idolaters in so doing, because God saith, Isa. 46. 9. I am God, and there is none like to me. 3. If we may portraict▪ God accor­ding to all metaphors given unto him in Scripture, then ye may Por­traict him, in the shape of a Lyon, a Leopard, a Bear, a Man full of wine, a Theef stealing in the night, an unjust Iudge, a Gyant, a man of War on horse-back, &c. All which were folly; and we might worship a Lyon, a Bear, an unjust Iudge, a theef stealing in the night, a man mad with the spirit of jealousie. 4. The Essence and spe­cifick nature of nothing in Heaven and earth, can be portraicted or painted, no more then Gods essence; all painted things are but such and such things by externall proportion and shape; and it is unreasonable to say that Portraicts and Pictures of God, Physically impossible to the Art of Craftsmen, are forbidden only (whereas the Lords word setteth down to us no precepts for Art, as for pain­ting, Musick, speaking right Latine) whereas the Lord forbiddeth universally Gods pictures in any thing in heaven, on earth, or under the earth, Deut. 4. 15. Take ye therefore good heed to your selves, for ye saw no manner of Image on the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire.

[Page 156]

Gregor de Valent. saith, We give not divine honour to the creature(c)Joannes Rotnaldus de idolatri [...] Ecclesiae Roman, lib. 2. cap. 9. as to God, or to Christ, for that honour pertaineth to God or Christ, which conciliateth to him reverence due to God only, and that opinion of divine honour is conciliated to God, or Christ, Coram, & in imagi­nibus, before, and in, or through the Image.

Ans. The people of God had not that opinion every way of E­gypt, (d) Valent. ibid. and their horses, that they had of God; and yet when they,(c) Lindsey pretended Bishop of Edinbrough parth. As­sembly, pag. 29. Isa. 31. give that to Egypt and horses, which is due to God, to wit, their Faith and confidence, that they could save in the time of trouble, therefore interpretatively they made Gods of them; other­wayes they knew literally, that Pharaohs horses were flesh and not spirit: but Morally and spiritually they knew them not to be no Gods to save them: It is no more absurd that the Prophets say, The Idol hath eyes and see not, and that it is not God, though by sense they knew it not to be God, but by representation they trusting in the Idol as in God, then it was for Isaiah to say, The horses of Egypt are flesh and not spirit: A wife, if she give her body to a stranger, though not with that opinion of love and respect which is only due to her husband, is yet an harlot, and the people who sware by Ie­hovah, and by Malcome, who worship Iehovah, and Ieroboams Calves, and those who worship the Image of an Ash-Tree, repre­senting Iehovah, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 46. 6, 7. did not give honour to Malcom, to the Calves, to the Images, Sicut Iehovae, as to God. See Roinalds Answer. But (saith he) we cannot worship God, but we must conceive some Image of God in our minde, are we therefore Ido­laters, because in these Images we worship God? and Valent. saith, and so doth the Formalist Lindsey say, That God may be adored before the Sacramentall elements as Images. Ans. We are not for­bidden to adore God in the inward conception of minde, Deut. 4. Ye saw no manner of similitude, but not, yea thought no manner of thoughts of God. 2. The internall image of God in the minde is the objective conception of God as conceived in the minde there is no hazard of Idolatry there, for that Image is not adorable at all, because then it must be conceived by a new different Image, and that new different Image must be cognoscible by another new I­mage, and so in infinitum. The externall Image is both made an active object to represent God, and when we religiously bow to it, it is made an object passive, that is adored with God.

[Page 157]Lastly, If the Iews and heathen had adored their Images, as they were such creatures consecrated, and as essentially Gods, the Lord would not have rebuked them for making an Ash Tree the simili­tude of a God, as he doth, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 44. 9, &c. And all that I said in the former question proveth the same. So that though Di­vine honour in the Act of kneeling before the elements be intended to Christ, yet because the elements are there as actuall signes, and Vicegerent Images of Christ, if we kneel to Christ Religiously through them, we give them divine honour, though we should in­tend to honour Christ Iesus only.

SECT. III.

Whether Papists and Formalists give that divine honour that is proper only to God and his son Iesus Christ to Images, and the elements of Bread and Wine?

I. Con. TO adore Images is to give worship to God before I­mages, or, in, or through the Images without any Faith of a Godhead, or divine power in the Image according to the Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome. I prove this out of their Councels. Concil. triden. Sess. 25. Statuimus imagines in templis ha­bendas & retinendas ijs (que)debitum honorem & vencratio­nem imperti­endam; non quod creda­tur esse ali­qua in his di vinitas, vel virtus prop­ter quam sint colendae: sed quoniam honos qui iis exhibetur, refectur ad Prototypa, quae illa re­praesentant, ut per ima­gines quas osculamur, et coram qui bus caput a­perimus & procumbi­mus, Chri­stum adorc­mus & san­ctos, quorum illasimilitu­dinem ge­runt. The Councell of Trent saith, Due honour and veneration is due to the Images, not because it is believed, that there is any Divinity and vertue in them, for the which they should be worshipped; but because the honour given to them is referred to the samplar, which they repre­sent; that by these Images vvhich vve kisse, and before vvhich vve uncover our head and bow dovvn; vve may adore Christ, and the Saints which these Images resembleth: Hence 1. the Image doth but, as a memorative object, excite the affection to give honour to God, in, and through the Images; but 2. Let these words be exa­mined, the Councell denyeth any divinity to be in Images, but if they mean no divinity really to be in Images, so they say nothing against us; for we do not ascribe to Papists that they teach there is a reall God-head in the Image, but that all that is really in it, is Wood, Gold, or Mettall, and so did the Gentiles believe their Images to be teaching books, Hab. 29. Ier. 10, 8. Deut. 4. 19. Isa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7. Act. 17. 29. and gold and silver; but say they, What needed the Prophets to prove that gold and silver could not see, nor hear, nor de­liver in time of trouble, reason would here convince them to be ten [Page 158] times blinde, who believed any such thing. Ans. The Prophets doPapists did of old adore before, or at the pre­sence of the Image as a memora­tive signe, and yet were Ido­laters. well to do so: Nor that the Heathen believed there was any God­head in them formally, but because they ascribed actions to these images, that were due to living creatures, and made them to be such as did see, hear, move, deliver; So Isaiah proveth Egypts horses not to be God, but flesh, yet they did not believe there was a Godhead in the horses, but Consequenter, by good consequence, when they laid that hope on the horse, that they were to lay upon God, he had need to say the horse vvas flesh and not God: So when men give to these things, bowing of the body, and say unto a stock, Thou art my Father: God may prove the stock is not a living man, and hath no sences, to convince them the more, that they can far lesse be Gods Vi­car; for a Vicar or Deputy creature representing the living God, should be such as can do what God doth; else we should put on it the honour due to God: But if the Councell mean, They have no divinity in them, but by way of representation, because they be Vicaria dei signa, signes resembling the Creator God; Now if this be denyed, the images must be naked memorials before which people do adore God, as Mirandula, Durandus and others said, and yet latter Papists say more of their own Images: But I would have it remembred, that there be two sorts of deputed or Vicar-Ima­ges; some that do only signifie, as the darknesse of the Skie go­ing before the morning light in the East, that doth nothing at all which the morning light doth, but nakedly signifieth that the Sun is rising: There be other Depute signes that can exercise acts,Two sort of signes. which the samplar would do, if it were present, as the deputy is not a naked Vicar or depute signe of the King, for he doth not on­ly signifie the Kings minde, but can do Royall Acts in the Kings name: Images are depute signes of God, of the first sort, that do only rub the memory and understanding, and therefore deserve no honour except the honour due to the means of worship, as the Bible, Sacraments, which deserve not Adoration, but onely a Negative Reverence, or a not dispising or con­temptuous handling of them, Images being unlawfull meanes, and not Commanded of God, deserve no Veneration at all; and though it be true, that the Ambassadour deserve Princely Honour, for the Princes Place, whom he represen­teth; yet he can act the person of the Prince, and is not a naked de­puted [Page 159] sign, but Images are therefore convinced to be unlawfull de­puties representing (as Idolaters made them to be, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 46. 6, 7.) Because they can do no acts at all, nor exercise any actions proper to the samplar, for Psal. 115. v. 6. They have mouths, but they speak not, eyes they have, but they see not, 7. They have eares, but they hear not; and therefore should not be trusted in, as in means and deputed representations of God, for which cause the Prophet inferreth ver. 8. They that made them, are like unto them, so are every one that trusteth in them. ver. 9. O Israel trust thou in the Lord. Therefore Religious trusting in them is Idolatry: But the Canon of Trent saith this same of their Images, to wit, that there be no Godhead or vertue in them. 2. If the worship of [...], the higher service due to God, be given to Images, as I prove hereafter, then also some deity or Divine vertue; for Gods highest honour can no more be communicated to any, save to God, then the Godhead it self; for a Relative Godhead is as due to stocks, as a relative worship. 3. If the Tridentine Canonists will have divine Adora­tion given to God Coram imaginibus, before Images, or at their presence, as only memorative signes, & active objects exciting us to worship God, then is our Thesis proved: But if they mean that God is Adored, Coram imaginibus, before images, as not only memorative and active objects, but also before them as passive objects, that are compartners under God of some divine adoration; then I say 1. they contradicted themselves, for Gods highest honour called [...], can not be given to them but by a figure, because they are Gods, & have divinity in them only by a figure, and not really: for Suarez & Vas­quez denieth that we can fix our hope and faith in Images, or make prayers to them, Nisi modo figurativo & tropo duriore, by a figure, and a hard troop, and most improperly and by that same reason must be given to stocks and stones most improperly, and that is, men do religiously bow before them, as before memorative objects. 2. Gabriel Vasquez tom. 1. in 3. art. 3. dis. 108. cap. 8. In imagine praeter ipsius prototypi excellentiam non potest esse aliqua virtus, cui cultus debeatur­est enim in imagine solum irrationale & inanimatum excellenciae & sanctitatis exemplar, cui ho­mo nequit digne sese submittere Adoratione. Vasquez saith well, There can be no footstep of holi­nesse in the image, beside the excellency of the samplar, nor any divine vertue wherefore it should be worshipped; for there is nothing in the [Page 160] image of it self, but that which is senslesse, and lifelesse, and spiritlesse and no man can in a Religious way submit himself to such a creature? Hence it must be a naked memorative sign, and therefore the kis­sing of the Image, though Physically it be reall, and not Metaphysi­call, yet moral it is not propper, seeing all religious affection in that kissing is transferred to God. And we know Vasquez alloweth, that every thing, as it is a being, and resembleth God the first being, is to be Adored, and so stones,—Frogs, the Devil, Judas lips that kis­sed Christ, are to be Adored.

So their seventh pretended Synod 7. Syno­dus, Quo scilicet per banc imagi­num picta­rum inspe­ctionem, om­nes qui con­templantur, ad prototy­porum me­moriam & desiderium veniant, il­lisque Ado­rationem honorariam exhibeant, non secun­dum fidem nostram, ve­ram latrei­am. faith, That the Honour due to God is not to be given to images, according to our faith, only at the be­holding of Pictures we are put in minde of the samplar: And the same saith Mr. Lindesey, is the way of Adoring God in the Sacra­ment. But so the Gentiles, as saith Arno­bius lib. 6. Gentes A­dorabans statuas, non quod as, aurum, argentum & similes statuarum materi [...] dij sint, sed quod corum, quae alias invisibiles sunt, praesentia per simulachra exhibeatur. Arnobius, and Lactantius, de institut. ad Constantium. lib. 2. cap. 2. Non ipsa (inquiunt Gentes) simulachra tim [...]nus, sed ea ad quo­rum imaginem facta, & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt. Resp. Lactantius nempe [...]deo t [...]me­tis quod cos in caelis esse Arbitramini, cur igitur o [...]ul [...]s in caelum non tollitis? Cur ad parictes lig [...]a & lapides potius, quam e [...] spectatis, ubi eos esse creditis. Lactan­tius, yea, and the Apostle Act, 17. 29. Paul [...]aith Adored images; yea, and God would Deut. 4. 15. Isa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7, 8, 9. not forbid similitudes of God to be Adored, except he did teach that the heathen Idolaters worshipped similitudes, and so the Papists in that vulgar verse said, they Adored not the Ima­ges, but the thing signified by the Images.

Effigiem Christi dum transis, semper Adora:
Non tamen effigiem, sed quod designat, Honora.

Let me adde these reasons to prove they cannot Adore the Image, but as a memorative sign: 1. The Image and the elements in any consideration, either as creatures, or as the honourable act of re­presentation is put upon them, are but creatures; for the act of re­presentation is a temporary Godhead, and maketh them but Time-Gods; Ergo, they cannot be Adored. 2. If there be two Adora­tions here, one given to God, and another to the Image, and if both be divine honour, there must be two collaterall Gods; if Adora­tion prove Christ to be God, two divine honours put upon things, one upon God, and another upon the Creature; there must be [Page 161] two Gods, or then the Creature remaining a Creature, must have Communion with Gods high honour, which is Idolatry. 3. Ima­ges and elements are either worshipped for themselves▪ or for some other thing; if for themselves, they are God, for only God for him­self is worshipped with Divine honour; if for God they be wor­shipped, then it is an inferiotr, and improper worship, and there­fore they must be worshipped as memorative objects. 4. Images and elements, if they partake of externall worship proper to God: Why may not Sacrifices and Incense be offered unto them, and faith and hope fixed on Images? They do not partake of internall wor­ship: for as Vasquez saith well, inward worship consisteth in Ap­prehensione primi principii, & in motu ad illud; in apprehension of the first Author and Creator of all things, and in the wills motion toward it. But this apprehension cannot be put upon Images or elements, therefore they be here significant objects only.

So their second Councell Conci­lium Ni­cen. 2. Qu [...]d si in recordatio­nem atquc memoriam, ita quod sa­lutari quâ­dam affecti­one in ipsa prototypa fe­rebantur (Catholici) salutaverint & honorifi­cè A [...]ora­verint imag­gines, non tamen ob id ill is latrei­am exhibue­ra [...]t, aut Divinam Venerationem adscripserunt, absit haec calumnia. of Nice, as Epiphanius a Deacon, in name of the Synod saith, Images were present before the kneelers, as our elements are, only as memorative objects. 2. That the singu­lar affection of Adoring, was bounded only upon God: And Concilium S [...]nense Cap. 14. Definit imagines debere adorari non quia in illis aliquid numinis creditur inesse, sed ob recordationem exemplaris. Concilium Senonense saith, Images are to be Adored, not because there is any Godhead in them, but for the memory of the samplar: And Concilium Mogunt. Cap. 41. Pastores nostri populum accurate moncant imagnes non ad id proponi, ut adoremus aut colamus cas, sed ut quod adorare & col [...]re aut qua­rum rerum utiliter,—meminisse debemus, per imagines recordemur. Concilium Moguntinum, Images are not propounded that we should worship them, but that we may call to minde the things which we are to worship. If therefore we Adore God at the presence of the ele­ments, as memorative signes we do Adore the elements; but if the kneeler direct all his worship before the elements, to Christ up at the right hand of the Father: Why then (as Lactantius said well to the Gentiles) do they not turn away their senses and eyes off the elements? For Christ is not substantially inclosed in them, and lift them up toward heaven, where they believe Christ to be? But in so doing the elements should not be received as Sacraments, for in the act of receiving we are to fixe our souls upon the visible ele­ments: If the Athenians did believe the golden image, Act. 17. 29. [Page 162] was essentially God, and kneeled to it as to God; Paul did in vain rebuke them for believing that the Godhead was like silver or gold; and if the men of Lystra believed the shapes of men, and the like­nesse of men to be essentially God, and in that respect gave the ho­nour of Sacrificing due to God, to these shapes; then the Scrip­ture in vain should bring these men of Lystra in, as putting a diffe­rence betwixt the shapes of men, and the Godhead of Jupiter and Mercurius, to which they were about to give Divine Sacrifice. And if Formalists kneel before the elements, and give a transitive glory to Christ through them, they are in the same sense Idolaters that the Gentiles were. So the Councel of Moguntine, Concil. Mogunt. ib. Sect. 2. Co­di [...]m oculis perlustrans, cum ad ve­nerabile & tremendum nomen, Iesu devenerit, caput aperit, inclinatur, & suspi­rans in cae­lum oculos attolit, & ob id omni reprehensio­ne & Ido­latriae su­spicione ca­ret; siqui­dem non li­teras qu [...] vili atramento pinguntur, honorat, sed cogitatione & veneratione mentis suae ad eum honorandum & venerandum rapitur, cujus memoriam hae literae ei suggerunt. and Alphon­sus de Castro Alphons. de Castro heraes. 1. denique adoratio ipsa, et si coram cruce fi [...], meus tamen nostra ad id solum refertur quod crux ipsa repr [...]sentat. deny that they Adore the letters of the Name (Jesus) drawn with base ink▪ or the Tree of the Crosse; but they Adore the signified thing: Yea, saith Thom. Waldens▪ de sacram. tom. 3. cap. 156. nu. 6. Waldensis, He that beholdeth the i­mage, almost forgetteth the image, while as he is ravished with the thing signified: as many see a man clothed, and yet being asked, they cannot declare the colour of his clothes, the minde is so much set upon the man: Yea, the Adorer may hate the painted image of Christ, be­cause the rude ignorance of the painter, when he Adoreth Christ in the same image, though he may love some morall representation in it. This Doctrine is taught by Grego. lib. 7. Epist. ad Secund. q. 53. Gregorius, and by Adrianus, de imaginibus, cap. 12. Adrianus, and Concilium Romanum sub Stephano 3. Et nos quidem non quasi ante Divinitatem, ante illam (imaginem aut elementa sacramentalia) prosternimur, sed illam adoramus, quem per imaginem natum, passum, aut in throno seden [...]em recordamur. approved by a Councel at Rome under Stephanus the third.

II. Conclusion. Grosser Papists go a subtiler way to work, and do avouch that the very Latreia and supream worship that is proper to God, is given to the Image.

Though the creature saith Suarez; Tom 3. in 1. disp. 54. Sect. 4. Suarez cannot, Primo, & per se, principally, kindly, and of it self be worshipped or adored with Latreia, the supream worship due to God, yet it may be co-adored, with the same honour that is given to Christ, as is the Kings purple Robe: So the first Distinction is of Adoration and co-Adoration, or Adoration kinde­ly, [Page 163] and by it self, and Adoration with another. Henriquez Henri­quez sum. Theolog. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 32. Male qui­dam negant praedican▪ dum populo, quod image Christi si [...] adoranda. Latreia. saith, It is a fault that it is not preached to the people, that the image of Christ is to be adored with supream worship called Latreia Cabrera, in 3. pag. Thom. q. 25. Art. 3. disp. 3.. Cra­brera saith, many Schoolmen are of this mind; and so doth Azo­rius instit. Moral. to. 1. l. 9. c. 60. Azorius Arch­angel. Ru­beo in 3. sent. d. 9. Archangelus Rubeo Jacob de Graphijs, Decisio. aur. p. i. l. 2. cap. 2. num. 15. Vnam­quanque imaginem, eodem cultu, quo illum cujus est image, vere­reremur. Iacobus de Graphiis, Let us worship (saith he) every Image with that same worship, with which we worship the samplar: That is, let us bestow the worship highest of Latreia, up­on the Image of God and Christ, and the signe of the Crosse, as it bringeth us in minde of Christs suffering: The second distinction is, that the Image is truly properly adored, as the materiall object no lesse then the samplar: Hence they reprove Durandus, Picus Mirandula, Hulcot, and others, who say that Images are improper­ly adored, & Raphael de la Torres, sum. Theolog. de relig. to. 1. in 22. q. 84. art. 2. disp. 5. q. 94. dub. 5. Respondetur modus iste dicendi (per accidens adorantur) [...]ic debet intelligi, idest per aliud, vel (quod idem est) ratione alterius; hoc autem non arguit improprietatem adorationis, sed nega [...] adorationem excellentiae proprie & residentis in re adorata; sic adoratur humanitas Christi. See also Bellarm. de imag c. 21. c. 25. Neque dicendum eas impropre venerandas esse, quia quod non dicitur nisi improprie, simpliciter negari potest. Raphael de la Torres answering to that of Durandus and Mirandula, That Images are adored by accident, in respect that be­fore them, and at their naked presence, as before memorative objects, we adore God and Christ (saith he) (are adored by accident) is thus to be understood, Images are adored, Ratione Alterius, by reason of another, Vel per aliud, by another thing, but this argueth not that Images are improperly adored, hereby onely is denyed that there is any adoration of the proper excellency of the thing adored. Hence he would say that the borrowed honour of Adoration given to the Image is truly and properly the Adoration that is due to God, but it is given to the I­mage in reference to God, and not for any inherent Excellency that is in the Image: For (saith he) If we do not properly adore the Image, we do but exercise the materiall action of kissing and kneeling to the image, without any internall affection of submission to the Sam­plar: He addeth that it is enough that the intention of submission is referred to the samplar, and the external Adoration to the Image, for if any shall (saith he) kisse the earth (as the rude multitude in some place doth) upon an intention of inward submission of heart to God, Nequaquam vere & proprie adorat terram, he doth not truly and properly adore the earth, but only he exerciseth a materiall action [Page 164] of kissing toward the earth: But I answer, all this is vanity, for suchDiverseva­sions of Papists touching the wor­shipping of images. a one worshippeth the earth, but referreth the internall submissi­on to God, and all this, is to say the Image doth truly partake of the Religious honour (Latreia) due to God only.

A third distinction is here, of Gabriel Bi [...]l in can▪ missae. lect. 49. fol. 92. Gabriel Biel on the Canon of the Masse, In the Adoring of images (saith he) and of other things which are adored by accident, though there be an externall act of bow­ing both to the images and the samplar, yet there be two internall acts which are different, vvhereof one is terminated and bounded upon the image, not absolutely as it is such a materiall thing of stone, or mettall, but as it is an image: This is an acknowledgement whereby I esteem the Image a thing ordained to represent Christ, or a complacency whereby I rest on such a thing, as to be honoured for Christ, and the other i [...] a recognition, and acknowledgement immediatly ter­minated and bounded upon the samplar, whereby it is acknowled­ged to be the chiefest good. But the truth is, Religious geniculation before the image, or at the presence of the image (saith Duran. lib. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. [...]. 10. Sed quia lo­qendum est ut plures, i­deo commune dictum sic exponendum est, quod pro­tanto dicitur imago sub ratione ima­ginis adora­ri eadem a­doratione cum re, cujus est imago, quia ad prae­sentiā imaginis seu signifit rem [...]mo­ratio rei, quam reme­moratam a­doramus, eadem ado­ratione ac si presens esset in se▪ [...]t ideo concedi potest quod signa et imagines a­dorantur. Durandus) as if the samplar were there present, is one and the same adoration gi­ven to the image and the samplar; and all that Greg. [...]9. de Val [...]. to. 3. dis. 6. q. 11. de idol pun. 6. Gregorius de Va­lentia saith against this, is, that Durandus minus circumspect [...] locutus, he spake not so warily, as need were: And so did their Sept. Syn. ar. 14. seventh pre­tended synod speak, as L [...]n. lib. 5. Apol. Syn. 7. ar. 14. Leontius expoundeth them, Non liguo­rum aut colorum naturam adoro, absit, and Vasq. in 3. q. 25. ar. 3. dis. 106. c. 1. Vasquez saith, They displease some in so speaking, but they mean well: They meant all that which our Formalists do▪ and there is no discord (saith G. Bi [...] in can. mis. lect. 49. fol. 94. Ga­briel Biel) in re, in the matter it self; for both say; 1. that the creature should not be adored with the highest honour (Lateria) of it self, as if it were the object of Adoration: 2. Both teach that the minde and affection is carried toward the samplar, which is adored: 3. Both mean that the adorer exerciseth some act upon the image, as it representeth the samplar, only the diversity is, if this act termina­ted on the Image, should be called an adoring of the Image; and all these three Formalists do to the elements in the supper: Hence I require of the Formalists, one difference betwixt the objective presence of the elements before the kneeler, in the act of receiving, and the objective presence of the Heathens image of God, Isa. 40. [Page 165] 18. & 46. 6, 7, 8. and the Papists image of dumb wood, and blinde stone: Mr. Lindsey answered me once in a conference, That the ele­ments were present as the Ordinances of God, but the Popish and Hea­then images as the inventions of men. I replied to him, That is no answer: for images and elements (I know) do differ, Physicâ specie; The Sun adored by Persians, and Satan by Indians differ. Satan and the Sun, are not Ejusdem speciei, of that same nature, but it is ido­latry to worship either; images and bread in the kind of means of worship differ, but, as touching the objective presence before the kneeler kneeling to these, there is no difference: as 1. To memo­rative objects: 2. As to objects vicarious and standing in the room of Christ: 3. At their presence and through them God is adored. Suarez tom. 1. in 3. quest. 25 art. 3. disp. 53. Sect. 3. Qui visa pulchrae cre­aturae specie animo in­surgit ad considerati­onem creato­ris, & illum laudat ac­diligit, non potest vere dic [...] landere ac diligore creaturam, etiam si pre­sentia crea­turae exci­taverit a [...]-rem creato­ris; ideoque tantum ( [...]ic) propter me­moriam re­tinendae imagines. Suarez, is not content with the doctrine of Durandus here, By this, images are (saith he) but occasions, Vel signa excitantia homi­nem ad prototypum adorandum, non vero [...]es quae adorantur, or signes moving the m [...]n to adore the samplar, but they are not things adored: for (saith he) the man, vvho seeing a beautifull creature, ariseth in [...]is minde to the consideration of the Creator, and there­fore praiseth and loveth th [...] Creator, cannot be truly said to praise and love that fair creature, thoug [...] the presence of that creature have stirred up the love of the Creator, and by this means images are reser­ved only for memory. Thus he will have images adored with the same worship that is given to God: But I answer: 1. if he shall kisse that creature and direct Religious bowing toward it, and and through that external Religious act, convey his worship to God, and give no other externall adoration and signe of heart submission to God, then that which is tyed and alligated of purpose to that fair creature, as Papists and Jews did of old, who kissed the calves, and fell down before the images, as Isa. 44. 17. which yet were but memorials of Iehovah teaching them of Iehovah, Esa. 40. 18. Esa. 46. 6, 7. Hab. 2. 18, 19. Such a one should also worship that fairSuarez is not con­tent at the hungry and unproper expressione of Duran­dus, Mir [...]n­dula, H [...]l­cot. creature: Our Formalists do not make the elements memorative signes representing Christ, for that they have by divine institution, but upon that ground they kneel before them, and tie, by the Churches Commandment, the externall Religious bowing toward them, and that (saith the act of our new Assembly at Perth) in reve­rence of God, and in due regard (Religious regard they must mean) of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mysticall a union: [Page 164] [...] [Page 165] [...] [Page 166] 2. God hath no other externall bowing made to him in the act of re­ceiving, then is made before these elements, in due regard of so di­vine a mystery, and because of so mysticall union; the union is reall, whether it be by consubstantiation, or transubstantiation, they wil not define, the Lord Iesus is present in the elements, in a more reall and spirituall manner, then he is in any groundlesse image of mettall or wood; and therefore the image and elements do most really par­take even by Durandus and Hulcot, and Mirandula their minde of that worship of (Latreia) due to God; only Durandus (as Vas­quez, and Gregor. Valent. say) spake not so warily, but not so grosse­ly, as to say, What ever is given to God, is given to the image: 2. It is not in the Adorers power that kneeling should be a signe of lesse worship, as referred to the image, and of greater, as referred to God; for the same materiall kissing, and Religious Prostration, which would immediatly be conveyed to Christ, if he were in per­son present in the image and elements, is done to the image and elements, and Religious kissing, and Religious kneeling signifieth internall divine submission of heart to God, as the first author of all, and the last end, not by mans will, but by divine institution. 3. Kneeling to God is a protestation (saith Gregor. de Valent. to. 3. disp. 6. q. 11. de idolat. punct. 6. Cum autem per idem officium & motum animi veré etiam dicimus honorem exhiberi imagini, ver­bo, illi exhiberi, hoc sub est, nos Prototypon ex imagine cogitantes, coram ipsâ actionem honorifi­cam proinde ac si prototypon similiter esset praesens, exercentes, velle prototypi excellentia protestari, adcoque de ipso excitare opinionem excellentem, ut est quodammodo, nimirum relative in imagine suâ. Gregor, de Valent.) That we are willing to raise an opinion of excellency in God, as this ex­cellency is in some manner, and relatively in the image. If therefore kneeling of its own nature, without any act of mans will, or the Churches institution, wanting Gods Word, do conciliate an opini­onWhat need we dispute? to give that externall knee-wor­ship to bread, which we would give to Christ substantially and personally present, is to adore bread. of excellency; to whomsoever kneeling is directed, in this it must conciliate the same opinion: if then it it be given to Images and elements, it must be a protestation that we are willing to con­ciliate an opinion of Divine excellency in these lifelesse creatures, which is all we give to God by kneeling. 4. It is not enough that Valentia saith, This honour belongeth to Christ, in so far as it concili­ateth [Page 167] to Christ the honour due only to God, and is expressed by kneeling, & it belongeth to the images so, as Coram, & in illis, before, and in them this opinion is conciliated to Christ: But if the image be God only representatively, and by way of signification, then is it not God of it self and really, Quod est tale tantum significativé, non est tale per se, & realiter, as a painted man is not of it self, and really a man; the word (Iesus) as written with base ink, is not infinite Iesus, the migh­ty God, the Prince of Peace, really, but only in meer signification: therefore to give Gods honour and externall Religious bowing (which essentially doth note the highest excellency of God) to them, is Idolatry: It is a vain thing to say, The Ambassadour is not really the King; yet the reall honour due to the King, is done to him. I Answer, where the King declareth that it is his will, that his Am­bassadour be really honoured as himself; this is not the giving of the Kings glory to another against his will: But here expresly con­trary to that (Thou shalt not bow down to them) expounded especi­ally of similitudes, Deut. 4. 15. Ye saw no manner of similitude. The glory of Religious bowing contrary to Gods will, (Who will not give his glory to another) is given to images, and to Bread. 2. It redoundeth kindely to the King, who is absent, and to be obeyed in his absence, that His Vicegerent and Deputy be honoured as him­self, and presupposeth an infirmity in the King that he cannot be in many places to receive immediately the honour due to him, and therefore will have that due paid to himself, mediately, by the ho­noured person of a Deputy. God infinite is in all places, to receive immediately the pay of Religious knee-honour, and it dishonoureth God to have 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 Bernar. Puiol. de ador. disp. 3. Sect. 7. Quarto col­ligitur con­tra Duran­dum ipsas imagines proprie ado­rari. Bernardus Puiol faith, Images are properly to be Adored, contrary to that which Durandus saith: And Azor. instit. mo­ral. tom. 1. lib. 9. c. 6. 4. Distin. 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 ut supr. dis. 108. Per totum. 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 [Page 168] 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 Joannes de Lugo, de myst. incar. disp. 34. Sect. 2. n. 29. 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. Ibid. disp. 35. Sect. 1. n. 6. 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. [...]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 Joannes de Lugo, ibid. 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: [Page 169] 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, part. 3. to. 1. disp. 54. Sect. 3. Actus [A­dorandi] respectu prototypi est proprie La­treia &c. Respectu vero imagi­nis est infe­rior Venera­tio. Suarez, That one 5. Distin. 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, Lawfulnes of kneeling cap. 8. p. 14, 15. Burges saith▪ Adoration and Veneration differ not but by mens will; and if it be lawfull to Adore God before the Ark, p. 34, 35. 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, p. 84, 85. 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 Ed­ward, 6. book of Engl. serv. rubr. 5. 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 [Page 170] 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 knee­glory 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 have obeyed the King, yet they professe disobedience, Dan. 3. 18. We will not wor­ship thy graven image. 2. Neither think we the Athenians gave that same honour to the similitude Act. 17. 29. of God, that they gave to the God that Paul Preached, who made Heaven and earth, v. 23, 24. Yet in giving Worship externall to both, they were Idolaters, ver. 29. Nor did the men of Lystra give the same heart-honour to the Deities of Iupiter and Mercury, which they gave to the shapes of men; yet are they Idolaters in that. 3. Mr. Burges saith, Isra­el 1 Chron. 29. 20. in one and the same act (externall) Worshipped God and the King, because one and the same word expresseth honour both to God and the King. But how shall we call that act? Civill, or Religious, or mixt? and did they transmit Latreia, divine honour through the King to God? he hath a Metaphysicall faith who be­leeveth such dreames, because one word is used to expresse both the worshipping of God and the King, therefore it was one externall act of worshipping, and differenced in the minde and intention of the worshippers; the consequence is most weake, 1 Sam. 12. 18. All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel, Prov. 24. 21. My son, feare the Lord and the King, is it one manner of feare really, that is both religious to God, and to Samuel, and to the Lord, and the [Page 171] King▪ because one word expresseth both? I see not but one & the same action of bowing may be made to God, to Christ, to the water in Baptisme, to the Bible, to the Sun and Moon, and we might kneel and Adore a Toad, a straw, and Satan, as they represent Gods wis­dom and power, and through that same externall knee-worship al­so Adore God: What, may we not then Religiously Adore all things and Creatures, as they represent God the first being.

Presentem (que) refert quaelibet herba Deum. A man may Adore himself, his own hands, his legs, his Mothers Wombe that bare him, &c.

As for Adoring of the Ark and foot-stool of God: 1. Ioan. Joan. Giseniue in [...]uo Patis­i [...]o, disp. 25, n. 40. Gisenius, a Lutheran saith, The Iews had precept and promise to Worship God before the Ark, we have no Command to tye externall Adoration to any place or Creature. 2. Didocl. in Altari damasc. Hospinianus de originc festorum Christian. contra. Gretser. Profeste corporis Christi, fol: 94. 7. Arca non est bab [...]a pro d [...] vivente,—nec propterea adorata. So answereth Molinaus in his buckler of faith of Images, Sect. 118. and Fran. Whites way to the Church, Cap. 9. pag. 3. Didoclavius saith, It is lawfull to Adore God before the Ark, and the Symboles of his imme­diate presence, because God is there to receive his own Worship him­self, by an immediate indwelling presence: For saith Weames 3. Volumn of the Ceremon. Law, Cap. 3. pag. 12. Mr. Weames, He appeared in glory above the Ark, betwixt the Cherubims, and it The place (worship at his foot­stool) dis­cussed. was a type of Christ who dvvelt in our flesh; but it is not lavvfull to Worship him, before the Symboles of his grace. 3. The Ark was a type in the act of teaching, we grant; but that it was in the act of Adoring, God who was immediately present, and a Symboll Vice­gerent of God, we reade not. There is no need of mediate signes, where God is immediately present, and Adored as he was in the Ark; they were to fixe both senses and thoughts immediate­ly upon God. 4. They were to worship, not the Ark, but the precept is, & incurvate vos scabello, Worship tovvard the Ark. Arias Montanus. [...]. A­rias Mont. turneth it, Worship to the Ark: The Greek Fathers of the second Nicen. Councel, ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, would have the Lord Commanding to Adore his foot-stool; whereas the Particle ( [...]) is a note of the Dative case, and often it signi­fieth motion to a thing, or at a place, [...] ad dextram, and doth not absolutely signifie the accusative case. Mus­culus. Musculus ad Sca­bellum, [Page 172] he maketh it the Ark of the Testament. Calvine, Calvine comment. in Psal. 99. 5. the Tem­ple. Iunius, Junius, Annotation ibid. Lyranus a dorandam Deum aute arcam, non ipsam arcam. Tylenus in syntag nat. de preca. disp. 49. th. 2. nu. 29. particula. [...]. Notat idem quod versus. Vatablus a­dorate ad scabellum, i. e. in templo ante arcam. maketh it well to signifie the measure of bowing, bow to the foot-stool, or ground, or pavement of the Temple where the Lords feet are, as he sate on the Cherubims, 1 Chron. 28. 1. For there is no ground for Adoring the Ark; but the words are to be read, Exalt the Lord our God, and bow your selves, (to wit, to Ieho­vah, who sheweth himself, or dwelleth at his foot-stool) that is, betwixt the Cherubims, 2 Sam. 6. 1. For the word [...] at his foot-stool, is not constructed with the Verb, [...] incurvate vos: Jesuits and Formalists, devised that construction, but it is to be constructed with the word, [...] which is to be repeated from the former part of the verse, Bow your selves to Jehovah who dwelleth in the Ark, or in the Temple: A familiar eleipsis to the Hebrews, Psal. 5. 8. I will bow my self (to the Iehovah dwelling) in the Temple of thy holinesse, as we are taught, Our Father which art in Heaven: So [...] and it is a description of God from the place where he dwelt, and exhibited his presence to his rude people. 4. It is ignorance in Burges to prove God may be A­dored in the elements, because they are as excellent Symbols of Gods presence as the Ark: for created excellency is no ground of Ado­ring the elements, except it be a Godhead, and uncreated excellen­cy: We condemne Pope Gratian de conser. dist. 1. cap. 68. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the Crea­ture as A­doration. There is a Prayer made to the image of the face of Jesus writ­ten in linnen, Salve Sancta facies nostri redemptoris salve vultus domini imago beata,—nos de­duc ad propria [...] felix figura, ad videndum faciem qua est Christi pura. Anastasius, who directeth Reverend bowing at the hearing of the Gospel, and not of the Epistles, as if the Gospel were holier then the Epistles.

But if Adoration may be given to the elements, because knee­worship signifieth according to humane institution, and mans will, and are taken from customes of men, and so doth signifie lesse ho­nour then is due to God: Let me be resolved of this doubt, words of Prayer signifie according to mens institution and their will, no lesse then Religious gestures do, and we may say to a stock, (Thou art my Father) and it is in our will that (Father) signifie a representa­tive Father, not an infinite and Independent Father, such as God only is.

And if the image in externall kneeling, be Adored Per aliud, or co-adored with the Samplar, because it is one with the Samplar; Why may we not pray to the image, and fixe our faith and hope on [Page 173] the image and elements by co-adoration, or in relative praying and trusting in them? Yet Conci­lium Tri­dentinum Sessione, 25. the Fathers of Trent for shame deny that we should pray to images, and put our trust in them: yet do For­malists turn the enunciative words of Christ (This is my body) in an optative mood, and a Prayer, The body and blood of Christ (they mean the elements in their hands) preserve thee to eternall life: And we are not ignorant, that faith and hope are ascribed to the Crosse, and this sung in the Church of Rome:

O crux ave spes unica,
Hoc passion is tempore,
Auge pi [...] justitiam,
Reis (que) dona veniam.

A Learned Papist, Raphael de la Torres in 22. q. 95 art 2. disp. 6. dub. 5. Eusebius, lib. 3. De praeparat. Evang. teacheth us, that Rudio­res tantum ad ligna & lapides re­spiciunt, sa­pientes au­tem (Genti­les) volue­runt Deum & dci vir­tutes sensi­bus nostris per imagines nobis fami­liariter de­ferri. They made Images books of God. Athanasius in orat. contr. idolat. Dieunt Philosophi statuas quidem non essedcos, sed simu­lacbra deorum, ideo baberi ut dys sub istis imaginibus respondeant. Raphael de la Torres saith plainly, It is lawfull to pray to images, so the inward devotion be directed to God: But if the Iews in their Idolatrous worship acknoweledged the image to be but a representation of God, and a Book, Jer. 10. 8. They did no wrong who said Ier. 2. ver. 27. to a stock, Thou art my fa­ther, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: For condition maketh all, if they speak by a figure; for the Papists when they speak to the Crosse, and call the Crosse their only hope, the Crosse is not bet­ter born nor a stock, it is but timber or dumbe wood: Now how doth not the dumbe wood to which Prayers are made, as if Christ himself were present, partake of Prayers and Gods honour, in an inferior and relative way? For the wood standeth before him who prayeth to it, as God by representation, and as an actuall Vicege­rent, and tree-deputy of God and Christ; it is no lesse worship­full by mouth-worship, by praying to it, as to the passive object of Adoration, as capable of knee-worship by bowing down to it; and a distinction may save idolatry in the one, as well as in the other: And our Formalists bowing Religiously to bread, do not Adore bread, (as our half Papists say) and so may they pray to bread, and not Adore bread, for they are as well masters of Grammar, to im­pose significations at their will upon words, as they be Lords of gestures and Ceremonies, to cause kneeling expresse Veneration to the images, and to elements, and not Divine Adoration.

[Page 174]Here two great Iesuites, Suarez and Vasquez helpe the matter for Suarez, in 3. Tho. q. 25. art. 3. disp. 54. Sect. 4. Suarez saith, There be some acts of worship as faith and prayer, which precisely respect a reasonable and intelligent person, therefore this pray­er (Haile O crux ave. crosse) it is a figurative speech, and a Metonymie, conti­nens pro re contenta; and the speech is directed to him who was cruci­fied, and therefore a prayer (saith this Idolater) is considered ut peti­tio, vel ut honor quidam, either as a petition, and so it is not directed but to God, but as prayer is an honour expressed in such words and signes, the image also is thought to be honoured by praying to it, as the samplar to wit Christ, is honoured; soft words. Answ. 1. If praying and be­leevingWe may pray to I­mages and the ele­ments in the Supper, as well as we may kneel to them. doe properly respect a reasonable creature, so doth positive honouring which is esteemed, by the law of nature, praemium virtu­tis, a reward of vertue; now vertue morall to be a foundation of ho­nour, is as vainly given to a tree, or a stocke, as faith and prayer, but to speak to any in prayer, and make our requests known to them may be thought proper onely to a reasonable person, who onely can understand our prayer, and in reason answer our necessities, which a stock cannot doe: but secondly, I answer a stock is by Analogie, and as it is God representatively, as capable of rea­son to answer, and helpe us, and pitty us, in respect it can no­tably well represent the Majestie of God, who can answer, helpe, and pitty, as our Idolaters teach, as it is capable of knee-worship, and that honour which is given to God, though in an higher de­gree; for the formall reason why Images and elements are capable of knee-glory, due to him who sweareth that all knees shall how to him, is, because they represent God, and not because of themselves they have any divinity or Godhead in them. Now the same formall reason holdeth here, for the crosse, stone, tree, or elements that are prayed unto in that religious state, as they are the object of praying, doe represent God, therefore they are also capable of faith and pray­er, glory, as of knee-worship, or knee-glory. 2. Faith, hope, and charity (as Suarez de tripli. virt. & supr. dis▪ 51. Sect. 1. pag. 757. Suarez saith) in so farre as they are given to God, for giving of honour to him as to the supream Lord, they put on the nature of adoration, and in that same place he defineth adoration to be the exhibition of honour due to any in the acknowlegement of ex­cellency and submission and service due to him: Now Suarez reproo­veth Durandus and Pic. Mirandula, because they denied that the Image was adored, but would onely have honour given to [Page 175] God, at the naked presence of the Image, as a memorable signe, but it is certaine, as to trust in God, and to pray to him is incom­municable to the creature, so to adore any in acknowledgement of supreame excellencie is incommunicable to the creature, therefore either the image is adored with the same knee-worship that is given to God, and that improperly and by a figure, as Durandus and Mi­randula taught contrary to the mind of Suarez, and idolatrous Iesu­ites and F [...]rmalists, or else prayers may be made to wood and stone, as to God, and that properly and without a figure; as knee-wor­ship is tendered to wood and stone by Iesuits doctrine, prope [...]y and without a figure. 3. Papists deny that sacrifices may be offered to Images, yet they burne incense to images; but that is not, saith Antoni­us Capellus, adversuspri­matum Re­gis, Angliae contrav. 2. Cap. 30. a Fransciscan Antonius Capellus, a sacrifice, for it is tendred to men, to dead carions, and to things that are blessed, and requireth nei­ther Altar, nor Priest: It is true, they say so, but burning incense to the brazen Serpent is condemned as Idolatry, and Altar and Priest is not of the essence of a sacrifice; but however as sacrifi­cing is a recognition that we hold all we have of God, and there­fore we sacrifice creatures to him, so any adoring of stocks is an ac­knowledgement that these stocks or stones are by way of represen­tation, that God of whom we hold all the creatures: and doe not Papists for the honour of God, make oblations to Ministers, and burn incense to Saints? and why may not prayers be offered to them also? 4. It is a wild distinction where he faith that prayers as honour may be tendered to Images, but not prayers as petitions, whereas the very act of calling upon God in the day of trouble, Psal. 50. 15. is an honouring and glorifying God, and praying to God is due to God, as he is to be beleeved in, and to be preached amongst men, Rom. 10. 14. 15. And so is he worthy to be glorified as the subject of preaching; then it is a vaine thing to difference betwixt peti [...]ioning to God, and honouring God, because in that I petition God, in my ne­cessities, I submit to him as to God, who can answer and heare pray­ers: If therefore the Image and the wood be capable of the honour of praying, it is also capable of the honour of petitioning, so as we may as properly petition and supplicate the stocke, as give to it the glory of prayers. 5. If Formalists say in the third person, (the body Sacramentall of the Lord save thee,) they may upon the same ground say, (O thou Sacramentall body of the Lord save me) for this [Page 176] is a prayer to God, (O that God would save his people,) no lesse then this, (O God save thy people,) the variation of persons in the Grammar, maketh not the one to be a prayer, and not the o­ther. Vasquez Vasquez to. 1 part. 3. q 25. art. 23. disp. 109. cap. 4. saith, There is not alike reason, why praises, prayers, and Sacrifices should be tendred to Idols, & knee-worship & Adoration, because from the affection of Adoring the samplar, there is derived an externall note of submission to the image, which by a common name is called the honour, Worship and Adoration tendred to the image in a bodily manner, and being done before the image, tendeth to the honour­ing of the samplar; but the outward action of Praising, Praying, Sa­crificing, is commonly called Praising, Praying, Sacrificing, in relation to the Samplar, to wit, God, and no way in relation to the image, or to things without life; neither are they by accident referred to the ima­ges, only they be tendred to God before images, Coram illis. But I Answer, This is but to beg the Question, for we deny, that from A­doring the image, there resulteth any Adoring of God, but a great dishonouring of his Name. 2. Durandus, Mirandula, Hulcot, de­ny that Adoring of God, Coram imaginibus tanquam signis memora­tivis, before the images as memorials of God, should be an Adoring of the images: And Suarez saith, If images be only remembrances and memorials in the act of Adoration, this taketh much honour from the images, and is, saith Suarez tom. 1. in 3. q. 25. art. 3. disp. 54. Sect. 5. Si tantum coram ima­ginibus A­doratur de­us, hoc mul­tum derogat imaginum venerationi, nam [...]x eo non tantum sequitur imagines [clementa Sacramentalia] minus coli, quam exemplaria, sed etiam sequitur illas non coli omnius,—sed exemplaria tantum. he, An Adoring of the Samplar, but not an Adoring of the image: Though Vasquez, tom. 1. part. 3. q. 25. disp. 108. cap. 14. Nam iconomachi qui ad solam recordationem imaginibus utuntur, ante illas genu [...] a non flectunt nec se prostemunt; sic enim ipsas not [...] exteriore adorarent, sed erecti absque ullo corporis gestu, qui reverentiam indicet, [...]oram imagine exemplaris recordantur, & ipsum spiritu solum adorant. Vasquez; expounding Gre­gories minde, (which superstitious man calleth them, Gregorius Mag. l. 7. Epist. 53. if these be his Epistles. good books) contradict Suarez in this, yea, and himself also; for he saith, The enemies of images (he meaneth the Reformed Churches) who use them only for memorials and books, (it is a lye that we use them as books,) will not bow their knee to them, for then (saith he) they should Adore them; and therefore (saith Vasquez,) if Christ be not in very deed, in his presence in the Sacrament present, the knee-worship is tendred to bread and wine, which is (saith he) Idolatry; therefore either our Formalists are Transubstantiators, or Idolaters, or both; [Page 177] by this learned Iesuites judgement, and why by this same reason may we not say against Vasquez ibid. Hee who ado­reth a saint (saith Ioan. d [...] lugo de myster. in­incarnat disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 29.) for friendship and grace which hee hath argui­tivè, by conse­quence hee worshipeth God of whom the man hath grace, yet it is not needfull that he for­mally a­dore God, and in recto in so doing for he may honour the saint and not for­mally ho­nour God, for the saint and God are two divers objects. Answ. This proveth our point, that when I adore an I­mage, intending to adore God, some [...]oule-adoration adhereth to the Image, and that is a taste of Gods proper glory given to a stocke, or a stone. Vasquez, that the bodily offerings of prayers, prayses, and sacrifices to God, before the Image as the I­mage, is an honouring of the Image by prayer, they say to the tree of the Crosse.

Auge piis justitiam, reis (que) dona veniam.

Increase righteousnesse in us, and give remission of sinnes, O tree crosse to guilty sinners. Names at Rome goe as men will, but the honour it selfe is put upon the dumbe wood, which is due to Christ. O it is but a figure (say they) yea but (say we) prayers and praises in a bodily manner, and vocally are tendred to the wood, yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother, because he re­presenteth her husband, I thinke the matter should be washen with Inke, and badly excused to say, O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery, and that bodily har­lotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident, and to her husband kindly, and per se, for himselfe. The same way, if Formalists bow their knee to bread, that such a holy mystery be not prophaned. We know they cannot understand civill or countrey non-prophanation, that they intend; for kneeling and evill maners at the Lords table doe well consist together. Now religious non­prophanation by knee-worship, is adoring of these mysterious ele­ments. Ergo they make prayers and sing praises, and offer sacrifi­ces to the bread, Let them see to this and answer to it if they can. The sixt evasion of wit, I find in Ioan. de lugo. de myst. incar. disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 25, 26, 27. & seq. Respectus imaginis est quasi materialis & inanimatus, quia sic ap [...]rimus caput imagini, ut per illam actionem nihil velimus imagini dicere aut significare, sed soli exemplari, ad quod dirigitur ille actus pro ut significativus & prout civilis communicatio; & ideo respectu illius solum videtur esse actio animata. De Lugo ibid. Hoc enim esset stultum men­dacium, quia absoluté loquend [...] meliores sumus nos quam Imago sancti Petri. And conforme to this the seventh pretended and bastard Councell calleth them halfe holy, and halfe true, halfe false worshipers of God, Antonius Capellus citeth it, Advers. prim. regis Anglia, c. 30. Who will have Images to stand onely for memorialls, but not to be worshipped. Johannes de Lugo, who saith, 1. That the image and samplar making one and the same object, by aggregation, the inward affection besides externall knee-worship is gi­ven to both, but to the Image relatively, and for God or the samplar, and not for proper divine excellencie in it, and therefore the Councels (saith he) call it not adoration in spiritu, but it is tendered to God ab­solutely. [Page 178] 2. We give adoration of internall submission to God, or the samplar as the debt of potestative justice, but we doe not so worship the Image, we have no civill or politick communication with the Image, Concil. se­venth art. 1. p. 458. Qui vero dicunt su [...] ­ [...]icere usum imaginum ad memori­am solum, non vero ad salutationem [...]as habentes illud qui­dem recipi­entes, hoc ve­ro re [...]icien­ [...]es, s [...]mipro­bi quadante­nus, & falso v [...]ti [ut ita dicam] de­prehendun­tur. because it is not a reasonable creature, and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a materiall and livelesse action; when we uncover our head to the Image, by that action we would say or signifie nothing to the Image, but to the samplar, or to God onely. 3. The inward sub­mission that we tender to the Image, is not that we submit to it, as to a thing more excellent then we, for that were a foolish lye; yet (saith he) (that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers) we kisse not the Image in recto directly tendring honour to it, but to God and the samplar before it. 1. Because then I should adore my owne breast when I knocke upon it adoring the Eucharist. 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me. 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the I­mage, I doe not adore it at all. 4. By kneeling to the Image, I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image, I yeeld to it▪ as a thing above me, giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adora­tion is simply terminated upon the Image, as a thing contra distingui­shed from the samplar, though it be adored with the same action with which the samplar is adored. Thus the [...]e [...]uite.

Answ. But here all men may see many contradictions, and that he casteth downe all that formerly he hath said, [...]. Images even asAnsw. they represent God are dead things, and lesse then a redeemed Saint, Ergo, I can give them no submission of externall honour. 2. I signifie and say nothing of honour to the Image, even as it respecteth God, and representeth him, because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature, therefore I can­not honour it, and it were a foolish lye to say that the Image as re­presenting God, were a reasonable creature. 3. As it representeth God, it cannot heare payers, nor deliver in trouble, as the Holy One of Israel can doe; Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument, I cannot bow to a lye, Esa. 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth, but by a figure, because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth, wherefore it should have but figurative honour at the best, and that is no reall honour, Jer. 10. 8, 11, 12, 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood, or element, ho­nour of externall submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superiour, the Images and Elements are not my superiour. [Page 179] 1. They be meanes, I the end. 2. They bee void of life and reason which I have. 3. They are not redeemed, sanctified, and to be glo­rified as I am. Ioan. de Lugo answereth, As I may love Peter for the goodnesse that is not in Peter but in another, as I may love and desire good to Peter, for the goodnesse that is in his father, and not in himself, and so pay the debt of affection to him for another, so I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the samplar represented by the Image, therefore it is not required to the essence of adoration, that we acknowledge debt due to every thing adored for another; it is suffici­ent a debt be acknowledged, either to the Image, or the samplar. Answ. The debt of love and the debt of honour are not alike. I owe ho­nour to superiours onely as superiours, I owe love to superiours, equals, inferiours. If I truly adore an Image, I truly acknowledge excellency in the Image, I truly yeeld to it, a worthier place then I deserve to have my selfe, (saith De Lugo ibid. 39. imagi [...]s ve­re cedo exte­rius, daudo illi meliorē & superio­rem lo [...]um honorifice eam tracta [...] ­do. de Lugo) Ergo, by the fifth Commandement according to the debt of justice, I owe feare, honour, and reverence to it, else I adore it by a figure, which the Iesuite doth deny.

I am not afraid that they say, Damascen, Orat. 5. d [...] imagin. a superstitious Monke alloweth Images to be adored. So doeth 7. Synod act. 4. that preten­ded seventh Synod, or (u) the second Nicene Synod, and Iuo 4. part. sui de­cret. c. 38. Ste­phanus and Adrianus, as we may read in Juo. Nice­phorus hist. lib. 2. c. 17. Nicephorus speak­eth many fables for Images, he sheweth us that Luke the Evangelist should have painted the Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary. Nice­phorus hist. li. 2. c. 43. lib. 6. c. [...]6. And that Lib. 7. c. 33. holy Silvester had the Images of Peter and Paul, and shewed them to the Emperour Constantine, and Canisius lib. 5. De Beata vir­gine, c. 22. Divers Fa­bles touch­ing Ima­ges. Canisius a fabulous man saith, there appeared to Silvester at the dedication feast of Saint Salvators church the picture of Christ in the Wall, but the originall of Images seemeth to be the vanity of man, saith S [...]p. 14. the Wiseman. 2. The keeping of the dead in memory, saith De idolo vanit. Cy­prian, ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos expressa sunt simulachra, inde posteris facta sunt sacra quae primitus assumpta fue­runt solatia, in aliis codicibus ad solatia. 3. The blinde heathen wan­ting the light of Scripture, began to worship Images. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 8. Eusebius saith it began first [...], from the Heathenish custome it came that Peter and Pauls Images were first made. Men did it saith August. contra Ada­mant c. 13. Augustine, ut Paganorum concilient benevolentiam, to conci­liate the favour of Pagans, it may bee seene out of Gregorius

[Page 180] Gregor. mag. Epist, ad Serenum Massilien sem lib. 7. Ep. 109. Magnus, saith Voetius in desper. caus. papat. lib. 3. c. 6. sect. 2. Voetius, that the worshiping of Images crept in but the sixt age. In the first three hundred yeeres, Images were not admitted (saith our Country-man Sympson 6. Century of the worshipping of Images, p. 38. Patrick Sympson) into the place of worship, in the fourth, fifth and sixt Centurie, they were ad­mitted into temples, but for the most part without opinion of adoration. In the second Nicene Councell, an obscure age, (saith Pet. Molin [...]us Buckler of Faith of Images, Sect. 118. pag. 308. Petrus Moli­naeus) when the scriptures were taken away, it is ordained that Images should be adored, but not the Images of the Father. Quoniamquis sit non novimus, dei (que) natura spectanda proponi non potest ac pingi. But onely the Image of the Son. This Councell was Anno 787. as saith Bellarm de scrip. in Chron. Bellarmine. But this wicked Fathers argument proves also that the Image of God the Father may be painted, while they prove wor­shipping of Images, because the Psalmist saith, The Lord arose as a mighty man after Wine. But Gene­brard [...]hron. an. 794. p. 308. Genebrard saith this Councell of Nice, was controuled by a Councell in the West. Barro­nius An. 726. Observe that Aene­as Sylvius epist. 301. saith, ante▪ Nicenam Synodum unusquis (que) sibi vivebat, quemadmodum sibi visum est, & paro [...]s respectus ad Romanam ecclesiam [...]abe [...]atur, a Metropolitan Bishop, a step to the Popedome, was first created here in Romes Car [...]bage, Constantin [...]ple, Antiochia. Barronius mentioneth two Epistles written by Gregorious 2. a defender of Images, wherein he saith, the Sonne may be painted, not the Fa­ther. This Councell was approved by Constantine, Ireneus, and a Greeke copie of the Synod sent to Pontific. Adrian the Pope. But 1. this wicked Synod did not maintaine adoration of Images, such as Suarez, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Peri [...]rius, &c. now hold, but onely veneration. 2. Images were placed in the Churches, saith Paulus diaconus lib. 13. Paul. Diaconus, multis contra dicentibus, many speaking a­gainst i [...]. And Bergo­mensis lib. 10. Bergomens. saith, the Emperour Constantine himselfe not long after did abrogate the Acts of this Synod, and Synod Franckford. the Synod of Franckford condemned this Synod. See Aventinus lib. 4. Aventinus; Hincmarus cap. 20. con­tra Iandu [...]ns [...]m. Hincmarus saith it is true they of Franckford allowed Images to be in Churches, but not to be adored. Vrspergens. in Histor. Vrspergensis saith that this synod did write a book against the second Councell of Nice, called otherwise the seventh generall Councell. A booke came out▪ in France, and after in Germany under the name of Charles the Great, condemning by strong reasons the adoration of Images, and answereth all the arguments of the Nicene Fathers on the contra­ry, Tannerus the Iesuite saith this was a forged Booke. But against fa­mous [Page 181] and learned Authors saying the contrary, and so Hinc­marin. Archiepis­copus Remo­rum c. 10. cont. Hinc­marin. [...]andunen­sem Episcop. Hinc­marius and Eccius in E [...]chirid. Ectius make mention of this book, and Pope Adrianus (as Hospin. d [...] orig. i­mag. p 197. Hospinianus doth well observe) doth approve of this Synod of Francford by his Letters written to the Emperour of Constantinople, and the Patriarch Tharasius.

The first five hundred years (saith Calvin. justit. lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 13. Calvin) images were not worshipped. Caj [...]s Caligula a proud Tyrant, commanded the Iews to set up his image in the Temple: the Iews answered they should rather die then pollute the Temple of God with images, as [...]aith Iosephus antiq lib. 18. cap. 11. Iosephus and Euse [...]. bistor. lib. 2. cap. 6. Eusebius, and this fell out while the A­postles lived.

Ann. 108. Plunius 2. writeth to Trajanus under the third Persecu­tion, That Christians were men of good conversation, and detested vices, worshipped Christ, and would not worship Images Epist. Plinii. 2 ad Imporat Trajan., as that Letter beareth: and Euseb. Histor. lib. 3. cap. 33. Eusebius, reporteth Adrian had a purpose, (as saith Bucol [...]. in Alexand. severo. Bucol.) to build a Church for the honour of Christ void of Images. See Symson 1. Century cap. 1. Symson that ancient Writer: Justin. Martyr. in Dialog. cum. Trypho. & apolog. 2. Justine Martyr in this Age; Omnes imagines ad cultum proposit as simplici­ter damnant Christiani. Tertullian. apo. cap. 30. Tertullian, a most ancient writer, who lived under Severus in time of the fifth Persecution, as Magdeburgens. cent. 3. cap. 10. the Magdeburgenses testifie; saith, Nos adoramus oculis ad caelum sub­latis, non adimagines seu picturas, and, indignum ut imago Dei vivi imagini idoli, & mortu: fiat similis, (saith Apol. 1. 9. 11. he also) and not only thinketh it unlawfull to represent God by an Image, but also saith, that Craftsmen, who professe themselves Christians, ought no [...] to make Images of God. An ancient Writer Clemens Alexand. in Paraenetico. Clemens Alexan­drinus, Non est nobis imago sensibilis de materiâ sensibili, nisi quae precipitur intelligentiâ. Deus enim qui solus est verè Deas, intelli­gentiâ precipitur, non sensu: We have no sensible Image of sensible matter, because God is taken up by the understanding, not by the sense: and in s. Stromat. Nihil in rebus genitis potest referre Dei imaginem. This an­cient Writer flourished, saith Ca­tolog. testium veritat. lib. 2. pag. 87. Catolog. Testium veritat. Anno 150. or as Hospinian. d [...] origine imag. cap. 10. pag. 155▪ Hospinian saith Ann, 200. and Iren [...]us, l. 1. cap. 24. Ireneus, the dis­ciple [Page 182] of Polycarpus, an hearer of John the Apostle maketh it the Heresie of the Gnosticks, that they held that Pilate made the Image of Iesus: Et quod imagines baberent Christi, Apostolorum atque Philosophorum▪ easque coronarent, ac colendas propo [...]erent. Cyprian cont. de▪metria­num. 1. Cy­prian saith, Idols, or Images, be not only against the Law of God, but against the nature of man; Origen. cont. cel. sum. l. 8. Origen said, The Images of Christi­ans are Christians indeed, with Gods Image: and, Nos veno ideo non honor amus simulachrá, quia quantū possumus, cavemnus, ne in [...]idamus in eam crudelitatem, ut et iis tribuamus divinitatis aliquid. Atha­nas. advers. gentes. Grave Athanasius saith, [...] The invention of Images is from an evil fountain, and not from good, and whatsoever hath a bad beginning, cannot be deemed in any thing good, being altogether bad: The Papist Harding bringeth in a counterfeit Dialogue of Athanasius, betwixt Christ and his Church; and Christ comforting his Church, be­cause she was persecuted for worshipping Christs Image; but when and where this persecution was, none knoweth, for many times hath the Church been persecured for not worship­ping Images; but see the answer of the learned Jewell against Harding 14. art. of adora [...]. pag. 506, 507. Jewell there­unto; Epipha­nius lib. 3. cont. Colly­ridianos. Epiphanius, who lived, Anno 370. proveth against the[f] Idem ibid. Collyridiams, That Mary nor no creature should be adored. Ʋnde est simulachrificum hoc studium et diabolious conantus? praetext [...] enim (g) Lactan­tius, insti­tut. l. 2. cap. 2. Etenim hominis i­mago neces­saria tum videtur, cum procul abest, super­vacua futu­ra cum presto est, dei autem cujus spiritus ac numen ubi­que diffu­sum, abesse nunquam potest, semper utique imago supervacua est. The Arguments of the an­cients against Images. justitiae sempersubiens hominum, mentem drabolus, mortalem natu­ram in hominum oculis deificans, Statuas humanas, imagines pre se ferentes per artum, veritatem expressit, et mortui quidem sunt qui adorantur: Item, Revera sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus, honorata, non in adorationem data. Mary was not God, and therefore is not to be adored: He professeth that he did rive a vail, that had painted in it the Image of Christ, or of some man▪ Cum ego videssem in Ecclesia Christi▪ contra authoritatem scriptura­rum, hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, &c.

Lactantius Formianus, Images are to represent these who are absent. God is every where present, it is vanity therefore to forme an image of God. Also Lactantius lib. 2. cap. 19. There is no Religion, where there is an image: Also [Page 183] Ib. Cur ad parietes & signa, & lapides po­tissimum quam illo spectatis, ubi cos esse cre­datis. ib. instit. div. l. 2. c. 1. your gods be either in Heaven, or not; if they be not in Heaven, why do ye worship them? If they be in Heaven, why do ye not lift your eyes to Heaven while you adore them? Why do you convert your eyes toward walls, stocks and stones, rather then toward that place where you imagine your gods to be?

instit. l. 2. c. 2. His Arguments against Images be these: Ibid. 1. They forget reason, when they fear the work of their own hands: 2. Instit. l 2. c. 3. God is not absent, but present every where: 3. Instit. l. 2. c. 4. The image is a dead thing void of sense, God is the eternall and everliving God: 4. Instit. l. 2. c. 18. Nothing mortall should be worshipped. 5. Ibid. What vanity to hope for protection from these things, which cannot defend themselves [...] 6. Instit. l. 6. c. 11. The image is lesse and viler then the worshipper: 7. Ambros. officior l. 2. cap. 21. Man according to Gods image, is the image of God. 8. (s) God needeth nothing, neither torches because he made the light, nor images. This man lived, Anno 300. Before which time the Church of Christ being persecuted, they had no Churches, nor Images to be ornaments in their Churches, as saith (t) Ambrosius, and also Chrys. l. 2. epist. 246. Chrysostom, who was displeased with the fooleries in Temples in his time, and saith, They were not like the Templ [...]s of the Apostolick Churches: and Tertul­lian apol et c [...]nt. valent. Tertullian, and Eusebi­us hist. ec. l. 9. c 10. Eusebius saith, They had then, Simplices domos, Simple houses, void of paintries and pictures: And the want of Temples was objected against Christian Religion, as Origen cont. cles. l. 9. c. 4. Ori­gen cleareth in the time of Constantine, the son of Chlorus, as saith, Sozomen l. 1. c. 8. Sozomen, and Euseb. in vita constan. l. [...]. Eusebius, Temples were builded, but as Joan Armitants in explan [...]io can 5. concilii gangren Joan. Quintinus expoundeth Tertullian, without the ornaments of images, and Tertull. lib. de Idol. Plutarch in vitae Numae non dum ingenia Grecorum atque Tuscorum fingendis simulachris urbem inundaverunt, ita Tertullian, Apol. c. 25. Tertullian himself maketh building of Altars, and portracts, Idol [...]tricos cultus, Idolatrous worship. In the fourty years space, betwixt the reign of Valerian, and the 19. year of Diccle­sian, there were Oratories and Temples builded, but neither painted Pictures, nor Images in them, as saith [e] Eusebius: Yea, of thirty Bishops of Rome, even from Peter and Paul to Sylvester, and Con­stantine the Emperour; to wit, three hundred years, there were none, who were not persecuted to blood, or to death, or some other way. It is a vain thing to say, they had breathing time to build(f) Euseb. Hist. eccles. l. 8. c. 1. [Page 184] Temples, and erect Altars, and golden Images of Christ, and the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. It is true, in the two hundreth year after Christ, under Alexander Severus, Gordianus, Philippus, Gal­lienus; Churches were builded, as Nice­phorus l. 7. c. 2. Nicephorus saith, but a­gain under Dioclesian they were demolished to the ground, but ob­serve well there were no Images of Christ broken, which that Ty­rant in despite of Christ, would not have omitted; see Euseb. l. 8. c. 2. Euse­bius, they were builded again under great Constantine, so Sozo­men tripart. histor. l. 1. c. 9. Sozo­men, Otto Phrisingen­sis l. 4. c. 3. Otho Phrisingensis Nice­phorus l. 8. c. 27. and Nicephorus. The dream of Platina, for the building of a Church, by the donation of Con­stantine, with twelve portions of earth, equall to the number of the twelve Apostles, and of another Church, with the title of the holy Crosse at Ierusalem, which Helena found in that place, and Con­stantine placed in this Church at Rome, is refuted by Hospi­nian d [...] O­rig. Templo cap. 6. pag. 34. Hospi­nian: yet is there no word of any Images in these Churches.

Arnob. cont. gent. lib. 2. Arnobius An. 330. maintaineth against the heathen, that the Christians ought to have no Images: 1. Because the device of images is a novelty, and was not before two thousand years, but God and Religion are no new things. 2. Ib. lib. 6. & lib. 7. Because either the Gods dwel­leth in their images, against their will, or of their own accord; if the former be said, they are compelled, which is absurd. If the latter, then they do either bide alwayes in their images, and so are miserable, or they go out of the images when they please, and then the images are empty things.

Euseb. Caesariens. Epist. ad Constantiam Augustam. Eusebius Caesariensis who lived, An. 300. when Constantia Augusta wrote to him for the Image of Christ, answered.

That could not be: 1. Because his manhood was joyned with his Godhead, and could not be separated therefrom. 2. Because his God­head cannot be represented, Mortuis, & inanimatis coloribus, with dead and livelesse colours. Hycron. cont. Vigi­lantium, ad Riparum Presbiter. Hieronimus, who lived, An. 331. under Constantine, denyeth that any Creature, Angel, or Virgin Mary should be worshipped. Ruffi­us hist. eccl. l. 1. c. 8. Ruffinus faith, Helena the mother of Constantine adored crucified Christ, but antiquity saith not, that she adored the nails that fixed him to the Crosse, because they were but creatures.

Ambro. in cap. 1. epist. ad Rom. Ambrosius, who lived, Anno 370. condemneth Images. 1. Be­cause they change the images of the dead, in the glory of God, who worshippeth images: 2. The living serve the dead. 3. They take from [Page 185] stocks and stones what they are, and give to them, what they are not. 4. Ambros. offices l. 1. c. 26. Idols are unclean. 5. It is undecent Ibid., to worship what men maketh with their hands. 6. Because Ibid. images are but shadows.

Aug. Epist. 49. Augustine condemneth Images. 1. Because they infect the vveak mindes of rude people, to worship them. 2. They have eyes and see not. 3. The creatures are images of God, not stocks. 4. Idols Aug. de doct. Chri­sti. lib. 3. c. 7 are huskes and empty. 5. These De Civit. dei l. 4. c. 9. who brought in Images, tooke a­way the feare of God, and increased error. 6. Martyrs De civi [...]. dei lib. 22. c. 10. are not gods. 7. Confounded August. in Ps. 96. be they who worship stones, our living stone Christ is in heaven.

8. August. in Psal. 96. Though worshippers of Images say, they worship God in Images, yet they worship devills; for good men, as Paul and Barnabas, Angels, and Cornelius forbade men to worship them. 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life, farre more to adore a dumbe and livelesse creature, August, ps. 113. Chrysost. hom. 49. in Math. Chrysostome is against Images. 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them. 2. Idem ho­mil. 51. in Math. God must be honou­red, as he willeth himselfe. 3. It is Idem hom. 33. in Mat. a depressing of soules to wor­ship Images. Hom. 1. ad pop. an. It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him, In 3. c. Is. it is mockerie that man should be the creator of God, the Creator of all things.

Damascen de Imagin. orat. 2. Cyrillus Alexandrin. who lived An. 415. saith, We neither be­leeve the martyrs to be gods, nor doe we adore them.

Gregor. lin. 9. ep. 9. Perlatum est ad nos, quod inconsider [...] ­to zelo suc­census san­ctorum ma­gines sub bac, quasi excusatione, ne adorari debuissent, confregeris, & quidem, quia cas adorari, ve­t [...]isses omnino laudamus, fregisse vero reprehendimus. Damascen a superstitious man much for Images acknowledg­eth two things. 1. That Images are but [...] unwritten traditions. 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent, the Cheru­bims were made for signification, not for imitation or adoration.

(i)Gregorius Magnus, though he be alledged by Papists for ado­ration of Images. Yet in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia, An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images, and alloweth onely the Historicall use of them, as is observed by Fran. Whites way to the Church, ch. 9, sect. 2. p. 114. Fran. White, Hospinian de Origen Imag. p. 174. by Hospinian and Catol. test. veritat l. 6. p. 562. Catol. testum veritatis, and Greg. mag. lib. 9. ep. 9. this man being the first who brought Images into the Church hath this Ca­veat, atque indica (saith he to Sirenus) quod non tibi, ipsa visio historiae quae, pictura teste, pandebatur, displicueri [...]: sed illa adoratio quae pictu­ris [Page 186] fuerit in competenter exhibita, & si quis imagines facere voluerit, minimè prohibe, adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita, sed hoc solicitè admoneas, ut ex visione rei gestae, ardorem conjunctionis per­cipiant, & in adoratione solius Trinitatis prosternantur. It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images, though he make them onely bookes to the rude. This same Greg mag. lib. 3. dialo. Gregorius will have the signe of the crosse adored, because when the Devill came to a Iew sleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll, the Iew being afraid, signed himselfe with the Crosse, and the Divell fled; but when doth Iewes come in any Christian Churches, or Idoll-Tem­ples, who abhorre the name of Christ, and so hate both the Crosse and Christ, and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan?

In the eighth age, Beda l. 2. c. 21. ad peragenda nostrae salu­tis mysteria nullum pe­nitus offici­um habere n [...]scuntur. Beda Imaginum cultus & adoratio, the worshipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull. 1. Because they have no office in the doctrine of the Gospell. 2. Beda l. 1. c. 9. adorare, salutare, co­lare, inhibe­mur pene in cunctis scripturae locis. We are for­bidden to adore, salute, or worship them. 3. The (d)Idem. l. 1. c. 21.Church is not taught to seeke the Lord by Images, but by faith and good workes. 4. The Idem l. 1. c. 24. Idem l. 6. c. 21. Apostolique Church did not worship God in Images. 5. Images Ibid. want, documento antiquitatis, antiquity, example, and the Scripture. 6. We Cod. l. 8. tit. 12. leg. 20. Theodos. Valentinian frustrate God of worship due to him. 7. Peter Lib. 2. cap. 2 [...]. Paul, Angels forbad to worship them, but God only.

We forbid the Church (saith the civill Law) to be obscured with Images. Have the Image of God, (saith Ephrem. secunde. Ephrem) in thy heart, non colorum varietate in ligno, not in Images and colours. Who can make (saith Damascen de fid. Or­thod. l. 4. c. 17. Damascen) a representation of the invisible God. Gretser. lib. 1. de [...]ru [...]. c. 44. Gretserus saith, the Iewes would not admit of Ensignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images should be hidden under them. So said Jo­sephus Ioseph lib. 18. c. 6. before him. Their own men say with us, Hulcot in lib. sup. lect. 148. Ioan. Pic. Mirandula conclus. 3. Hulcot who lived an. 1346. saith Latreia, divine worship belongeth to God onely, the Image is not God, neither the Crosse; (saith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula, Concl. 3.) nor the Image of Christ is to be adored (adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas) with divine worship, the guise of Thomas Aquinas Peresius Ajala de trad. pag. 3. De Imagine (que) scripturam ne (que) traditionem, ne (que) communem sensum sanctorum, neque concilium generalis determinationem, ne (que) etiam rationem adducunt. Peresius Ajala a Popish Bishop, for adoration of Ima­ges, saith he, there is neither Scripture, nor Church tradition, nor con­sent of Fathers, nor good reason to make it good. For saith Gabriel Biel in Can. lec. 49. Gabriel [Page 187] Biel, The image either considered in it self as it is mettall or stone, or as it is a holy signe, is a sensible Creature, to which Latreia, Divine ho­nour should not be given: and the Romish D [...]cret. 3. dist. 3. c. 27. Grego. Decrees saith, We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worshipped: The Doway men, An­not. 2 Sam. 5. 8. The blinde and the lame shall not enter in the Temple. Doway Doctors say, Idols have eyes and cannot see, &c. Now if they have Images of God and Christ which can see, and hear, and speak, we exceedingly desire to know: Alexand. Alens. 3. p. q. 30. art. ult. Alexander Allensis, Durand. l. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. Durandus say, That images in themselves, and properly, are not to be Worshipped.

Cassand. In Consulta­tione ad fer­dinandum & maximi­lianum art. An. 1170. Geo: Cassander wisheth, That they had continued (in majo­rum suorum sententia) in the minde of their forefathers, and that the Superstition of people in, Worshipping images had been suppressed. The Councell convened by Concil. Constantin [...] ­polit. An. 755. of 338. Bi­shops. Yea, this same se­cond coun­cel of Nice, and the seventh Epistle to the Synod, condemneth Nestorius of Idolatry, and condemneth the Arians as Idolaters, who Worshipped Christ whom they believed to be a man onely: And Athanasius, contr. Arian. Orati. 1. And Nyssenus in Laud. Bas. And Nazianzen, Orati. 40. say. To Adore a Creature, though in the Name of Christ or God, is Idolatry. Constantius Capronimus condem­neth Worshipping of Images, or placing them in Churches. 1. Be­cause it is forbidden in the second Commandment. 2. The Picturing of Christ is a dividing of the two Natures. 3. It is against the An­cients, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Chrysostome, Athanasius, Amphy­locius, Theodorus, Eusebius Pamphili. The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies. Adrian Bishiop of Rome, writeth to the Coun­cell of Nice, That the Emperour Constantine being a Leaper, and labouring to cure his Leprosie by shedding of innocent Babes blood; Peter and Paul appeared to him by night, in a Vision, and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylvester, and that he, to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing, builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul. This is as true as the Image of Christ spake to Tho: Aqui­nas at Naples, Bene Scripsistti de me, Thoma, Why is not all Evan­gell that Aquinas hath written then? For their own Platina Platina in vita Marci. Papae. saith, The story of Constantines Leprosie is a fable; and Socrates saith, That Constantine was sick when he was 65. years, and he ma­keth no mention of his leprosie; so Hospin. de orig. perogimatio. pag. 381. Hospinianus saith, and our own Symson, Treatise of Images, p. 47. Simson saith, That Sylvester and Marcus his successor were both dead before Constantine was Baptized: Genebrad. in Chron. l. 2. Anno 1794. Genebradus a Papist saith, [Page 188] down right, that the Councell of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Councell; But Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2 c. 14. Bellarmine, Suarez in 3. part. Thom. q. 25. art. 3. dis. 54. Sect. 3. Suarez, Sanderus l. 2. de I­mag. c. 5. Sanderus' Alanus Dial 4. c. 18. Alanus, deny that the Doctrine of the second Nicene Councell for Adoring images, is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford; they say it is onely expounded, and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifest: Yea, saith Naucl [...]. in Chron. Vol. 2. ge­ner. 27. Nauclerus, Sabellicus l. 8. Enead, ad. 8. Sabellicus, and Blandus decad. 2. l. 1. Blandus: The Councell of Frankford reserveth due honour to images, and saith nothing against the Councell of Nice. But this is to de­ny daylight at Noon-day: For Anno­nius in An­nalib. Fran­corum. 794. Anno. Annonius is most clear in it, and Abbot Vspergens. in Chron. Anno 793. Abbot Vspergens. Charles the Great of Images. the Book of Charles the Great saith the same. The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of pur­pose to condemne the second Synod of Nice, called the seventh pretended and false Synod: Aventi­nus, lib. 4. annal. Aventinus saith expresly, Scita Grecorum (in Synodo Nicena decreta) de imaginibus adorandis in concili [...] francofurtensi rescissa & abolita sunt: and Vspergens. in Chron. Anno 793. Vspergensis saith, in this Synod it was decreed, Ʋt septima & universalis Sy­nodus, nec septima nec aliquid diceretur, quasi supervacua ab omni­bus abdica tu est; and the same saith Eginradus in vita Caroli Magni. Eginradus, Cassander in Consul. ad ferdinand. & Maxmilian imp. Geo [...] Cassander: But the very Arguments in the Nicene Councell are set down, and dissolved in the Frankford Councell, as our own Master Simson, Treatise of Images, pag. 48. Simson observeth: As the Nicene Councell reasoneth from the Cherubims, and the brazen Serpent. Frankfoord Answer­eth, These were made at Gods Commandment, images not so. 2. Yea, say they, and with them Lorinus in Art. 17. ver. 25. Serpentem. Conflari [...]jusfit non quod adorari vellet, nam postea con­fregit. Lorinus, The Cherubims and brazen Serpent were not made to be Worshipped; see these and many other Arguments, set down and Answered by the Councell of Frankfoord: As also saith Catol. Test. Verit. lib. 8. pag. 882, 883, 884. the Learned Author of Catol. Test. Verit. The Arguments used by this Councell, proveth that no Adoration is due to Images, as may be hence collected: As also out of the book of Caroli. lib. 1. cap. 2. Charles against the dreames of Tarasius, whose entry to the Priesthood was unlawfull, and was a grosse Idolater, and against the Idolater Pope Adrian; Because 1. There is no holinesse in ima­ges, either as they are figures or colours, or as they are Consecrated. [Page 189] 2. Because to Adore is to glorifie, Carlo. lib. 1. c. 21. but only God is to be glorified. 3. God Commandedus not to love images, but men, and sent his son in the flesh for men, and not for images; and if Caro. lib. 2. cap. 24. Caro. lib. 3. cap. 16. they be not to be believed on, neither are they to be Adored. 4. It cannot be proved that the honour of the image, is the honour of the Samplar: Christ said not, What ye do to images, ye do to me, nor he that receiveth ima­ges, receiveth me. This Argument proveth, that Veneration is not due to the Images, as to books of the Trinity; because that the Venera­tion of the Image, is an honouring of God, there must be an union betwixt the Images and God or Christ, betwixt the Tree and Christ. 1. There is no union lawfull, that can be a Warrant of honouring any thing; but an union Warranted of God, betwixt Crossing in the Air, and Dedication to Christs Service, betwixt Sur­plice and Pastorall Sanctity; There is no union, nor is there a per­sonall union betwixt Christ and the Image: Nor 2. an union of parts, as betwixt the shoulders and the head. Nor 3. is there a Di­vine relative union, as betwixt the mean or the end, the Servant or the Lord: for as White against Fi­sher, p. 224. John White saith well; and Matth. 10. 14, 42. 2 Cor. 8. 4. Gal. 4. 14. Act. 10. 34. Ps. 119. 97. 159. 147. 82. 103. 111. 113. 114. 120. 127. 128. 140. 143. 167. 174. the Scrip­ture proveth, all union betwixt God and the meanes of Worship, which are to be reverenced as meanes of Worship in relation to God, is by divine institution; now certainly if by divine ordina­tion there had been an union betwixt the Image and God, then had it been lawfull to lay the Image in the heart, to say: How love I thy Image? (the painted pictures and wooden portracts of Christ, the wood of the Crosse are my delight) (I hope in the wood) (I have taken images for my heritage, they are sweeter to me, nor the honey or the honey combe) (hovv pleasant are the wooden feet of these dead and senslesse Ambassadors of Christ, who bring to my soul news of God, or of my Redeemer Iesus.)

Ambros. epist. 26. Ambrose, Gregor. in reg. l. 5. cap. 1. Gregorius, Augustine on these words, he that recei­veth you receiveth me. Augustine Chrysos. on these same words Chrysostom saith, The honour of the servant redoundeth to the Master, when he is a servant by appointment of the Master, and he that heareth faith­full Pastors, heareth Christ who sent them: And Athanas. cont. Arria. orat. 4. Athanasius, and Basilus de spir. sanct. cap. 18. Basill, to prove the honouring and adoring of Christ, the substantiall Image of God, to be the honouring of God the Father, say; The hearing of the Image, or of the servant of the King, is the hearing of the King. But the Image is formally made an Image of God, and the saints by mens imagination▪ not by Gods word or his [Page 190] ordination: Their own Peresius Aiala in Trad. 3. de imag. Peresius saith, If the imagination were carried upon the image or samplar with one motion, yet it cannot be concluded, that the same is to be done in Adoration: And August de [...]era re­lig. cap. 55. we are not to worship God by our fantasies, saith Augustine, nor by our Idem e­pist. 85. carnall thoughts. Suarez, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Gretserus, buildeth all their Adoration of images, upon the saying of Aristotle; De memor & remiscen, cap. 2.

Hence the Conc. Trident. Sess. 25. Fathers of Trent, Damasceu. l. 4. c. 12. dreaming Damascene, Nicephor. in dial. constant. de imaginibus doting Nicephorus; if we believe Suarez in 3. part Thom. to. 1. q. 25. art. 3. disp. 54. Sect. 3. Suarez, make this a prin­ciple of their Bible of Idoll worship; That God and the Image are one, but we see not how they be one, nor can we say that God is present in the Image as in a place: for if he be present in the Image, In loco ut sic, as in such a place, then he is there as in a consecrated place, and by promise, and so they must give us the word of God, for Gods presence in Images; but if God be present in Images, as In loco simpliciter, non ut in loco ut sic: As he is in all places, then is he not present in images, as in images, but as in all creatures, and then let us say Amen, to Vasquez in 3. part [...]om. 1. disp. [...]10. cap. 2. God not in the Image as in a place. Vasquez will have all things to be ado­red. Joan. de Lugo pro­veth the same by four rea­sons. Vasquez, who saith, all things which have a being, A Mouse and Frog are to be adored, as having resem­blance with God the first being: And he saith, this is the opinion of Cajetan. 22. q. [...]03. art. 3. ad. 4. Cajetanus, and citeth Leontius in Dialog. 5. cont. Judaeos. Vt r [...]fertur in 7. Synod. falsa act. 4. Leontius the dreamer, who was at the Councell of Nice the seventh false Synod; who saith, all Creatures visible and invisible are to be adored. And the Popes Professor Joan. de Lugo de myster. incarnat. disp. 37. Sect. 1. n. 1. 2, 3. Joannes de Lugo proveth by four great reasons, that all crea­tures should be adored.

1. Because all creatures are the effects, and as it were the hand writing of God.

2. Because we use to kisse and adore materiall places, and the stone, or field where an Angel, or Saint hath been, for the touching and pro­pinquity of the place and that holy thing, but Gods omnipresence san­ctifieth all creatures. Be doing then, Masters, kisse, and adore the sanctified Devil and Hell fire, but take heed you scald not your lips.

3. We kisse and worship a gift of a Prince, but all creatures, even the most abject and contemptible, are the gifts of God the Creator.

4. Man in a speciall manner is the living image of God. But true it [Page 191] is, God is to be praised for all his creatures; but externall Adora­tion before them, and laying a part of Gods glory upon them, for that is forbidden by your own, for Leo. 1. Serm. 7. De nativita ab­stinendum ab ipsa specic offi [...]ij. Leo the first saith the con­trary, and Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp. 8. Salmeron saith; The body of Alex. al [...]n. 3. p. q. 30. memb. 3. art. 3. sect. [...]. Moses was hidden of old for fear of Idolatry, and the use of Images and pictures were by God forbidden to the Iews in the second command, saith [f] A­lexander Alens. Albertus dist. 9. art. 4. Albertus, Bonavent. art. 1. q. 2. ad 1. in con­trarium. Bonaventura, Martuinus de ajala tract. de trad. 3. par. Martinus de Ajala, Abulens. Deut. 4. q. 4 & 5. Abulensis, who I am sure have with them in this, Albertus and Bonaventura, that the Images of God, because (say they) he is an invisible Spirit, are forbidden by the Law of nature.

But I return to the Synod of Franckeford: 5. Carol. lib. 2. cap. 25. Because ima­ges are void of senses and reason. 6. It cannot be proved by the example of the Apostles, Ibid. Ergo, (say I) Images are neither to be tea­ching books, nor adored creatures: 7. The ancient Fathers Carol. l. 4. cap. 27. were ignorant of this worship. 8▪ Only the rich Carol. l. 4. cap. 27. who are able to sustain Images, should be saved, and not the poor. 9. There Carol. l. 1. cap. 2 [...]. is no profit, but great vanity in adoring Images.

To the Arguments from miracles it is answered, L. 4. c. 10. l. 3. c. 21. that these miracles are lying signes: for, Ea miracula, nulla Evangelii lectio tradit. 2. They deny that all things are to be adored, in the which, or by the which L. 3. c. 2 [...]. God wrought miracles. Gregorius Nyssenus bowed his knee to the Image of Abraham: What then? the Coun­cell saith, these books of Nyssenus are perished.

The fable of Agbarus, to whom the Image of Christs face painted in a cloath was sent, was not in the world till the year of God, 700. It is a counterfeit work ascribed to Athanasius, in stile and phrase of writing not like to him, where it is said, that it was the image of Christ crucified by the Iews in Berythus a Town in Syria, out of whose side flowed blood and water, which being mixed with water, could cure all diseases; Symson treats of the worshipping of Images, pag. 50, 51. so Symson.

The Testimony Concilium Eleherio, cap. 36. Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas, non esse debere, ne quod colitur, aut adoratur, in paric­tibus pingatur. of the Councell of Eliberia is clear, that images should not be in Churches Ca [...]us line 5. cap. 4. Canus, Surjus 1 Tom. of concell. an in can. 36. cont. Eliber. Surjus and your own men say, this Councell condemneth images. For 370. years [Page 192] there were no Images in Churches; in this age Martyrs were ad­mired, and the Grecians first, especially Gregorius Nyssenus the brother of Basilus had Images in Churches; Sozomen l. 5. c. 20. Sozomen saith, Chri­stians took into Churches pieces of Christs image, broken by Iu­lian the Apostat, in the first age, when Religion was born down and holy Pastors killed.

Gregorius Magnus first defended that images should be in Chur­ches. Its like the Apostate Iulian would hate any thing, bearing the name of Christ most falsly, yea, and Antiquity beareth contra­dictions most aparent touching images.

But Nicephor hist. l. 11. cap. 43. Nicephorus saith, the creatures of God are the Lawfull Images of God. But it is more then evident, by what I have said, that ancient Papists and Synods used images to be memorials of God, and not to be adored.

CAP. II.

QUEST. 1.

Whither kneeling or sitting be the most convenient and Lawfull ge­sture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and blood?

1. Conclus. SItting is the most and only lawfull gesture, That ge­sture, that Christ and his Disciples used upon morall and unalterable grounds, which doth not concern the first Supper as first, but as a Supper, and that not upon no occasionall and tem­porary reasons, belonging to that Supper, more then to all the Sup­pers of that kinde, that we are to follow as a pattern, and must be most Lawfull. But the gesture of sitting is such, Ergo:

The Proposition is evident in Scripture, Prov. 2. [...]0. Eph. 5. 1. [...] Thes. 1. 16. 2 Thess. 3. 6, 7. [...] Cor. [...]. Phil. 3. 17. 2. Tim. 3. 4. Sitting the only con­venient gesture..

I prove the Assumption. 1. Sitting was either: 1. Miraculous. 2. Customable. 3. Occasionall; or 4. Morall. None in reason can say the first; that sitting was a miracle: 2. Nor is it customable. For 1. Customes laudable are grounded upon decency and reason, and so morall, or grounded upon no reason at all.

But Christ did nothing in Gods worship, nor did he any humane morall actions for the meer fact and will of others going before, for these were not reasonable humane actions, and if it be customable only, it is not lawfull to put away a customable action out of wor­ship, and to put a morall action of kneeling and Divine significa­tion [Page 193] in the place thereof, for so we might change places, times, per­sons and all physicall circumstances, and make them supernaturall. 2. The action could not be occasionall: for then the occasion of the Supper as first, and because of such persons, such time at night, such place, an upper chamber, should have moved Christ to sitting, ra­ther then to kneeling, or to any other gesture; but kneeling or any other gesture might have consisted well with that first Supper, with the upper chamber, with the time and persons, as well as sitting, except the Law givers will had been a reason of the contrary.

Some object. Christ choosed an upper chamber, not the Temple, twelve persons, not ten, not twenty, at night, for he might have ce­lebrated it at dinner, but we are not holden to imitate Christ in these; Ergo, neither in sitting.

Ans. Occasionall, properly is that which hath a reason, not fromWhat is occasionall in the first supper. the nature of the thing it self, but from such occasionall occurrences of Providence, as God will not alter, and its that which hath no morall nor sacred conveniency with the nature of worship, but hath only a conveniency for such a time and place, as Christs preaching in a ship, when he is at the sea side, and a multitude are to hear him, the ship hath no agreement with the nature of preaching, more then an house hath, time, place, and persons are clearly such as agreed with that supper, as first, not as a sacred worship, and therefore were meerly occasionall, and so not imitable, and though Christ might have altered them, yet had they been occasionall, and they have no sacred conveniency with this Supper, as this Supper; and if Christ had altered these for meer will, upon no reasons that con­cerneth all Suppers, they had not been occasionall, but positive points of worship, and so had obliged us; yea, the upper chamber, and these twelve persons by no possibility, can concern all Suppers, to the end of the world, but sitting agreeth kindly and natively to all Suppers in generall, as kneeling to all praying indefinitely. Christ might have changed bread and wine, in flesh, and milk, or water, will it hence follow, we are not to imitate Christ in bread and wine? And that bread and wine are occasionall? Lastly, Pauls practise in passing from an upper chamber, and from twelve men, to a Church full of men and women, 1 Cor. 11. 23, 17, 18, 22. war­ranteth us to passe from these, we have not the like reason to war­rant us to passe from sitting.

[Page 194]2. That gesture which Christ choosed, and that refusing all o­ther,2. Arg. even kneeling, having the same Religious reasons, at the first supper as now, that must be most convenient and lawfull. But sit­ting is such; Ergo,

The Proposition is clear: The Assumption is proved from Matth. 26. While they did eat (the Passeover) he took bread, Mar. 14▪ 22. As Christ sate at the first Supper. they did eat, Jesus took bread.

But while they did eat the Passeover, they sate. Ergo, while they took the Supper they sate: I prove the Assumption, Matth. 26. 20. And, when the evening was come, he sate down with the twelve, Mark 14. 18. And as they sate, and did eat, Jesus said, &c. v. 22. And as they did eat, Iesus took bread▪ eating the Passeover, and sitting were co-existent, and taking the Sacramentall bread of the Supper, and eating the Passeover were co-existent; Ergo, Taking the bread of the Supper, and sitting were co-existent.

Paybodie saith, Paul expoundeth, (as they did eat) after they hadOf kneel­ing, part. 2. pag. [...] ended eating, and so after they had ended sitting, and possibly passed to another gesture, 1 Cor. 11. After Supper he took the Cup. Ans. If you wholly remove the Passeover, you remove the Table also. 2. Though the Suppers were not mingled, yet the holy Ghost expresseth the co-existence of sitting, and taking the Sacramentall bread, as Ezech. 8. 1. As I sate in mine house, the hand of Iehovah fell upon me, 2 Sam. 18 14. Ioab thrust three darts in him, while he vvas yet alive, 1 Sam. 25. 16. The men vvere a vvall to us, all the time that vve vvere vvith them, Dan. 4. 3. and Matth. 26. 47. And vvhile he yet spake, Lo, Iudas came, Act. 10. 19. While Peter thought on the vision, the spirit said to him, Act. 22. 6. Rom. 5. 10. If praying interveened betwixt eating and taking the Supper, and the Passeover sitting, to put them to kneeling, this must be true, vvhile they vvere not eating, Christ took bread, a plain contradicting of Christ. 3. After Supper he took the cup, but they say not after Supper he took the bread, for praying, blessing, breaking, distributing, eat­ing, interveened betwixt the Passeover and taking the Communion Cup, and therefore he had reason to say, After Supper he took the Cup, but not that reason, to say, after Supper he took the Bread. It is violent to describe Christs taking the Bread from the adjunct of time, while as they sate and did eate, if sitting and eating were not at this time, but were gone and past by many [Page 195] interveening actions of kneeling, praying, preaching, this were to describe supper from dinner. 3. By this, the gesture of no Table acti­on can be cleared from Scripture, for when it is said, Luke 9. Iohn 6. He made the multitude sit downe and [...]a [...], a cavillator might say, praying and blessing the meat went before, and possibly they sate on their knees, and Christ sate downe and taught the people; it may bee he rose and kneeled before Sermon was ended. The Scripture saith, While Christ and his disciples did [...], and so while they did sit, he tooke bread. This taking of bread, whether it be an Hysterosis as many think, in respect the Evangelists mention but once taking of bread, or if it was preparatorie, and before the act of blessing, it was a sacramentall act performed by Christ, while they were sitting, which is much for sitting.

That Christ passed not from passeover sitting, to Supper knee­ling, I thinke these considerations move me. 1. Because the chan­ges of all in the Passeover, to that in the Lords Supper, as of flesh in bread and wine, is positively set down. 2. No question the change unto an adoring gesture, had been upon the grounds of conciliating more reverence to that Sacrament, then to the Passeo­ver, which must be morall, and tye to the end of the world. 3. Nor would the Holy Ghost have removed an ordinary table gesture into so insolent, and supernaturally significant gesture, as knee­ling, without a grave reason expressed, or his owne will onely, which is onely the essentiall reason, why bread is a Sacrament ra­ther then any other Element, and so would stand of necessary and essentiall use. 4. Sitting at the Idols table 1 Cor. 8. 10. declareth that in religious feasts, sitting was ordinary, and a signe indicant of honouring the spirituall Lord of the Banquet, and a religious com­munion with the Lord of the Feast was hence signified.

But saith Paybodie [...] and [...] Mat. 26. 20. Mark.Part. 2. Page 62. 14. 18. Luke 22. 14. Iohn [...]3. 12. signifieth lying, and M. Li [...]ds [...]y [...]aith, it signifieth prostration on the earth rather then sitting▪ Por Levit. 18. 23. standing and lying are confounded, and Calvin expoun­deth it so.

Ans. 1. Christ▪ his reasoning to prove that [...] to sit at meat is a greater honour, then to stand: Luke 22. 27. were null, if [...] signifie prostration, for religious bowing is alwaies an act of inferioritie. The same I say if [...] signifie falling downe [Page 196] to the ground. 2. Sitting or pitching about a place, and sitting and lying in sackcloath, may well signifie simply to be in a place, but table-sitting and table-inclining on Christs bosome must be more then simply being at the Table. Nor doth Calvin in that place ex­pound sitting at table, for nothing but simply being at table, though elsewhere he doth.

3. Arg. That which representeth the honour of table-fellowship of fellow-banquetters with Christ, that is of necessary use; But sit­ting at the Lords table representeth this; Ergo, Luke 22. 27. The Minor is made good, to teach the Disciples humility, he would stand and have them to sit. Whether is greater he that sitteth, or he that standeth? it is a greater honour to sit at table, then to stand; Ergo it is an honour to sit, for we may well infer the positive from the comparative, Luk. 22. 29. upon the occasion of their striving who should be greatest, and Lord Bishop, he promiseth a sort of fellow­ship in a Kingdome. 2. In sitting on thrones with him, and the meaning that that fellowship should quench the fire of their ap­petite for Prelacy. 3. This sitting in Scripture, as table-sitting, is used to expresse our fellowship with Christ in the Gospell, Mat. 22. 1. 2. Luke 22. 30. Mat. 8. 11, 12. Luke 14. 15, 16, 17. Cant. 1. 12. Cant. 5. 1. Rev. 19. 9. Rev. 3. 20. and our Communion with Christs bo­dy and his blood is sealed up in this Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10. 16. 4. This is confirmed, in that the Sacramentall food is not simply given as food, (though that be a speciall fruit thereof) for then there should be no more required to the essence and integrity of the Supper, but eating and drinking, and on his alone, eating and drinking and using the words of Christ, should receive a Sacrament, and the manner of eating should be accidentall, and in the Churches pow­er; but this food is given as food Table-wise, with the solemnities of a banquet, and of spirituall fellowship, which must be repre­sented of purpose here, and that sitting wayes, so to eat and drink with Publicans is a signe of fellowship, as Christs eating and sitting with Publicans and sinners made him be construed to be a friend to them, 1 Cor. 5. 11. To refuse to eat with a fornicator, is to refuse fellowship with him, 1 Cor. 8. 10. 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21. To sit at the Idols and Divels Table, is to partake of the idoll and Satans wor­ship, as having fellowship with them; Ergo, to sit at the Lord▪ table is to have fellowship with him. 5. The Holy Ghost speak­eth [Page 197] this fellowship, Luke 22. 14. He sate down and the twelve A­postles, [...] with him, see a fellowship, Math. 26. 20. He sate downe, [...], with the twelve. 18. And as they did eate (together at Table) Marke 14. 15. Luke 22. 15. With desire have Sitting a signe of our co-heire­ship. I desired to eat with you, [...], table-wise, as ver. 14. Mat. 26. 29. I will not drinke,—untill I drinke it new [...]. The words carry a resemblance of drinking with them the well of life, so Augu­stine, Hilary, Musculus, Amesius expoundneth them, so (as I take) he draweth them from 1. This materiall wine. 2. From Sacramen­tall tabling. 3. From this old fruit of the Wine. 4. From fellowship here in the Kingdome of Grace, to 1. New wine in heaven. 2. To hea­venly tabling. 3. To new and everlasting wine. 4. In the Fathers Kingdome. Neither am I much moved with what Paybodie saith, that our Saviour led the woman of Samaria, from Iacobs well to thirst for the water of life, yet is not, for that, Iacobs well made a type by divine institution. I answer, this would have some colour, if Christ did speake of common wine, as he did speake of Iacobs Well, as of common water. But all the three Evangelists speake of Sacra­mentall wine consecrated by word and prayer, else Christs calling bread his body should not prove that bread were a signe of his bo­dy by divine institution, but onely we were to make that spirituall use of bread and wine, that we make of ordinary bread and wine at our houses. Formalists then must say that Christ speaketh of wine here as common, not as Sacramentall, which is absurd when Christ is expounding the Elements, in their spirituall signification, Luke 5. 22, 21. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is [...] with me, on the table. Mat. 26. 23. Marke 14. 20. If he had been kneeling or standing, (gestures unpossible for them then) he could not have his hand leaning on the table, and if he had not beene sitting▪ table-wise, in a table-fellowship with Christ, then could not our Saviour have conveniently convinced the ingratitude of Iudas, as he doth. Now if Christ aime not to make Iudas his fault the greater, because Iudas and he sate at one table together, and that as an holy and Sacramentall table, he had in this no more argued Iudas of ingratitude, then any of the rest of the house who communicated not with Christ, because Christ and they did eate one materiall and ordinary bread together▪ And in this Achito­phel was a type of Iudas, as David of Christ, and that not onely in [Page 198] this, that Achitophel did eate bread with David, and so had a civill fellowship, but that they went together to Gods house, in compa­ny together, Psal. 55. 14. So had Christ and Iudas fellowship to­gether, at that same Sacramentall table: And as tabling together signifieth civil fellowship, so must fellow-tabling at one sacred Feast signifie Spirituall fellowship together. 6. Giving and not granting that fellow-sitting together were onely a common honour, not a mi­sticall honour by divine Institution, yet since to sit at a table with a Ruler, is an honour, 1 Sam. 20. 5. 2 Sam. 9. 13. Esther 7. 7. Prov. 23. 1. Mat. 8. 11. Luk [...] 16. 23. Luke 22. 30. And the Lords Disciples are admitted to sit with him, as is cleare in that he sate down with the twelv [...], and he sate (Luke 24. 30.) at meat with them, and tooke bread and blessed it. No power on earth should dare to deprive the people of God of this honour, for this honour was bestowed on the Lords Apostles, as communicants, not as Apostles, and the want of Christs bodily presence, diminisheth nothing of the honour, see­ing he is really, but in a spirituall manner present, as the Lord of the feast, with us, as he was with them. Paybodie saith, When Christ sate at table in the Passeover, even then he schooled them from look­ing Part 2. pag. 187. at honour in materiall or outvvard sitting, vvhile as Luke 22. 26. he would stand himselfe as a servant, and vvash his Disciples feet. Ansvv. His non-sitting and washing their feet, being a morall, not a Sacramentall teaching them humility, doth no more schoole them from not looking to sit, then his non-eating, and non-drink­ing while he stood servant-like, doth schoole them from not look­ing to the honour of eating and drinking Sacramentally. Christ teacheth lessons of humility, not to learne us not to seek the spiri­tuall honour of communion with Christ, that were to teach us to be proud, and this man is that bold to insinuate that it was a spece of pride, for the Disciples to sit at table with Christ, and for Iohn to leane on his bosome.

Mr. Paybodie thinketh to crush this argument; Because the ser­ving of God the Father and giving him glory, must be incompatiblePaybodie p. 268. 269. Disputer a­gainst kneeling, Arg. 1. c. 6. with a table-fellowship with his Sonne. The disputer (saith he) rea­soneth thus; Kneeling importeth an inferiority, therefore it is contra­ry to the person of co-heirs, which person we act by table-sitting, but do you (saith he) dream of a co-heirship, whereby you stand not in an inferiority to Christ, then when you take on you the person of co-heirs by [Page 199] sitting at Table, it were not lawfull either to esteem, or in a short eja­culation to call Christ your Lord and Superiour; yea so faith must have no working at the Sacrament: for Faith importeth an inferiori­ty and dependance: We respect Christ in his banquet, as a King invi­ting us to eat with him; yea, I may kneel and call God my Father, and in so doing, I actuate the person of a co-heire.

Ans. But in this the disputer and we mean no other thing, thenA signe of our coheir­ship may well con­sist with our inferiority in worship­ping Christ that kneeling which is a note of submission, and never used in ban­quets, cannot formally expresse, as an apt signe, the dignity of fel­low-table-ship with Christ: 2. Poor Logitian, it followeth not in sitting at table, which is the expressing signe of the honour of table­fellowship, we may not call Christ, Lord. David sitting at Table with his Prince Saul, might well term him (my Lord the King) but if▪ David should be put to his knees at Table, and inhibited to eat at the Table, at which his Prince did eat; no wise man will say, that Saul had honoured David with fellow-Tabling with him. For the Act of kneeling, and non-eating were no expressing signes of fel­low-Tabling, but by the contrary of no fellow-Tabling; the Dis­puter hath no minde to make us every way equall with Christ, so as there can be a case, wherein it is not Lawfull to esteem or call Christ our Lord; King and Superiour, this is Paybodies consequence; but take away Table-sitting, an honour put upon us by Christ in this Sacrament, Luk. 22. 27. and substitute kneeling for it, then you take away Gods expressing signe of Table-Fellowship in that ge­sture: for while the world standeth, kneeling shall never be a signe of Table-fellowship: sitting at Table is a signe, as the Scriptures clear, but sitting taketh never away our inferiority to Christ; you may worship and actuate the person of a co-heir, but not worship in an expressing visible signe of co-heirship, and then kneel. Far­ther he reasoneth with us, as if Table-sitting inferred an equality betwixt us, and that Lord who is the head of men and Angels; we reason for an honour of fellowship, not equality. David set at King Saul's Table, is not made equall with Saul, but in Table-sitting, he doth partake of Table-honour to feast with his Prince.

If Christ should have sitten and caused his Disciples rise and wash his feet▪ in that he could not have said, (I have put the honour of Table-fellowship on you, for you stand and wash my feet, and I sit) this (I say) had been no table-honour, but most contrary to it: It had [Page 200] been indeed servant-honour, Luk 22. 27. and more then sinfull men are worthy of. To kneel to Christ is an honour, but to kneel at Tabling with him, as kneeling, is no more an expressing signe of table-honour, nor standing and serving Christ, while he did eat is an honour of table-fellowship. Now if any shall take away eating with Christ, at that table, he taketh away table-honour, as Papists do in taking away drinking with Christ from the people, yet eat­ing with Christ maketh us not equall to Christ, but take away eat­ing, and you take away Table-honour, so take away sitting at Table, and you take away (eatenus) in so far the Table-honour.

But by this mean (say they) you make it necessary to sit, and of Divine necessity. I answer, Table sitting is not so necessary, as that the want thereof doth annihilate the Sacrament, and make it to be no Sacrament at all, but it is (as I think) many wayes necessary, as first it is morally or Theologically necessary, as being gesture sanctified by the practice of Christ and his Apostles, upon Morall grounds, and so to be imitated by us: 2. It is necessary, by necessity of expediency, as free from hazard of Idolatry, of which crime kneel­ing in this act, is guilty. 3. It is necessary, sacramentally, for the in­tegrity of the Sacrament, as signifying our honour of Table-fel­lowship. 4. It is by natures grounds necessary, that as this banquet is materiall, having bread, wine, taking, breaking, distribution, eating, drinking, so the externall solemnity of a banquet, such as is table-sitting, requireth the same. And 5. which is our 4. Argu­ment,4. Arg. it is necessary by necessity of Divine precept (Do this in re­membrance of me) that this is included in the precept we certainly believe: 1. Because nothing in reason can be excluded, from the precept of the first pattern, but what is meerly occasionall, such as sitting is not.

2. The practise of Christ and the Apostles cannot be a will-action, and therefore must fall under a precept: sitting cannot be occasio­nall, upon the reason that it was continued through occasion of the passeover; for if this be good, then eating and drinking, and the Analogy betwixt the signe and Christ, shall be occasionall, and the singing of a Psalm, as was at the Passeover, shall be occasionall: for Christ retained what did equally belong to the Supper of the Iews, and this Christian Supper, as concerning the common na­ture of sacred Feasts.

[Page 201]5. What is proper to a table of solemn feasting, should not be denyed to this, But sitting was such; Ergo, More of this may be seen in the Nullity of Pearth examination, and the re-examination of the five Articles of Pearth.

QUEST. II.

Whether humane Laws binde the consciences are not?

OUr Argument against Ceremonies is▪ that they fail a­gainstArg. 8. Ceremo­nies fail against the authority of Rulers. the fifth Commandment, and the Authority of Rulers.

What the Civill, or Church-Ruler can command must be good, necessary, apt to edifie, and not indifferent, or neither good nor evil; Ceremonies are acknowledged by their Fathers to be indif­ferent, and neither good nor evil; Ergo, They are such as cannot be lawfully commanded. The Proposition is clear; the Ruler must command for good, Rom. 13. 4. He is the minister of God for thy good, and all for edification, 1 Cor. 10, 23. 1 Cor. 14. 3. v. 12, 17, 26. And therefore all means injoyned for this end, good, and Edification must conduce thereunto of their own nature, and not by the will of men, else they edifie not. But that this may be further cleared, it is que­stioned, if humane Lawes binde the conscience: for which consider,

1. Dist. An humane Law is taken in Concreto, when judges com­mand what God commandeth, as when they make a Law against murther. 2. In abstracto, when the judge forbiddeth what may tend to murther, as carrying Armour in a City in the night.

2. Dist. There is some morall equity in right humane Laws.

3. Something positive.

4. Dist. There be four things to be regarded in humane Laws: 1. Publick peace of the society. 2. The credit, honour and Majesty of the Ruler, even when the Law is unjust. 3. Obedience passive, and subjection, by patient suffering. 4. Obedience active by doing, which is now to be considered.

Dist. 5. An humane Law Civill may oblige, Ratione generalis praecepti, In regard of the generall command to obey our superiors, as the fifth Command saith▪ But the question is, if a humane Law, as meerly positive oblige in conscience, as if this which the Captain for­biddeth, [Page 202] as, (not to speak the vvatch-word) be in it self against the sixth Commandment (Thou shalt not murther) if no murther follow upon the not speaking of the watch-word, though it be against the fifth in the generall.

Dist. 6. The question is not, whether we be obliged in conscience to obey superiors in things Lawfull, or whether we be obliged in conscience to obey Superiors, when they are sole authoritative re­laters and carriers of Gods expresse Law to us, for then they bring nothing of their own, to lay upon us, and in these cases their laws are rather Gods Laws delivered by Superiors to us, and binde the conscience. But the question is, if positive laws, in particular mat­ters, negatively only, conform to the word, as in matters of Oeco­nomy, and policy, as not to eat flesh in Lent, for the growth of cattell; in matters of Art, and in ordering of war and Military Acts, commanded by Captains, if these commandments as such o­blige the conscience. Now to oblige the conscience, is, when the not doing of such a thing bringeth an evil conscience; now an evil conscience, as Pareus Pareus Com. in Rom. 13. dub. v. 5. saith, Is the sense of sin committed against God, and the fear of Gods judgement.

Distinct. 7. The conscience i [...] obliged by doing, or not doing, two wayes: 1. Per se, kindly, when the fact of it self obligeth, and for no respect without, as to give almes to the poor at the Commandment of the superior: 2. When the fact obligeth for a reason from publick peace, good example, and order.

1. Conclusion. When Rulers command, what God expresly commandeth, their Laws obligeth the conscience, Psal. 34. 11. Come ye children hearken unto me, and I will teach you the fear of the Lord, Prov. 4▪ 1. Hear ye children the instruction of a Father.

2. Conclus. Publick peace in all the commandments of Superi­ors, in so far, as can be without sin, obligeth the conscience, as Heb. 12. 14. Follow peace with all men, and godlinesse, Psal. 34. 14. Seek peace, and follow after it, Rom. 12. 18.

3. Conclus. Subjection to the censures of Rulers by suffering pa­tiently, is an obligation lying upon all private persons, 1 Pet. 2. 20. But if, vvhen ye do vvell, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable to God, Rom. 13. 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.

4. Conclus. Nothing in non-obeying unwarrantable Command­ments [Page 203] must be done that redoundeth to the discredit of the Ruler or the hurting of his Majesty and honour, 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King, Eccles. 10. 20. Curse not the King: For even when we deny subjection or obedience objective, to that which they command, yet owe we obedience officiall, and all due respect and reverence to the person and eminent place of the Ruler, as Act. 7. 2. Steven calleth them, Men, brethren, and fathers, Act. 7. 51. And yet stiffe­necked resisters of the holy Ghost.

5. Conclus. Humane Laws, whither civill or Ecclesiastick, in that particular positive matter, which they have of Art, Oeconomy, po­licy, and in Gods matters of meer humane coyne and stamp, do not bindes the conscience at all, per se, kindely and of themselves.How civill positive laws binde not the conscience. 1. Nothing, but what is either Gods expresse word, or his word by consequence doth lay a band on the conscience of it self: But not to eat flesh in L [...]nt, upon civill reasons, Not to carry Armour in the night, To wear Surplice, and to Crosse infants in Baptisme, are neither Gods word expresly, nor by consequence. The major is sure; because the word is the perfect and adequate object of mat­ters of Faith, and morall practice, which concerneth the consci­ence, Psal. 19. 7. 8. Psal. 119. 9. Iohn 20. 31. Prov. 8. 9. 2. Because whatever thing layeth a band on the conscience, the not doing of that would be a sin before God, if the Ruler should never com­mand it (But the carrying Armour in the night (the not wearing Surplice in Divine service) should be no sin before God, if the ru­ler should never command them, as reason, Scriptures, and adver­saries teach. The Proposition I instruct from the diffinition of an obligation of conscience, for to lay a band on the conscience is de­fined, to lay a command on the soul, which ye are obliged before God to do, as you would eschew sin, and obtain eternall salvation: So the learned Pareus Pareus Com. in Rom. c. 13. Dub. 7. so Richard Field on the Church 4. book c. 33. Dr. Field; so Gerson de vita spir. part. 3. lect. 4. Gerson, and so teach Greg. de val. to. 1. disp. 7. punct. 6. Sect. [...]. Gregorius de Valentia, and Suarez tom. de le­gibus lib. 3. cap. 22. Suarez. 3. None can lay on a band of not doing, under the hazard of sin, but they that can remit sins, for the power that looseth, the same bindeth: But mor­tall men cannot binde to sin, nor loose men from sin, but where God goeth before them in binding and loosing, for they cannot be­stow the grace of pardoning sin: But he onely who hath the keys of David, who openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man o­peneth. 4. Whoever can lay on bands of Laws, to bring any under [Page 204] the debt of sin, must lay on bands of obligation to eternall punish­ment, but God only can do this, Mat. 10. 28.

The Proposition is clear, because sin against God, essentially in­cludeth a relative obligation to eternall punishment. 5. In matters of Gods worship this is clear. The School-men, as Aquin. 22 q. art. 1. ad. 3. Aquina [...], Suar. Deoper. 6. dierum Tract. 3. disp. 5. Sect. 1. num. 2. Suarez, Ferra. c [...]. Gente [...] cap. 21. Ferrariensis, Conrad. 12. q. 20. art 1. A twofold goodnesse in things. The will of authori­ty cannot treate goodnesse in things. Conradus teach us, that there is a twofold good. The first is, an objective and primordiall goodnesse, whereby things are agreeable to Gods Law, if rulers finde not this in that good which they command, they are not just, and so not to be obeyed. There is another goodnesse that cometh from the will of authority, & so only divine authority must make things good; the will and authority of Rulers findeth objective goodnes in them, and therefore enacteth Laws of things, but because they enact Laws of things, they do not therefore become good and Lawfull, It is the will of the Creator of all beings which is the measure, rule, and cause of the goodnesse of things, as Adams not eating of the tree of knowledge is good and gratefull obedience, from Gods forbid­ding will, and it should have been as gratefull obedience to eat of that tree, if God had commanded so. Men cannot make worlds; nor can their will create goodnesse in acts indifferent, nor can their forbidding will illegittimate or make evil any actions indifferent, and therefore things must be morally good, and so intrinsecally good without the creative influence of humane Authority, and from God only are they apt to edifie, and to oblige the conscience in the termes of goodnesse morall.

And this is strengthened, by that which in reason cannot be de­nied, to wit, that it is essentiall to every human Law that layeth any obligation on the conscience, that it be just, nor is it to be called a Law, except it be just, and justice and equity humane Laws have from God, the law of nature, and his word, not from the Authori­ty and will of men; therefore Iurists expound that [...]. F. de con [...]i [...]. Prineip. Qu [...]d Prin­cipi placuit, legis babet vigorem, est verum de placito justo. What plea­seth the Prince, hath the vigour of a Law, of just things. Also the School-men, as Carduba in sum quest. 18. part 1. Carduba, Thom. 22. q. 104. art. 6. Thomas▪ Soto de inst. leg. 1. 4. 6. art. 4. Soto, Medin [...] ▪ C. de paenitentia tract. 4. de jujun. c. 7. Medina, Adrian quod. 6. art. 2. Adrianus Navar. in sum. cap. 23. num. 55. Navar Driedo l. 3. De liber Christ. c. 3. ad. 5. Driedo Castro lib. 1. de lege pena▪ c. 4. Castro, as I gather out of their writings, give strong reasons, why Rulers cannot lay an obligation on the conscience, when the matter of the Law is light and naugh­ty, [Page 205] for this were to make a man a trangressor before God, for a word, a straw, a toy, which is unjust: Because the just weight of the matter is the only just ground of the Laws obligation: Ergo, the will of the Lawgiver, except he make a moat a mountaine, cannot lay an obligation of necessity on man. 2. It were a foolish law, and so no law to oblige to eternall punishment, and the offending of 2. God for a light thing, for this were to place the way of salvation in that wherein the way consisteth not. 3. Such a law were not for edification, but for destruction of soules. 4. This was the Phari­ses fault, Mat. 23. to lay on intollerable burthens on mens soules. 5. The law of God and nature freeth us in positive lawes from guilt, in case of necessity, as David did lawfully eat Shew-bread. 6. A Civill law may not take away a mans life for a straw, farre lesse can it bind to Gods wrath. 7. August. De Baptis. l. c. 6. Augustine saith, they be un­just ballances to esteeme things great or small, for our sole will. Out of all which I conclude, that no law as a Law, doth oblige the Conscience, but that which hath from the matter morall equi­ty, and not from the intention of the Law-giver, as Cajet. verbo pra­cepti trans­gressio. Cajetan, Silvest. verbo prae­cept. q. 9. Silvester, Angelus verb. lex. 11. 3. Angelus, and Cordu­ba q. 189. part. 2. rat. 1. 2. Corduba teach, which inten­tion must take a rule from the matter of the law, and not give a rule. Gers. de vit. spir. lect. 4. c. 7. Nulla lex s [...]reuda est tanquam ne­cessaria ad salutem, qu [...] non est de jure Divino. Gerson, No law (saith he) is a law to be called as necessary to sal­vation, (as all good lavves should be) but that vvhich de jure Di­vino, is according to Gods lavv, yea, vve are not (saith Du­rand. l. 2. d. 44. q. 5. numb. 6. Si Papa praeciperet Monacho ea quae sum contra suam professio­nem, non motus aliqua necessitate vel utilitate Ecclesiae, sed sola voluntate, & de hoc constaret, & Abbas praeciperet, contrarium, obediendum esset Abbati, & non Papae. Durandus) to obey the Pope if he command a Monke to doe somthing, vvhen he is not moved to command by the necessity, the profit of the Church, but by his ovvne free vvill, and if this be knovven. If the Pope (faith he) for his ovvne vvill, and vvithout necessity and utility should se­clude vvorkes of supererogation, that command should tend to destructi­on, and vve are to obey Christ, vvho is above the Pope. And therefore his mind is, that all obligation of Conscience, in humane command­ments commeth from Gods will and law, that is, from the just and necessary matter of the law, not from the will of men.

6. Conclus. All humane or Ecclesiastick lawes binding the con­science, have necessarie, and not probable deduction onely, by the warrant of both the M [...]jor Proposition and Assumption from the [Page 206] Word of God, and Law of Nature. This conclusion is against Suarez Tom. de leg. lib. 3. c. 24. Suarez, he seeketh onely a probable connexion betwixt obliging Lawes and the Divine law. And Greg. de valent. tom. 2. disp. 7. q. 5. punct. 6. Sect. 1. Humane lawes ob­lige onely in so farre as they a­gree with the Law of God. Gregorius de valent. is in very deed against Gerson, who teacheth three things of all humane lawes. 1. That they are in so farre just. 2. That they in so farre ob­lige the Conscience, as they have necessary dependance upon na­tures law, or Gods word, and therefore compareth them to these precepts that Physitians give to sicke persons, they oblige the con­science of the sicke, (as I thinke) from the sixt Commandement, (Thou shalt doe no murther,) for if the patient sleepe at such a time, or drinke wine in such a case, he killeth himselfe, but they have not obliging power from the fift Commandement, not as if the King being sicke were obliged by the fift Commandement to obey the Physitian, as his superiour. 3. He will have all humane laws that pro­perly obligeth, to be onely declaratory, and to manifest onely the Divine law, and to apply it to such and such a matter. The Conclu­sion is clear from what is said before, because all civil laws as meerly positive, in the cafe of non-contempt doe not oblige, and in the case of non-scandall, as Medina tract. De je­junio cap. 7. Medin. Almain. Moral. c. 12. Almaine, Gers. uti supra. Gerson teach. And it followeth from a sure ground, that Vasquez 12. disp. 158 c. 4. num. 32. Praecipient is intentio non facit prae­ceptum ha­bere majo­rem vel mi­norem obli­gandi, effi­caciam, sed necesfi [...]as, diguitas, vel utilitas corum quae praecipiuntur. Vasquez layeth downe, and he hath it from Dried [...] de lib. Christ. l. 3. c. 3. ad 5. Driedo, to wit, that the efficacy of obligation in humane lawes, cometh not from the will of Lawgivers, or their in­tention, but from the dignity or waightines of the matter. If then the matter be not from Gods law, just, the obligation is none at all; for if the law from mans will, shall lay on an obligation of three de­grees, whereas Gods law from Gods vvill, before men inacted this in a Law, laid on an obligation of two degrees onely, tying the Conscience, then the will of man createth obligation, or the obliga­tive power of conscience in the matter of the Law▪ and by that same reason he createth goodnes, which is absurd, for that is proper to God onely.

I grant it is hard, because of the variety of singular actions in mans life, to see the connexion, betwixt particulars of humane lawes and Gods lawes; yet a connexion there is, and for this cause the learned worthy Divine, Pareus com. in Rom. 13. v. 5. Dub. 7. Conclus. 5. Pareus will have humane lawes in [Page 207] particulari, & per se, in the particular and of themselves to binde the Conscience. Whereas Calvin inst. l. 3. c. 19. Sect. 15. 16. Calvin, and Beza in Notis in Rom. 13. A twofold considera­tion of hu­mane laws. Beza, Iunius, Tilenus, Sibrandus, Whittakerus and others deny this: But the truth is, hu­mane civill lawes are two waies considered. 1. As they are meerly Positive & according to the letter of the Law. 2. As they have a con­nexion with 1. The principles of nature, of right and wrong. 2. With the end of the law, which is the supream law, The safety of the people, as the Civill law saith, he who entreth to an inheritance and maketh no Inventory of all his goods, shall pay debts above the-whole heritage, this law according to the letter in the Court of conscience is unjust, and so cannot oblige in Conscience; so as he is guilty before God, and deserveth the vengeance of everlasting wrath, who doth not make an inventory of all his goods, and produce it to the Iudge; so he that goeth up to the walls of a City, may by the Law be com­manded to be put to death, yet is he not guiltie of eternall death be­fore God, and therefore if the presumption which is the ground of the law cease, as this; He that maketh not an inventory with a pur­pose to enjoy the whole inheritance and pay no debts, sinneth before God against conscience, as famous jurists, to wit Iason. Jason, Baldus in rubrica▪ F [...]de acqui­rendis b [...] ­reditatibus nu. 23. & seq. Bar­tolus and others teach: for this Law considered as having connexi­on with a principle of nature, that every man should pay his debts, is a law binding the Conscience, and the truth is, the end of these Lawes oblige the Conscience, they being divine expressions of justice and righteousnesse, but not the Lawes themselves; for whatever obligeth the conscience as a divine truth, the ignorance thereof is a sinfull ignorance, and maketh a man guilty of eternall wrath, but men are not guilty & lyable to the eternal wrath of God, because they are ignorant of all the civill Lawes in Iustinians book; then were we obliged to be no lesse versed in all the civill lawes, that bindeth in foro humano, then of the Bible, and law of God.

The adversaries strive to prove that these lawes oblige the con­science, we may heare Bellarm. tom. 1. cont. 5. l. 3. c. 11. Bellarmine Vasquez tom. 2 in 12. disp. 152. cap. 2. Vasquez, Valent. tom. 2. disp. 7. q. 5. punct. 6. Valentini­an, and the Formalist and Arminian, Doctor Iackson on the Creed, lib. 2. cap. 4 Doctor Jackson say, To resist the Rulers in giving, and making lawes, is to resist God, as 1 Sam. 8. They have not refused thee, but they have refused me, that I should not raigne over them. Suarez [...]aith, An humane law is the neerest cause of obligation of conscience, as the eternall law is the re­mote cause. And [...]ackson as the immediate interposition of divine [Page 208] authority made the killing of Abrahams sonne, holy, which otherwise would have been cruelty; so the interposition of authority derived from God, make some actions that barely considered would be apparently evill, and desperate, to be honest and lawfull; to strike a Prophet would seem sin, but when a Prophet cōmandeth to strike, not to strike is disobe­dience, 1▪ Kin. 20. 35, 36. to rob a Spaniard is Piracie, but to do it upon the Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State, is obedience to the King. Answ. To resist the servant in that wherein he is a ser­vant, and as a servant, is to resist God, as 1 Sam. 8. proveth well.How infe­riour ru­lers are subordi­nate to God in command­ing. But the assumption then is most false, for rulers in making lawes, and creating by their sole pleasure, goodnes morall, in particular matters without the word of God, are not Gods servants, nor is humane authoritie as humane, the nearest cause of obligation of conscience, instamped in these lawes, nor is it the cause at all, and therefore to resist them, is not to resist God. They be Gods instru­ments and Ministers in 1. Propounding and expounding Gods laws. 2. In executing them, and defending them from the violence of men. 3. In making positive and directory civil lawes, for civill go­vernment, that are lawes improperly so called, which bind the conscience as above is said, in so far, as they have dependance upon Gods Law: for Iames saith, There is but one Law-giver. As for Church-canons, all, except Physicall circumstances in them, are to be warranted by the word. Therefore it is a vaine consequence of Valentia, humane lawes oblige, dependenter a lege aeternâ, as they de­pend on the eternall law▪ Ergo, they oblige in Conscience, it follow­eth not. They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition, in that which is morall, can be proved out of Gods word, but so, in their morallity they are meerely divine, and not humane and positive, and so the argument concludeth not against us. They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law, that is, as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God, in a Major proposition, without probation of the assumption, that we deny, and it is in question now. The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge, rejected God, not because Samuel had a power of making lawes, without the warrant of Gods word. Neither Moses, nor Jeremiah, nor Ezekiel▪ nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God, for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth. 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines [Page 209] Bellar cont. Bar­clai. cap. 3. Bon [...] sensu Christus dedit Petro potestatem faciend [...] de▪ peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato pec­catum. Humane authority is not the nearest or instrumen­tall cause of Lawes. hand, then Jackson saith. For Bellarmine saith, In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power, to make that which is sinne, to be no sin, and that which is no sinne, to be sinne. So Iackson, the interposition of derived authority, maketh that which would be murther other wayes, to bee a good worke; that is, men may doe what God onely can doe. If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father, offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice, then Abrahams deri­ved authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice, as to strike a Prophet of it selfe, is a degree of murther, but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet, it is lawfull. But can any blasphemer say, that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord, such as are humane positive lawes, and our humane ceremonies, see the text, 1 King. 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets, said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord▪ smite me. This was immediate, divine and Propheti­call authoritie, and not humane. Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull? Court Parasites speake so, he refuteth himselfe. The Kings letter of Mart, for wrongs done to the State, maketh that which is Piracy lawfull, then the Kings au­thority doth not here by a nomothetick power, and a law laid upon the Conscience, but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine, done to the State of England, may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre, and an act of justice flowing from the King as a law­full Magistrate. Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place, which have no warrant of the word of God. Yea, even Stapleton Staple­ton de sta­tu Eccles. cont. 5. q. 7 art. 2. a Papist saith, as Doctor Field also Field on the Church, booke. 4. c. 33. observeth, That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter, and not from the will of the Lawgiver. And so saith Gerson Gerson, Almain oper. moral. cap. 12. Almain, Decius namco [...]upi­scen. lect. 1. Decius, Mencha questionum illustrium l. 1. c. 19. num. 1. Mencha, and our owne Iunius animadv. Iunius saith, The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent, not in the instrument. Doctor Iackson 16. Doctor Iackson saith, unlimited and abso­lute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers, that is due to God, but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedi­ence, if they speake from God▪ suppose they fetch not an expresse com­mission from Scripture, for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture, I were no more bound to beleeve & obey my governours, then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr. 3. lih. 4. cap. 6. not. 89. [Page 210] my Governours, then ther are bound to believe and obey me, for equals are oblieged to obey equalls, when they bring a warrant from Gods word▪ and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall, but titular, and the same do th Sutlu­vius de Presbyter c. 11. 66. Sic non ma­gis Ecclesiae & Synodo log [...]s scribe­re & pro­mulga [...]e li­ceres, quam popul [...] & subditis sibil [...]ge [...] co [...] ­de [...] pr [...] ter sui prin­cipis▪ & Magistra­tus volun­tatem, si ni­mirum Christus es­set exter­n [...] politiae legislator. Sutluvius and Bellar. de interp▪ verbi lib▪ 3. cap. 4. A double obedience due to Ru­lers, obje­ctive and subjective. Bellarmine say.

Answ. We owe to equalls, to Mahomet, conditionall and cau­tionary faith and obedience; thus, I beleeve what Mahomet saith, so he speake Gods word, yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what, John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way, so they speake according to Gods word. 2. It follow­eth in no sort, if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word, that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls & Infetiours, because there is a double obedience, one of conscience, and objective coming from the thing commanded; And in respect of this, the word hath no lesse authority, and doth no lesse chal­lenge obedience of Confcience, and objective, when my equall speaketh it in a private way, yea, when I writ it in my muse, then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority; for we teach against Papists, that the word borroweth [...]o authority from men, nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man, but as indeed the Word of God, as the Scripture saith: 1. There is another obedience officiall, which is also obedience of Conscience, because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it. Yet not obedi­ence of Conscience coming from the particular, commanded in humane Lawes, as humane, so I owe obedience of sub­jection, and submission of affection, of feare, love, honour, re­spect, by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers, when they command according to Gods Word, and this I owe not to equals or inferiours; and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular, because they must warrant their mandates from the Word. But its alwayes this mans hap to be against sound(i) 1▪ Thes. 2. 13. Esa. 1. 2. [...]er. 1. 2. Ezek. 2. 7. Objective obedience no more due to Ru­lers then to equalls. truth. But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of con­science to this, (Thou shalt not murther) (Beleeve in Iesus Christ) when Rulers and Pastors command them, then when I read them in Gods word. I prove 1. If this from a Ruler (Thou shalt not murther,) challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees, but as I read it my selfe, or as my equall in a private way saith, (Thou shalt not murther) it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely, then is it more obligatory of Conscience, [Page 211] and so of more intrinsecall authority, and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it, then when I read it, or my equall speaketh it to me. This were absurd for the speaker, whe­ther publike or private person, addeth not any intrinsecall autho­rity to the word, for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word, as the bearers were publike, or private, more or lesse wor­thy. As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet, should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority, as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet. 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience, should be resolved, as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler, and not on the authority of God, the Author of his own word. 4. I answer to Sutluvius, That Christ in the externall po­licy of his owne house is a Lawgiver, ordaining such and such of­ficers himselfe, Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency, and setting downe a perfect discipline in the New Testament, in all par­ticulars that have influence, religious, morall, mystically significant in Gods worship, and there is reason that Synods and Pastors, should rather promulgate Gods Lawes, then the people. 1. Be­cause God hath given to them by office, the key of knowledge. 2. Because by office they are watch-men, and so have authority of of­fice to heare the Law at Gods mouth, and in Synods to give Di­rectories or Canons according to that word, which people have not, and that their Canons must be according to Gods Word, is said in the word, Nehemiah 10. 32. Also we [...]ade ordinances for us, 34. as it is written in the law of the Lord.

Iackson saith, Of things good in themselves and apprehended so by us, without any scruple of evil, every mans conselence htah sufficient autho­rityIbid. p. 259▪ 260. to inioyn it, only the alacrity of doing in what time or measure it is to be done, or such circumstances, cometh within the subiect of obe­dience to governours.

Answ. Then because faith in Christ is evidently good by the Doctors learning, the Pastor hath no more authority to command the people to beleeve in Christ, then the people hath to command the same to him. So in preaching all the necessary fundamentals of salvation, the authority of Pastors is meerely titular. There be then little necessitie of a publike Ministery, as Socinians teach us. 2. The ala [...]rity and manner and measure of beleeving, and doing things [Page 212] evidently good is as particularly set downe in Gods Word, as ob­liging the Conscience, as the Mandates themselves, God who com­mandeth us to love him, and to beleeve in his Sonne, hath not left that power to Prelates, that createth wretched Ceremonies, to command us to love God with all our heart, or not, and to serve God with alacrity or not, or to beleeve in Christ with all the heart or with halfe a heart; the sincerity, measure and manner of the loving of God, is no more the subject of obedience to rulers then the loving of God. Rulers doe command both alike, Pari autho­ritate, except the man say that we obey Gods Law perfectly, when we give obedience to it, according to the substance of the acts, though we obey not sincerely.False rules of obe­dience to Rulers proposed by Doctor Jackson re­futed.

The Doctor giveth us Rules in obeying Rulers. ‘We are not to adventure on the action, whereof we are perswaded there be much evil, and no good in it.’

Ans. Then we cannot venture upon Ceremonies, that bringeth adders to Gods word, under all the Plagues written in Gods word.

2. Gods word, not mens perswasions of conscience (except in this also he be an Arminian) is the rule of mens actions. The ser­vants3. Rule. of Caiaphas may be perswaded there is no good, but much evil in confessing, Christ▪ We are to lay aside the erroneous per­swasion, and obey, if the action be good in itself.

Iackson. Some actions apprehended as meerly evil, may be under­taken with lesse danger, then others which are apprehended, partly as evil, partly as good; the action is evil as long as we fear the evil in it, to be greater then the good we can hope for.

Ans. To do any thing as apprehended evil, of which sort are humane Ceremonies to us, for any respect, is to do with a doubt­ing conscience, and to sin, Rom. 14. 23. 2▪ Gods word, not probabi­lities should lead us in adventuring upon actions.

Iackson. 3. If the measure of the good apprehended, be as great as the evil feared; in private choice, we may adventure upon the action, leaving the event to Gods providence, which favoureth actions, more then privations, works rather then idlenesse, and following of that which is good, rather then abstinence from evil: for vvhere this in­difference of perswasion is▪ authority may cast the ballance, and sway the private choice? so also Hooker Churchpo­licy 5. book p. 197. 198. Hooker.

Ans. This is the Iesuit Suarez de Relig. tom 4. lib. 4. tract. 9. cap. 15. Considerare, [...]rg [...] aporte [...] a [...] secluso precepto res sit, utra (que) ex parte proba­bilis, & tunc uni­versaliter verum erit, adjuncto praecepto, o­bediendum esse. Suarez his doctrine, and so saith the [Page 213] Iesuit of Corduba Thomas Sanches Je­suita Cor­dubensis in Decalog. tom. 2. l. 6. c. 3. n. 3. Quado sub­ditus dubius est an res precepta, sitlicita nec ne tenetur obe­dire & ex­eusatur abpreceptun superioris. Sanches, when the subject is in a doubt, whe­ther the thing commanded by the Superiour be lawfull or not, he is obliged to obey, and he is to be excused because of the command of the superiour: 1. Because (say they) the Commanders condi­tion is better, and for a speculative doubt, he is not to be spoiled of his power of commanding, where reason, saith he, commandeth no­thing against reason: 2. Because the inferiour hath resigned his will to the superiour, Deut. 17. 2. Paral. 19. Ergo, In things doubt­some, God commanded to stand to the determination of the Priest, and it is a truth that the will of the Superiour doth not vary and change the nature of a thing in it self; yet it varieth to the inferi­ours conscience. Now indifference of perswasion is all one to Doctor Iackson with indifferency of the thing, for so he dictates. If one have indifferency of reasons of twelve degrees on both sides, that A­rianisme, or Arminianisme, is truth, if authority determine both to be truth, the weight of authority in indifferency of perswasion should cast the ballance, and to believe this, or not to believe it: where Arguments are of twelve grains of light of truth on both sides, it is to the doubting man, as if the thing were indifferent, so is the doubter to give up his soul, conscience, and faith to believe Arianisme to be truth, not from light of conscience, (for equally as much light of conscience are in either side, as is supposed) but for the meer will of humane authority, without Gods word.

Now though the matter here be indifferent in it self, yet not so to the doubter; for Ceremonies in our perswasion are not indiffe­rent. See here Ignatius Loyola Ignat. loyola. cat. Jesuit lib. 2. cap. 17. & 18. Prudentia non obedicn­tis, sed im­perantis est Item non est dignus no­mine obedi­entis, qui le­gittimo su­periori, non cum volun­tate judi­cum suum submittit. say, Give over your self to your Ruler. Give the Prelate your faith to keep, while ye be in eternity, and at the last judgement he will restore the pawn; And this is ( [...]aith Gregory de Valent. Greg. d [...] Valentia▪ to. 3. dis. 7. q. 3. punct. 2. Subditus non suo ju­dicio at (que) authoritati nititur superioris. to give your two eyes to your guide: I had rather they stick in my own head. To these Iesuits I oppose the minde of Vasquez 12. q. 19▪ disp. 66. c. 9. num. [...]1. Vasquez, and Salas 12. q▪ 21. tract. 8. disp. unic. sect▪ 17. num. 152. Salas, who say in that case the subject should first lay aside his errour, and then obey. 2 God requireth a full perswasion by the Lord Iesus, even in things indif­ferent, Rom. 14. 14, 22, 23. But poor naked humane authority cannot ingender perswasion of faith; and here is doubting▪ 3. It is false, That providence favoureth positive actions, more then privations, for [Page 214] Rom. 14. God loveth better abstinence from meats in themselves lawfull and clean, as the Apostle proveth, ver. 14. Because nothing is unclean of it self, then that the eater doubt, if he be not trans­gressing the Law of God in eating, though a great Apostle say, there is no danger in eating.

And Jackson addeth of the same nature these; ‘The good of obe­dience is not a consequent only of the action, but either an essentiallThe good nesse of obedience to Rulers can­not coun­tervalue the evil in the manner of doing with a doubting conscience and so sin­fully. part, or such a circumstance and motive precedent, as bringeth a new essence for its concomitant, whereby the evil, which we out of private perswasions fear, may be countervaled by the goodnesse that is in the purpose of sincere obedience to lawfull authority, as well as we conceit­ed good probably included in the very obiect of the action, he that doth that which in his private opinion he suspecteth to be evil, because in­joyned by lawfull authority, doth not evil that good may come of it, see­ing the goodnesse of obedience is no consequent of the action, but a mo­tive precedent—authority maketh actions indifferent to be good and necessary.’

Ans. He beggeth the question: The goodnesse of sincere obedience to authority (saith he) may countervail the evil, that we in our pri­vate choice fear to be in the action. But first, obedience to authori­ty in things wanting Gods word (whereof he speaketh now) is not obedience, but sinning, because doing without faith. 2. I take the Doctor at his word, refusing obedience to mens will­worship, or to practise even to the ruin of the weak, things indifferent, for fear of the greatest evil, the offending of God, by adding to his worship, Rev. 22. 18, 19. is obedience to God, and not a privation; the purpose (I say) of this obedience to God, may countervail all evil that can be imagined in non-obedience to men, and sure obe­dience to God, though probably obedience is as good and better, then obedience to men, though probably obedience.

Jesuites and Formalists say, Rulers are in possession to command; Ergo, We cannot thrust them out of possession, where we are not perswaded that they command against reason, saith Sanches: So I say, God is in just possession commanding us to venture upon no in­different action, where the conscience doubteth, and shall we not no lesse contend for Gods just possession, as time-servers do for mortall Rulers unjust possession in this? 2. I prove that it were Lawfull then to sin against God: A Iew is alike perswaded, that Maries Son i [...] the true Messiah, and that he is a deceiver: Opinions [Page 215] about a man, might seem indifferent to the Iews, And it is all one (saith Jackson) as if the thing be indifferent. Now the Pharisees in a Councell, determine, that Maries Son is a deceiver; Then it is law­full for the Jew, upon purpose of sincere obedience to Pharisees, who sit in Moses chair, to believe, that Maries son is a deceiver; because the conceit of sincere obedience is an essentiall motive to transubstan­tiate unbelief into sincere obedience, and the Iew may venture up­on the faith, that Maries Son is a deceiver, and crucifie the Lord of glory: being commanded thereunto by his Commanders, because Gods providence favoureth more positive actions, then privations. 3. He saith, He that obeyeth for the sole authority of Rulers, doth not evil that good may come of it: 1. Because the goodnesse of obedience countervaileth the evil of the actions: But 1▪ The question is, if it be obedience; Ergo, If it be no obedience, it cannot countervail the evil. 2. If it be the evil of sin, with a doubting conscience to do what judges commandeth, having no warrant of faith, but the will and lust of men, no purpose of good, though it were to save all the world, can counter-redeem the evil of sin against God. 2. Be­cause (saith he) such a one doth not evil, that good may come of it. Then he that stealeth moneys to give to the poor doth not evil, that good may come of it, by Dr. Jacksons reason, Because the goodnesse of purposing to help the poor is not a consequent, but a precedent motive of the action, and so maketh it good: We all know, the intention of the end goeth in the intention before the action, but not as an essentiall cause to make an evil action good, or make an indifferent action necessary and honest: A good intention doth make a good action good and better, but that a good intention (as Idolators are full of good intentions) can never so season the means, as (this Doctor saith) that it can make evil to be good, Vasquez in 12. [...]om. 1. disp. 68. cap. 2. Vas­quez condemneth the Fathers of ignorance, because they said, Pro­positum bonum excusat malum opus: so Cassianus C [...]ssian. collat. 17. cap. 17▪ said, It was lawfull to lie for a good end, and Chrys [...] ▪ oper. imperf. fi ejus [...]it o­pus, homil. 9. cap. 7. Chrysosto [...], and Ambr. lib. i [...]de of­fic. cap. 30. Ambrose said the same, as Vasquez saith: see Aquin. 12. q. 19. art. 7. Aquinas for this. 3. It is the doctrine of the man of sin, That Pope or Rulers, sole and bare authority can make an action indifferent, and so neither good nor evil, to be indifferent and good, as Bellar. de Pont if. Rom l. 4. cap. 16. Quioun (que) potest pre­cipere, polest etiam actum indifferen­tem suo pre­cepto facere necessarium, & per se bo­num. Bellarmine saith; for God only by his institution createth morall goodnesse in actions; mans [Page 216] will is no creatrix of goodnesse. 4. Neither resolutions nor skill are to be credited or followed, because private or publick, because au­thority of man as such, is no light nor warrant to the conscience to adventure upon moral actions; and the Lord giveth light to private men to obey, Psal. 25. 8, 9. 1 Cor. 2. 14, 15. Ioh. 7. 17, [...]8 Ioh. 7. 27. 2 Cor; 3. 18. 2 Cor. 4. 4. As he doth to Rulers to Command. So Silvest. in voce a­brogat. Sylvester, Tartar. in moral. cap. 5. & 7. Tartaretus, so River. catho. orth. tom. 1. q. 9. tract. 2. q. 2 Rivetus, Field l. 4. cap. 33. Doctot Field.

I proceed to answer other Arguments: As 1. We must not o­bey, Not only for wrath, but for conscience, the violation of a speciall Law, necessarily draweth with it the violation of the generall Law of the fift Commandment; But the violation of the generall, (saith Learned Pareus. Pareus) hurteth the Conscience; and the Magistrate pu­nisheth not for generall Violation, but for the Violation of this speci­all Law; Ergo, this speciall Law obligeth in Conscience. And it seem­eth to carry reason. Every just punishment presupposeth essentially a sin, else it is not a just punishment; but the Ruler doth justly punish the particular Transgression of an humane Law; Ergo, the Trans­gression of a particular Law of Rulers is sin. The Proposition is con­firmed by grave School-men, Soto l. 1. de just. q. 6. art. 3. Soto, Sylvest. Verb [...] in o­bedientia in [...]i [...]c. Sylvester, Jo: E­selius, in ez­pos. Decall. praecept. 4. cap. 36. and Ioan, Eselius, Who thinke that there cannot be a Law obliging to a pu­nishment, and not to a fault; because punishment hath an in­trinsecall relation to a sin, nor can it be a just punishment that is not proportioned to a sin; for the Law Cap. 2. De constit. Rem, quae culpa caret, in damnum vocari non convenit. Other Ar­guments for the ob­ligation of humane Laws An­swered. saith, That cometh not under damage, which cometh not under fault.

Ans. Though the Violation of the generall Law hurteth the Conscience, it being against the fifth Commandment; it followeth not that the Violation of every particular Law, even that that is meerly Positive, hurteth the Conscience before God: For then the carrying of Armour in the Night, Suppose no Ruler on earth make a Law there anent, should be a sin before God, which no wise man can say. 2. The other reason is more important, and draweth with it that School-question agitated by Iurists also and Ganonists, An ulla detur lox pure paenalis; If there be a Law purely Penall, with­out sin in it: And if the Law of Rulers in things meerly Positive, be meerly Penall and co-active, and not formally obliging to sin. But I Answer, Rulers do justly punish the Transgression of a Posi­tive Law, not as particularly humane and Positive: But as 1. It hath connexion with the Morall Reason of the Law. 2. As the par­ticular [Page 217] transgression is scandalous and against order, in which case the formall object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler, is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a parti­cular humane Law, but the violation of the morall goodnesse an­nexed to it, and of the scandall given. Now in this meaning, the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindely, Per se, of it self punishable, but by accident, and so it bindeth the conscience by accident; And in this sense, great Doctors, as Ambros. Ambrose, Anselm. Anselme, Theodo­retus in loc. Rom 13. Theodoret, Chrysos. in Rom. 13. hom. 23. Chrysostom, Navar. in sum. cap. 23. numb. 54. Navarra, Felinus, cap. 1. de sponsalib. n. 18. Fe­linus, Taraqu. Prefat de utroque re­tractu. n. 74. What it is to resist the Ruler. Taraquel say, That humane Laws oblige the conscience. But the most learned of the Canonists aver, that not to obey civill Laws, laying aside the evil of scandall, is no mortall sin, and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltinesse before God.

2. They object. ‘To resist the Laws of the Magistrate, is to resist himself; and to resist himself, is to resist the Ordinance of God.’

Ans. To resist the Laws positive and particular in connexion with the morall reason of the Law, is to resist the Ruler, true. But so the question is not concluded against us: for by accident in that sense, humane Laws binde the conscience; but to resist the particular Laws, as particular Laws, as particular positive Laws, is not to resist the Ruler: A Ruler as a Ruler, doth never command a thing meer­ly indifferent as such, but as good, edificative, profitable, and ex­cept you resist the morality of the positive humane Law, you resist not the Ruler; yea, nor yet is the Law resisted.

3. The Iesuit Lod. Meratius Lodovi Merat. par. 1. tract. de leg disp. 1. Sect. 13. objecteth: ‘Every true Law o­bligeth, either to guiltinesse, or to punishment, but the civill and Cano­nick Laws are Laws properly so called. But they do not ever oblige to punishment only. Ergo, They oblige to sin.’

Ans. It is denied that Laws civill or Canonicall, as meerly parti­cularly positive, do oblige as Laws, or that they are Laws, they be only Laws according to the morality in them, that can promove us to our last end, eternall felicity.

It is also false that the Iesuit saith, If thou wilt be saved, keep the Commandments, doth command the keeping of all Civill and Canonick Laws, or that hence is concluded a Law obliging the conscience, that is, humane and positive, as if a Lent Fast, a Pilgri­mage, and not carrying Armour in the night were commanded by Christ, as necessary to life eternall.

[Page 218]The same Merat. ib. Sect. 2. Meratius striveth to answer the Argument of Al­main and Gerson, which is this; Who ever can oblige to sin mor­tall before God, he can inflict eternall punishment, but no mortall man can inflict eternall punishment.

1. Saith he, This Argument would prove sins against the Law of nature, as homicide, and adultery, not to be deadly sins, for by the Law of nature, eternall punishment is not inflicted for sins against the Law of nature, but by the positive will of God. If any say, God is the au­thor of the Law of nature, because he is the Creator of that humane nature, in the which this law is written: So, if that be sufficient that the law of nature oblige under eternall punishment, so also the civill and Ecclesiasticall lavv shall binde the conscience, because he is the au­thor of that power which maketh Civill and Ecclesiastick laws, for there is no power, but it is of God.

Ans. 1. By the Law of nature, sins against the Law of nature de­serve eternall punishment, and that essentially, laying aside the po­sitive will of God, to whom I grant it is free to inflict punishment, or not to inflict, and this agreeth to all sin. But to carry Armour in the night, laying aside the case of scandall, and the morality there­of, that no murther follow thereupon, deserveth neither temporall nor eternall punishment. And if this Argument of the Iesuits hold good, no mortall sin shall oblige to eternall punishment, because Gods positive will is the nearest cause of actuall punishment eter­nall in all sins. 2. God is not the Author of a propper no [...]othetick power in man, for that is the question.

2. He answereth, Distinguishing the Proposition. None can o­blige to a mortall sin, but he who can inflict the eternall punishment of a mortall sin. It is true (saith he) of the punishment which wholly de­pendeth upon the will of the judge who made the Law: but it is not true of that punishment, which no way dependeth upon the will of the Iudge, such as is eternall punishment, excommunication dependeth up­on the vvill of man, and it obligeth to eternall punishment, yet man cannot inflict that eternall punishment: for a man may command an act, the omission whereof, or the commission whereof, is of such mo­ment, that it serveth much for the good of a community, and there­fore he vvho of knowledge and vvillingly doth such an act, doth sin a­gainst right reason, and so against the eternall lavv of God.

Ans. 1. The distinction of the Jesuit is but a begging of the que­stion. [Page 219] He vvho can oblige to mortall sin by his Lavv, can also oblige to eternall punishment, if eternall punishment depend vvholly on his free vvill, as the Lavv doth; What is that, but the inflicting of eter­nal punishment belongeth to him who maketh a Law obliging to sin mortal, so being the inflicting of eternall punishment belong to him; But our Argument is, he who hath dominion and authority to make a Law, hath dominion and authority to inflict a punishment an­swerable to the transgression of that Law: for it is one dominionWhy men cannot make laws that layeth a tye on the Con­science. and power to make the Law, and to inflict the penalty of the Law: Man cannot make the penalty of eternall wrath: Ergo, he cannot make a Law obliging to eternall wrath.

2. Excommunication is not done by mans will, but by the po­wer of the keys for a mortall sin deserving excommunication, and so eternall wrath. If any Excommunicate upon his sole will, as wic­ked Popes have done; in that case the will of a man obligeth nei­ther to punishment, nor to eternall punishment, it is but Brutum Fulmen, and not to be feared. 3. If any Commit an act that hurt­eth a whole Community, and is forbidden by men in Authority, he sinneth against the Law of God, though men had never forbidden that Act: And we deny not but humane Laws agreeing with the Law of Nature, doth oblige the Conscience both to sin and eternall punishment, but then they are not humane Laws, but Di­vine Laws, and in that case two guiltinesses, Duo reatus, are Com­mitted, one against the fifth Commandment, in doing what Superi­ors according to Gods Word forbiddeth, and there is another guilti­nesse against the matter it self, and a Divine Law, which also should stand as a sin before God, thought the Ruler had never forbidden it: But if any carry Armour in the Night, being forbidden by the Iudge, for eschewing of night homicide, if no homicide follow at all, and the matter be not known, and so not scandalous, the car­rier of Armour is involved in no guiltinesse before God.

CAP. III. Of the power of the Magistrate in matters Ecclesiasticall.

QUEST. 1.

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.

COncerning the Christian Magistrate we are to consider twoThat Christ hath a spi­rituall kingdom, not only in the po­wer of preaching the word, but also in the power of the keys, by disci­pline. heads, the one negative, what he cannot do in the matters of Christs Kingdom: 2. Positive, What he ought to do, for the opening of the former: We are to cleare whether or no all externall scandalls Ecclesiasticall, as well as civill, are to be punished by the Civill Magistrate; and that as in Civill scandals, that disturbeth the peace of the Common-wealth, the Magistrate hath a twofold power, one to command what is good and just, another to reward and punish; so the Lord Jesus in his Kingdom, hath not onely a directive power to teach and forbid, but also a power, by way of Discipline, upon the external man eccle­siastically to reward and punish, to binde and loose, in an externall Court on earth. It is granted by the Adversaries, that Christ as King hath a power of binding and loosing, but meerly internall, purely spirituall, in regard of the Conscience, by the Preaching of the Word; but for any externall power to take in and cast out of the Visible Kingdom of Iesus Christ his Visible Church, This they de­ny, and so refuse all externall Ecclesiasticall censures of receiving into the bosome of the Church, and casting out by rebukes, or Ex­communication; and therefore that there is no externall Court in the Church to punish Ecclesiasticall scandals, all scandals and externall offences of the Church, are to be punished by the Christi­an Magistrate onely: In opposition to which error, I say,

[Page 221]1. Conclusion. There is not only a rebuking of an offender in the Church, by private admonition, as between Brother and Brother, common to all Christians, Col. 3. 16. Levit. 19. 17. And of the Pa­stor only, he applying the Word by way of Preaching to such and such offenders, and closing the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven up­on impenitent sinners, which is acknowledged by the Adversaries: But there is also a Church-rebuking by way of censure, which must presuppose an Ecclesiasticall Court, and a rebuking of a Publique sin, put forth by many; whereas one only, not a Church or multi­tude may Preach the Word, and so rebuke by way of Preaching, which I make out from the Word of God, 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many: The word [...], a rebuke or punishment, in the old Translation, it is Objurgatio, in the Newer, Increpatio; Piscator Muleta, is a chastise­ment, whether this punishment was actuall excommunication, as ma­ny Learned Interpreters do not improbably gather out of the Text; or if it was a Rebuke of the Church in order thereunto: Certain it included, a rebuking not of one man, but a Church-rebuking inflicted by many, 2 Cor. 2. 6. And by the Representative Church of Corinth, gathered together with Pauls spirit and the power of the the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. And so presupposeth a Court or Con­vention of many inflicting this punishment. 2. The Adversaries who deny that there is such a thing as Excommunication, say it was onely a rebuke; but if it was Excommunication, it must include a rebuke coming from the many who do excommunicate. 3. It is such a rebuke as must be taken off and pardoned by many, as ver. 7. So that contrariwise, ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, ver. 10. To whom ye forgive any thing, I also forgive. So here is a rebuking put upon an offender by many convened in a Court, who did rebuke by way of judiciall Authority, and the power of the Lord Iesus; Ergo, it was some higher censure which was inflicted by many, and taken off by many; then that which was inflicted by one by way of Preaching, where there is no necessity that many either rebuke, or comfort the rebuked: for one Pastor is to give out the sentence of Death or Life, rebuking and comforting, toward any one offender, or a person Repenting, whether many be convened to consent and joyn or not. Yea, I may, being a Pastor of Iesus Christ, dispense rebukes and comforts by way of Preaching, against [Page 222] the will and minde of the whole flock: But a rebuke, and a for­giving by many, cannot be dispensed, except these many convene to­gether in the Name of the Lord Iesus in a Church way and consent. 2. If the convened Church must be heard and obeyed when she re­buketh a Brother, for a fault done between Brother and Brother, and that upon the Testimony of two or three witnesses, then is the Church a Court that is to rebuke an offender, and so to convene him before her: and that is some other censure then by way of Preaching; but the former is true, Matth. 18. 16, 17. 3. If the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch, convened in a Synod, do give forth an Ecclesiasticall rebuke on false Teachers, as those that troubled the Churches, and perverted their Souls with false Doctrine; then is there rebuking of offenders by a Church or Churches, beside a Pastorall rebuking by one single Brother or Pastor: But the for­mer is true, Act. 15. ver. 24, 25. The Proposition is clear, in that a select company of Apostles, Elders and Brethren, doth not only Doctrinally conclude against their errour who did hold the neces­sity of Circumcision, but also against the Persons, and their Schis­maticall way, of troubling the Church by a [...] in making a side and Faction in the Church, ver. 2. 24. And this not any one single man could do in an ordinary way, except we say that it was an idle and unnecessary remedy which the Apostles used to quench the sire, as if any one man might have done all this, or as if they had re­buked these men publikely, not having heard and convinced them by the Word of God; or as if an offence touching conversation and against the second Table, had risen betweene Church and Church, no lesse then in the present case of an offence in matter of doctrine, that the Apostles would not have taken the same course, all which are not to be imagined. And in very deed this was not a point of meer doctrine, but also of peace and charity, violated by a Faction, ver. 2. And a scandall in eating things strangled, was raised in the Churches, Acts 15. 24. 1 Cor. 10. 28, 29. Rom. 14. 14, 15, 16, 17. 4. If Timothy be to rebuke publikely, those that sin publikely, and that judicially upon the Testimony of Wit­nesses. Then is there a publike Church-rebuking by way of cen­sure, beside the pastorall rebuking. But the former is expresly said, 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20. This must be a rebuking in a Church-court, except we say Timothy his alone was the Church, and a Mo­narch [Page 223] of the Church, who hath power to lead witnesses against Elders.

2. Conclusion. There is such a censure as excommunication inThat there is such a divine or­dinance as Excommu­nication. the hands of the Church, by which scandalous offendors are to be debarred from the society of the Church, and other holy Ordi­nances, that they do not prophane them, which is proved from Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17, 18. Thus, he who is to be of a brother esteemed as no brother, but as a Heathen and a Publican, and whose offence is bound in Heaven, as the Church bindeth on Earth, and that upon the testimony of Witnesses, he incurreth some other censure of reall ejection out of the society of bre­thren in a Church State, then Pastorall rebuking. But he who trespasseth against his brother, and will neither be gained by pri­vate admonition, nor by the Church rebuking him, is in such a case; Ergo, such a one is to be excommunicated, and so Christ must have instituted such a censure.

Divers reasons are alledged against this sense, as not favouring excommunication.

Object. 1. If thy brother trespasse against thee, is, if thy brotherObjections against ex­communi­cation re­moved. trespasse against God, thou knowing him to be guilty, art to deal with him, and to bring his fault to publike hearing that he may be pu­nished.

Answ. 1. The same phrase in the same doctrine of scandals is, Luke 17. 3. Take heed to your selves, [...]: If thy brother trespasse against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him. But it cannot be said that if our brother transgress against God, we knowing of that, we are not to forgive him a sin committed a­gainst God, though he should come to us, and say that he repen­teth, for then might any private brother pardon murthers and sor­ceries, and if this private brother were a Magistrate, by this he is to forgive bloods, and not use the sword against the evill doer, and is to dispence with it seventy seven times, if the offender say, he re­penteth. 2. The text saith expresly, If thy brother trespasse [...] against thee, not [...] against God. It is true, sinnes against a brother, are sins against God, but it is evident from the text, that Christ speakes of such sinnes in a speciall manner, committed a­gainst me, or a particular brother, which are within the verge of my power or his to pardon, as no [...] being yet publikely scandalous. [Page 224] 3. Camero saith, to sinne against any here, is not to sinne againstPraelee. in Math. 18. ver. 15. page 144. God with the knowledge of a brother, but it is to sinne in private against a brother, so as the offended brother is in meeknes to la­bour to gaine him, and not bring his fault to publike, if he can be cured in private, and therefore with much lenity we are to proceed, whereas before Christ had exhorted not to contemne our brother, here he teacheth with what loving patience and lon­ganimity we are to labour to gaine him when he is fallen, else Christ should say but the same thing over againe, that he said once.

Object. 2. But by this place of Scripture, I should rebuke any brother whom I know to sinne against God, to the end I may gaine him to repentance, and that before two witnesses? Now this is absurd: my Father, my King and Prince before two Witnesses; And therfore by the Church is meant a number of private Christians before whom I am to convince my brother, and that I am not to rebuke any offender whatsoever, is cleare in that Solomon saith, it is a mans glory to passe by an offence, and we are not to over-heare our servant cursing us, Ergo, We are not to rebuke every one, nor to bring them before any Church Court.

Answ. 1. This argument is against Christ, as well as against us, for it tendeth to conclude that it is not universally true, that I am to rebuke every offending brother, which I will grant in some sense. For 1. If the fault be small, and possibly a matter of goods, with which I may dispence, without lesse hurt to my brothers soule, then the evill of scandall may be, if I complaine to either the Church or Magistrate, I am rather to suffer wrong, 1 Cor.We mayre­buke our brother in a prudent way. 6. 7. But because I am not to rebuke my brother imprudently, may I not conclude from Christs words, I may rebuke him? Or because a meane person may not rebuke a Ruler, or a Prince, or King? Will it follow that a Nathan may not rebuke King Da­vid, and because Ionathan may not rebuke King Saul his Father, shall it follow that no other may rebuke King Saul? Or because I may not rebuke a scorner, though a professing brother, or because I may not rebuke my brother before two or three witnesses, who to my knowledge bear the offender ill will, and so I see my re­buking shall be so far from gaining him to repentance, that it shall provoke him to a greater offence, shall it therfore follow I am to suffer sin in my brother and not to rebuke him at all, which the Spi­rit [Page 225] of God calleth a hating of my brother in my heart, Lev. 19. v. 18. This argument concludeth not that I may not rebuke my brother, but onely that I may not rebuke my brother imprudent­ly, or that any brother may not rebuke any brother, whoever he be, King or Ruler, Negatis modi non negat rem ipsam, so we are to passe by offences and to be willing to forgive them. Ergo, we are not to rebuke an offending brother, it doth not follow, I must be willing to forgive all, friend, or enemy, Ergo, by this reason I am not to rebuke any at all, and Solomon willeth us onely not to be swift, too glad and willing, or too quicke and sharpe eared to heare eve­ry ill word, Eccles. 7. 21. Also Heb. Give not thy heart to all words [...] that are spoken, least thou hear thy servant curse thee. So is the same phrase, Eccles. 1. 13. Prov. 23. 26. Eccles. 1. 17. Not unlike this is the phrase Dan. 6. 14. The King set his heart to deliver Da­niel, But this will not prove we are not to rebuke an offending brother. 2. That by the Church here, is meant a number of private Christians, is against the Text, for then three witnesses should be a Church, being three private Christians, but sure it is Christ as­cendeth in his speech to an higher degree, to the Church who is to heare the Witnesses, the Plaintiffe and the Offender, who hath power to binde, and loose, which is nothing but a Church-court. 2. Thou hast gained thy brother, must be a spirituall gaining of him to repentance, as 1 Pet. 3. 1. That they may be gained by the conversation of the wives, 1 Cor. 9, 20. [...] That I may gain those that are under the Law. Ver. 21. That I may gain those that are without Law. ver. 19. That I might gaine the more. Ver. 20. [...] That I might gain the Iewes, so is the Word used for spirituall gaining, Mat. 2. 17, 20, 22. and Christ in his Sermons never speaketh of civill gaining of brethren: And 2. Be­cause he speaketh of the brother, as he is a member of a society, where there be three 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 lighterErastus. faults, for which one brother may pardon another, and which a pri­vate brother hath power to conceale, it cannot therefore in good sense [Page 226] 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 Mat. 18. 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 Mu [...] ­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 Syne­dryObject. 4. 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 isThe church Mat. 18. is not the Ci­vill Sane­drim. 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 [Page 227] 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 [Page 228] 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; its 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, that Christ should direct the Jews, who were to be dispersed through all the earth; to go up to Jeru­salem for judgement, seeing Ierusalem was to be laid equall with the ground; and the Iews, their state, Church▪ policy, and the Scep­ter now removed from Iudah, let wise men judge.

11. The complaining to an Heathen Magistrate, or the punish­ing of an offender by the sword, by no Scripture, is such a binding on earth, by the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as this is expounded, Matth. 16. 19. And such a binding as is ratified in Heaven, and that by the joynt Prayers of two or three on earth, as is here spoken, ver. 18, 19, 20. A Heathen Magistrates Sentence, though never so just, should not be valued, except it were confir­med by the Prayers of the Church, as the Sentence of Excommu­nication must be.

12. The Iewish Saenedrim was now to take an end, and expire with all the Iewish policy; it is not to be imagined that Iesus Christ [Page 229] would appoint a perishing remedy for a per [...]etuall and ever-endu­ring disease; now offences and scandals between brother and bro­ther were to be in the world to the end, ver. 15. If thy brother of­fend, &c. And Christ saith, Offences must be, and the remedy here is morall and perpetuall: as 1. That Christ shall have a Church vi­sible on earth, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail: 2. That we first deal to gain our brother in private, ere to his grea­ter shame, he be brought in publick, before the Church. 3. The Lords ratifying in Heaven, what his servants shall binde and loose on earth. 4. The agreeing of two to pray together, the conv [...]ening of two or three in the name of Christ, with a promise of the presence of Christ, all these are Morall and perpetuall: The Lord never did the like of this, before or after.

13. In all the New-Testament we do not read, that Christ, who was the end of the Law, and the body now come in the flesh to a­bolish all Ceremonials and temporary Laws of the Iewish Church and policy, as Iewish, did institute any old-Testament Law, such as the Sanedrim was for offending brethren: if it be said that this was but the right expounding of an old divine Law, now almost buried through the corruption of men; then must Erastus shew that this was an old Law of divine institution▪ that the Iews were to keep this threefold order in gaining an offending brother, and that this is now abolished, and that the power of the Magistrate in Church-businesse, by this place is not established to the end of the world; both which are contrary to the Principles of Erastus, not to say that there is not in this whole Chapter, or Luk. 17. where the same purpose is handled, any shadow of reason to assert that Christ is restoring any Ceremoniall or Iudiciall Law to its genuine and sound meaning and sense, but by the contrary Christ speaketh of the Morall and perpetuall Doctrine of scandall, and how we are to deal with an offending brother to gain him to repentance, either by our selves or the Church, and to forgive private injuries, even to seventy seven times: Lastly, since Publicans and Romans converted to the Christian saith from Paganisme, even at this time were Bre­thren, who might both give and take scandals, it shall follow that Christ commandeth Gentiles to submit to the Jewish Magistrates, this was against Christian liberty, and to take from Cesar those things that are Cesars, which is unjust.

[Page 230]

But, saith Erastus, Publicans were not in Iuda excluded from sa­crifices, Lu [...]. 18. A Pharisee and a Publican went up to the Temple toHow Pub­licans were excluded from the Temple. pray, Christ himself did eat with Publicans and sinners: therefore this phrase (Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican) cannot expresse this (Let him be excommunicated) except you say, that all heathen and Publicans were so served by Christ, and the Iews, as if they had been excommunicated.

Ans. 1. Publicans, that were by Nation Heathens, were excluded from sacrifices and the Temple, jure, by D [...]u [...]. 23. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'sa. 79. 1. Lam. 1. 10. Gods Law; but not de facto, because the Iews being under bondage to the Romane Em­perour, and spoiled of their Liberties and Laws, might not put their Laws in execution against Heathen and Publicans; it is sufficient to us, saith Beza, that Publicans were execrable and hatefull to the Iews, and (say I) that Heathen and Publicans remaining such, are without the Church, Lev. 25 44. Lev. 26. 45 2 Kin. 16. 3. 2 Kin. 17. 8. 11. [...] 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 Mi [...]. 5. 15. Hag. 2. 22. Zach. 1. 15. and not to be reputed as brethren, but e­nemies to the true Church of God, and this is that which to us is Excommunication.

I do not doubt but Publicans went to the Temple to pray, but that is but to Argue, A facto ad jus, not the right way, A jure ad factum: Publicans ought not to have done so. 2. Christ the Supream Lawgiver, who is above the Law, did often dispense with sacrifice and positive Laws, for a work of mercy, and if he touched the dead, and touched the skin of the Leaper, and suffered his disciples to pluck the ears of Corne on the Sabbath day, what marvell then he did eat with Publicans and sinners, contrary to the Letter of a positive Law, Knowing his own, whom the Father had given to him from eternity were to be brought in to himself, by his familiar con­versing with them; why should not the Physitian converse with the sick; the shepheard with the lost sheep; the Redeemer with his ransomed ones? But this is no warrant, that therefore the clean­sed Leaper should not shevv himself to the Priest, or that an obsti­nate offender should not be reputed as a Heathen, and not admit­ted into the Sanctuary. 3. That simple Publicans, or Heathen re­maining such, should sacrifice. I never read, sacrifices were offered for Iobs friends, who were not within the visible Church: But 1. by Gods own speciall and immediate command: as we read, Iob 42. 7, 8. A positive Law for it (which yet was requisite for or­dinary worship of that kinde) we read not. 2. I think Iobs friends [Page 231] cannot in knowledge, Religion, Profession, be esteemed meer Heathens, and therefore as God tied not himself to a positive and standing Law here, so neither was Christ, being the same God e­quall with the Father, so restrained from not familiar conver­sing with Heathen, and Publicans, but he might leap over a Cere­mony to save a lost soul.

Object. 6. But (the adversaries say) Christ here useth words proper to the Iewish Synedry and the Old-Testament, as witnesses, Ecclesia, or congregation, Heathen, Publican, and these are not New Testament words, nor was there such a thing as a New Testa­ment Church on earth at this time, and Christ having not yet as­cended to Heaven, nor sent down the holy spirit, cannot be thought to hold forth the power and jurisdiction of a thing yet destitute of all being, such as was the Christian Church, nor can he here speak of Christs spirituall Kingdom.

Ans. 1. Christ did well to use these words, Witnesses, Church, Congregation, Heathen, Publican, as well known to his hearers, and these same words in use amongst the Iews are used in the New Testament, as 1 Cor. 16. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 19. Act. 15. 7, 17. Revel. 11. 2, 8. 1 Pet. 4. 3. 2 Pet. 1 19. 20, 21. Anathema Mae­ranatha, Witnesses, Gentiles, sinners of the Gentiles, imposition of hands, &c. Indeed in ordinary, the Pastor under the New Te­stament is not called Priest, nor high Priest, nor the Commu­nion Table an Altar: But the words here used are obvious and very significant; and the word [...] or Church is a most ob­vious word in both the Old and New Testament, and doth sig­nifie any Assembly, Religious, civill or prophane, according as the nature, person and use or end of the meeting or Assembly was Religious and Prophane, as is evident by many places of the Old and New Testament; where the seventy Interpreters use the word for a Church-Assembly; for which see the due right of Presbyters, page 349, 350. and page 473, 474. And since the word Church here is cleerely, a company convened to gaine an offending brothers soule, by rebukes and censures, and which hath power to binde and loose on earth, so as their fact is ratified in heaven, it cannot be any other, then a New Testa­ment Church-meeting, seeing we find the Church of Corinth com­manded to conveene and exercise such a power, 1 Cor. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. [Page 232] And therfore it cannot be expounded of the [...]ivill judge; not to adde, that Erastus, who objecteth this, saith the Syn [...]dre had both ci­vill and spirituall or Eccl [...]siasticall power, and therefore he hath no ground to expound the place of the Civill Magistrate. 2. Be­cause he was not yet ascended to heaven, and had not sent downe the Holy Spirit, it is no consequence to say he speaketh nothing of the Christian Church of the Nevv Testament, for before his Ascen­sion he appointed the Ministery, the Sacraments, the power of Censures, and the keyes given to the Church of the New Testa­ment, Math. 28. 19, 20. Joh. 20. v. 2 [...], 22. Math. 26. 20, 21, 22, 23, &c. Now it is as inconvenient, that precepts, such as (Do this in remembrance of me,) (take yee, eate yee,) and (he that heareth you, heareth me,) should be given to the christian Church, which yet had no being, as for Christ to hold forth the power of juris­diction of a Christian church destitute of all being. Yea, this recurreth upon Erastus, who will have Christ here to hold forth the power of the Christian Magistrate, as yet remoter from being, all Magistrates being professed Enemies to Iesus Christ, whereas there was at this time a seed, a bottome of a christian visible Church: There being eleven Apostles, seventy Disciples, and ma­ny others who professed faith in Christ already come. Yea though there be no formed instituted visible Church of the New Testa­ment, yet it became our great Prophet, who taught that Gospell, yea, all that he heard of the Father, Ioh. 15. 15. to his Disciples, which was to be a rule of the Faith of the Christian visible Church not yet instituted, and who erected a Ministery to teach them before his ascension, also to furnish that Ministery with the powerof the keyes & censures, as he expresly doth before his death, Mat. 16. 17, 18, 19. Not to adde what Camero saith, that he spake these words when he was now to offer himselfe on the Crosse, and Math. 2. 16. He mentioneth the edifying of the Church of the New Testament, and the Disciples aske vvho is to be greatest in the Kingdome of God, ver. 1.

Object. 7. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publican, can not meane as much as, Let him bee excommunicated, but onely, let him plead vvith his obstinate brother vvho contemneth the Chri­stian Magistrate, before the heathen Magistrate, and in preser­ving the offendor, vvho is novv obstinate, let him deale vvith him [Page 233] as with a Heathen and a Publican, onely in this matter of pursuit, but otherwise the Publican was not excommunicate. 1. Because the Publicans place and office was good and lawfull and from God, then to repute him as a Publican is not to repute him as a prophane man. 2. When Iohn Baptist is demanded by the Publicans what they shall doe, he doth not bid them lay downe the office of a Publican, but one­ly not abuse it to rapine and extortion, nor is Zacheus compelled by Christ to lay downe his office, but onely to make restitution.

Answ. 1. There is no necessity to condemne the office of the Publican, or the birth and condition of the Heathen as unlawfull. But a Publican went for a prophane man, and for a man who is a stranger to the true church of God, as Mat. 5. 46. If you love them that love you, what reward have you? Doe not even the Publicans the same? Ergo, It is Christs mind to exclude the Publicans from any spirituall or eternall reward, promised to these within the vi­sible Church; and when Christ was slandered by the Jewes, because he went in to be a Guest with a Publican, Luke 19. 7. And be­cause hee did eate vvith Publicans, Mat. 9. 12, 13. Christ taketh it as granted that Publicans were prophane men and sinners. But he saith they were sicke sinners and lost, that is, such as were sensible of their by-past prophanity, and desired the Physi­tian Christ to cure them; and Gentiles or Heathen is taken for these who are without the Church, and are void of Religion, 1 Cor. 5. 1. Such fornication as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles, 1 Pet. 4. 3. Let it suffice you, that ye have vvrought the vvill of the Gentiles, Eph. 2. 11. Ye vvere in times past Gen­tiles, what is that, but Ver. 2. Ye vvalked according to the course of the World; according to the Prince of the povver of the aire? So a Samaritan, is taken for one that hath a Devill, yet to be a Sama­ritan Theophylact in Math. 18 [...]. by birth and nation is not unlawfull, it is then a distinctive terme spoken [...] to be an Heathen, or counted an Heathen and a Publican, that is, counted a prophane wicked person, not a brother, not a member of the church. Theophylact expoundeth this with us, If he heare not the Church, let him be an out-cast, least he rub any of his vvickednes upon others vvithin the Church.

And these words Let him be to thee, is a word of command, as Mat. 5. 37. [...] Let your speech be yea, yea, Mat. 20. he that vvould be greatest, let him be your servant; and, let him be to thee, [Page 234] is not to exclude the Church, but it is set downe in a Law-man­ner in the second person, for farre more must the obstinate of­fender be as an Heathen and a Publican to the Church.

Ver. 18. Verily I say unto you, What yee bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and what yee loose on earth, shall be loosed in hea­ven. These words contain a reason why he who contemneth the Church, is to be holden as a Heathen and a Publican. Why? is it such an offence before God to despise the church? Yea, saith our Saviour, with a grave asseveration, Verily I say unto you, they that despise the sentence of you the Ministers of the Gospel, being accor­ding to truth given out, they and their sinnes shall be bound in Heaven.

Erastus saith, he is said to bind, who doth retaine the sinne, whenObject. 8. he maketh the obstinate brother unexcusable; and he looseth, who remitteth or pardoneth the injury, and gaineth to repentance his bro­ther by a brotherly admonition, for except he speake of a brotherly composing of private injuries, to what end should Christ subjoyne [...] Again I say to you if two agree, &c.

Answ. 1. Christ doth argue from the lesse to the more, he pro­veth what the Church bindeth on earth, shall be bound in Hea­ven, because if the prayers of two or three gathered together in the name of God, and agreeing together on earth, are not rejected in Heaven, farre more shall that be ratified in heaven, which the whole church of Christ decreeth on earth in the name of the head of the Church, Iesus Christ. 2. When in the chapter going be­fore, Christ had ascribed to the Apostles and Pastors, which are the eyes of the Church, a power of the keyes, and here he ascribeth to them the power of binding and loosing, there was no cause to dreame that he speaketh here of a private forgiving of private finnes betweene Brother and brother, for then he might have said at the first step, Thou hast gained thy brother, that gaining or con­vincing of thy brother shall be bound or loosed in heaven, no lesse then the Churches judiciall binding and loosing in heaven, which yet is set downe as an higher degree of power. But I may here say with Beza in the whole Scripture, the word of binding and Beza de de Presby­terio & ex­com. p. 60. loosing is never spoken of any other but of these who are in publike places, and by a borrowed speech, here it is spoken in regard of Spirituall power. To bind and to loose, is by a judiciall power in [Page 235] subordination to Christ the King, to remit and retaine sinnes. SoJoseph de bello Iudai [...] l. 1. c. 4. Pharisaei omnia pro arbitrio ad­ministra­bant, [...] Lucian. di­alo. 1. [...]. Iosephus saith, the Pharisees ruled all, so that they would banish or re­call from banishment, loose and binde whom they pleased, and upon the Authority according to the which Christ sent his Disciples as the Father sent him, so he instructed his Ministers with power to remit and retaine sinnes, Ioh. 20. 23. and Mat. 16. 19. What thou bindest [...], on earth, shall be bound in heaven, what thou loosest on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, [...]. So doth Lucian bring in that prisoner speaking to Iupiter, Loose me, O Iupiter, for I have suffered grievous things, Mat. 22. 13. Then the King said to his servants, take him, [...], binde him hand and foot; binding here (you see) is done by the com­mand of the great King, Acts 21. 11. So shall the Iewes [...] binde Paul, they bound Paul with Law and authority, such as it was, Iohn 18. 12. The Captaine and Officers tooke Iesus, [...] and bound him, they bound him not by private authority, Mat. 27. 2. and Act. 24. 27. Felix left Paul [...] bound; if Lictors binde any Malefactors, they doe it by authoritie and Law. So do the Hebrews speake, Psal. 105. 20. The Ruler of the people loosed So doth the word [...] Num. 11. 28. signifie. him, Psal. 102. 20. The Lord looketh downe from heaven, [...] to open or loose the children of death. Psal, 146. 7. The Lord looseth the Prisoners, Iob 12. 18.

3. It cannot be denyed, but when one private brother pardons another repenting Brother, God ratifieth that in heaven. But it is cleare the pardon here holden forth by our Saviour, is such a loosing, as hath witnesses going before. 2. Such an one as com­eth higher to the knowledge of the Chuuch. Nor doth the parti­cleBinding and loosing acts judi­ciall. [...] again, signifie any thing but pretereà, moreover.

4. And who can say that binding and loosing here, is some o­ther thing then binding and loosing in the Chap. 16. ver. 9. Where the same very phrase in the Greeke is one and the same, except that the Lord speaketh, Mat. 16. 19. in the singular number to Peter, as representing the teachers and Governours of the Church, and here Mat. 18. He speaketh in the Plurall number, relating to the Church. Now Mat. i6. i8, 19. binding on earth, and loosing, which is ratified in heaven, is evidently the exercise of the pow­er of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, I will give to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven. What be these keyes, he ex­poundeth [Page 236] in the same very verse, and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth, shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven; then binding and loosing on earth, must be in these to whom Christ hath committed the power of the keyes: but 1. Christ hath not committed the keyes to all, but to Church-rulers, that are the Stewards of the House, and the di­spensers of heavenly Mysteries. Hence the keyes in Scripture signi­fie authority and officiall dignity that is in Rulers, not in pri­vate men, as Esa. 22. 22. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder. So Christ is said to have the key of David, to open and no man shutteth, to shut and no man openeth. By which out of doubt (saith Camero prelect. in Mat. 16. Camero,) is pointed forth the kingly au­thority and power of Christ, so saith Vata­blus on E­say 22. Vatablus. And our owne Calvin prelect. in Esay 22, Calvin, Muscu. com, ibid, Musculus, Gual­ther Homil. in loc. Gualther, Piscator shol. in Esa. Piscator, Beza on Mat. 16. Beza, Pareus comment. in Mat. 16. Pa­reus agree, that the keyes are insigne potestatis, an Ensigne of pow­er given to the Steward or Master of a Noblemans house, who is a person in office; The giving of the keyes (sai [...]h worthy Mr. Cot­ton,) is a giving power for the preaching of the word, the admini­string of the seales and censures, by which these invested with pow­er doe open and shut the gates. Now we desire any Word of God, by which it can be made good, that the keyes and pow­er to binde and loose is given to all that are in the house, even private Christians. But we can shew the Keyes, and binding and loosing, and opening and shutting to be given to the Officers and Rulers of the house. Hence I argue that interpretation that confoundeth the key-bearers, and the Chil­dren, with the Servants of the House; and the Governours that are over the people in the Lord, with the governed, and putteth the Characters proper to the Officers and Stewards, con­ [...]usedly(i) Cotton Keyes of the King­dome p. 2. upon all that are in the house, is not to be holden; but this in­terpretation is such; Ergo, &c. also to binde and to loose is expounded by Christ, Ioh. 20. 21. to be a power to retain and remit sins on earth, which are accordingly retained and remitted in Heaven, and that by vertue of a calling, and Ministeriall mission, according to which the Father sent Christ Jesus; and Iesus Christ sendeth his Apostles and Pastors to the end of the world, as is clear, if we compare Matth. 18. 18. and Matth. 16. 19. with Ioh. 20. 20, 21, 22. 23. Mar. 16. ver. 15, 20. Matth. 28. 18, 19, 20. Luk. 24. 45, 46, 47, 48.

[Page 237]5. It is against the course of the Text, that we should restrain this to private pardoning of light injuries between brother and brother: 1. Becase Christ labours to decline this, that one shall be both his brothers judge to put him in the condition of an Heathen and Publican, and binde his brothers sins in Heaven and Earth, and also, that he should be his party and accuser: Now Christ will have the private brother do no more personally, but admonish his bro­ther and gain him. 2. If that prevail not, then he is to admonish him before two or three witnesses: See here, the brother is not both party and judge; but witnesses have place. 3. If that prevail not, the businesse is to ascend higher, even to the Church, which un­doubtedly is an Organicall body, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 8. 6, 7, &c. Act. 20. 28, 29, 30. Whereas two or three private Christians are not a Church, but an homogeneal body: Now who would believe that Christ is to bring down the businesse which is so high, as before the Church, to the lowest step again, to a private binding and loosing to one brother, who both as judge and party judgeth his bro­ther; yea, and may do this, though there were no Chu [...]ch on earth? What power hath the Church above the offended brother, or the offender, if the one may binde the other under guiltinesse in earth and heaven? 2. Erastus will have light and private offences only spoken of here: Now Christ speaketh of offences that God ta­keth notice of in Heaven and earth. 3. Christs way is a wise and meek way, that that which one cannot do, and the offence that two, three, four cannot remove, the Church shall remove, but Erastus maketh one private man to remove it, and to Excommunicate andBeza de Pres byter, pag. 63, 64. binde in heaven and earth. I might cite, Tertullian, Cyprian, Au­gustine, Chrysostom, The ophylact, Hyeronimus, and all modern in­terpreters both Popish and Orthodox for this interpretation, not any of them dreaming of the insolent opinion of Erastus, who mis­applieth Augustine and Theophylact for his own way, as Be­za cleareth.

CAP. IV.

Quest. 1.

That the place, 1 Corinthians 5. doth evince that Excommunication is an Ordinance of God.

THE Argument for Excommunication may be thus framed, fromThat Ex­communi­cation is a divine Or­dinance is proved by 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 5. If Paul command that the incestuous man should be delivered to Satan ver. 5. purged out of the Church, least as leaven he should corrupt the Church, ver. 6, 7. That they should iudge him, ver. 12. And put him avvay from amongst them, ver. 13. So as they vvere not to eat vvith him, ver. 9. 10. Then is there a divine command for Excommunication; for the Commandments of the Apostles are the Commandments of the Lord, 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2. But the for­mer is true: Ergo, so is the latter.

There is no ground or shadow of reason to expound this expel­ling of the incestuous man by the preaching of the word without any Church-censures, for all that is required in Excommunication is here; 1. This putting out was not done by one single Pastor, as putting out by the preaching of the word is done, but by a company and Church, ver. 4. In the name of the Lord Iesus, vvhen ye are ga­thered together, and my spirit. 2. Paul should have written to any one Pastor to cast him out by preaching; but here he writeth to a Church: 3. He forbiddeth company, or eating with such like men, v. 10. Now this is more then rebuking by preaching. 4. This is a judging of the incestuous man, and a casting of him out of their society, which is another thing then preaching the word.

Erastus and others expound the giving to Satan, of a deliveringTo deliver to Satan is not mira­culous kil­ling. of the man to Satan, to be miraculously killed, as were Ananias and Saphira, Act. 5. 5. And because at this time there was no Christian Magistrate to use the sword against the man, therefore he writeth to the Church, that they by their prayers would obtain of God, that Satan might take him out of the midst of them.

Ans. This insolent interpretation wanteth all warrant of the word: For 1. To deliver to Satan, hath no Scripture to make this sense of it, to pray that Satan would destroy the man. 2. It wan­teth [Page 239] an example in the old or new Testament, that the whole Church are fellow-Agents and joynt causes in the bodily destruction of any, or in working of miracles, such as was the killing of Ananias and Saphira: The Apostles wrought miracles, and that by their Faith and Prayers, and Christ and the Prophets; but that the Believers, who should have mourned for this scandall, 1. Who were puffed up: 2. Who were in danger to be leavened with the mans sin, and had their consent in Excommunication, should joyn in a miraculous delivering to Satan, is an unparalleld practise in the word. 3. To deliver to Satan, cannot be expounded here: but as 1 Tim. 1. 20. Where Paul saith he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, now that was not to kill them, but [...], that they might receive instruction and be disciplined, by this medici­nall Church-revenge, not to blaspheme: I know of no instructing of these who are dead; if there be two deliverings to Satan, let E­rastus and his expound it to us. 4. The Apostle expresly saith, he wrote to them, not to keep company with such men, nor with Forni­cators, covetous men, Drunkards, Extortioners, Idolators: Now E­rastus his minde must be, that the Apostles and Churches of Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, grievou [...]ly sinned against God, in that they did not miraculously kill all the Drunkards, the covetous persons, the fornicators, whereas they are commauded to admonish them as brethren, 2 Thess. 3 14, 15. and to pray for them, if they sin not a­gainst the holy Ghost, 1 Ioh.. 5. 16. 1 Tim.▪ 2. 3. 5. Paul rebuketh this as a morall fault amongst the Corinthians, such as is not to mourn for this mans fault, and to keep him as leaven in the midst of them, and not to cast him out: Whereas in all the Scripture you finde none ever rebuked, because they put not forth in Acts an extraordinary and miraculous power to work miracles; working of miracles came upon persons called thereunto, by extraordinary rapts, and were in men not as habits under the power of free-will, but as immediate Acts of God, even as fire-flaughts are in the Aire: So I conceive, while I be better informed. 6. And shall it not follow, that now when the Churches have Christian Magistrates, it is the will of our meek saviour, that they kill with the sword all the Drunkards, For­nicators, and all that walketh unorderly; which should make the Church of Christ a Butcher-house, whereas we are to admonish all such as brethren, 2 Thess. 3. 15. And to wait on them with [Page 240] all patience, if God peradventure may give them repentance. 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the bo­dy. But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spi­rits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former rea­sons, by delivering to Satan, cannot be meant a miraculous tormen­ting of the body by Sathan, with the saving of the life; Such as we read was the case of Iob; for the delivering to Sathan, is to cast out of the Church, and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world, of which Sathan is Prince, Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God, 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert asThe essen­tials of ex­communi­cation, 1 Cor, 5. the essentials of excommunication, are, 1. Here is a member of the Church, one vvho is within, 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall, and had his fathers wife, ver. 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus, with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ, v. 4. was delivered to Sathan, that his soule may be saved, (for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication,) and to be purged out of the Church, lest he should infect the Sheepe, ver. 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him, nor to eate with him, ver. 9. 10▪ and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican, ver. 12. 13. and that by a convened court, having the name and authori­ty of him who is King of the Church, ver. 4. and more wee doe not crave. Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan, is no mean of salvation. Answ. A morall delivering to the efficacy of error, and a reprobate minde, is not a mean of salvation, nor is excom­munication such a mean, nor in the power of the Church, but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable commu­nion of the Saints, and of the prayers of the Church, and meanes of grace, such is a means, and mighty through God to humble.

CAP. V.

Quest. 1.

Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures, even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments, beside the Pasto­rall rebukes inflicted by one.

VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel, to [Page 241] debar the unclean, from the society of Gods people, and from com­munion with them in the holy things of God, Numb. 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead, Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing, whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or the carcase of unclean cattell, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him, he also shall be unclean and guilty—6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin, which he hath sinned, Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord, having his uncleannesse up­on him, even that soul shall be cut off from the people: 21. Moreover Cutting off not alwaies killing. the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleannesse of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. In the which observe, that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off; but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe; now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe, and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excom­munication, not by death; also the word [...] signifieth to make a Covenant, to cut off, either by death or any other way▪ as by ba­nishment, by which a thing leaveth off to be in use, though it be not destroyed, as when a branch is cut off a tree, 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea, we have Isa. 50. 1. [...] Where is that Bill of cut­ting off or divorce: Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced, but putting her from her husband, as our Saviour saith, It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced, Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage; yet the word is, Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame, [...]: The He­brews [...] Ab interi [...] ­re popul [...] ­rum sacrum▪ have another more ordinary word to signifie death, as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath, in dying he shall die: And it is expounded, he shall be cut off from the midst of the peo­ple: [...] but Lev. 7. the word [...] is four times used without any such expression, ver. 20, 21, 25, 27. To which may be added, that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared, According to the purification of the Sanctuary, though they had celebrated the Passeover, the King did not only not kil them, [Page 242] but prayed, God might be mercifull to them, and the Lord killed them not (saith the spirit of God) but healed them, Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread, that soul shall be cut off from Israel: but it is expounded, ver. 19. That soul shall be cut off [...] from the Church of Israel: Certainly, he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church, and from the company of all mortall men on earth, Isa. 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel, as the holy Ghost expoundeth it: Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance, and so if he touch any unclean thing, or eat un­leavened bread, forbidden of God, he is excluded from the holy things of God, while the Priest offer for him, according to the Law: Now if he was presently to be killed, either by the Magistrate, or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand, as Aarons sons were, there was not a journey to be made to the place, the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there, which might have been three dayes journey from his house, who was unclean; yea, when the man that gathered sticks was stoned, and the false Prophet stoned, Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed; and I hope, there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead. Hence learn we: 1. That to cut off from the Congregation, was not to kill, but it was the Iewish Excom­munication greater or lesse: 2. That Moral sins, under the Old Te­stament debarred men from the holy things of God, while the Priests sacrificed for them▪ and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy things of God.

Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine, when theyMorall guiltinesse excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews. went into the Tabernacle: That ye may (saith the Lord) put diffe­rence between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean: Now Haggai expresly saith, cap. 2. 11, 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference, and so to admit to, or exclude from the holy things of God.

Hence for this cause it is said, as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appoin­ted the officers of the Lords house, so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which are unclean in any thing, might en­ter in; so Ezra 9. 21, 22. None did eat the Passeover, but such as were pure, and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land; for this cause doth the Lord complain of the [Page 243] Priests, Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law, and have polluted my holy things, they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane; neither have they shewed the difference between the un­clean and the clean, Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebel­lious, even to the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations: 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary, strangers uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary to pollute it, even my house, when ye offered my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have bro­ken my Covenant, because of all your abominations: 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things: But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves. 9. Thus saith the Lord God, no stranger uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel: Here is a complaint, that those that have the charge of the holy things, should suffer the holy things to be pollu­ted: I grant it cannot bear this sense, that none should be admit­ted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament, but such as are conceived to be regenerate; except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church: 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus; but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all: but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized, and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible: Nor, 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God, of tryall of Church Members, by way of electing and choosing of such and such, as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen, or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them; this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God. 3. They must prove the A­postles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias, Saphira, Simon Magus, and others uncircumcised in heart, to pol­lute the holy things of God, and that the Apostles erred, and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world, which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament, to all Ages: I deny not, but they might have er­red according to the grounds of these, who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints, but that the Apostles De facto did [Page 244] erre in their Election and judgement, in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern, I utterly deny: I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders, not as Apostles, but that it could fall out, that they should uctually erre, and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods, I shall not believe.

But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures▪ 1. That there are under the New Testament, some over the people of God in the Lord, some that watch for their souls, and govern them; as here there were Priests, Levites that taught and governed the people: 2. That the Rulers of the Churches, alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things; and to see that these holy things, the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted, and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals, and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean, and this which the Prophet speaketh, ver. 9. is a pro­phecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God; therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament, as is clear, ver. 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away The place Ezekiel 44. v. 11. 12. 13. 14. to be fulfilled under the New Te­stament. far from me, shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie, having charge at the gates of the House, and Ministering to the House—14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein, Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my Sanctuary, when the children of Israel went a­stray from me—they shall enter into my Sanctuary, and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me, and to keep my charge—23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane, and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane. 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement, and they shall judge it according to my judgement, and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes, in all mine assemblies, and they shall hallow my Sabbaths. Now this Temple was another house, then Solomons Temple, as is evident out of the Text, it having roomes, dimensions, structures, so different that none can ima­gine them one house, and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land, which after the captivity was never done, [Page 245] for the ten Tribes never returned, and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem, and agreeth to that City spoken of, Revelation, chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel, and in the last words of the last chapter, And the name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there. And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi, Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled, except in the visible Church of the New Testament, and in the As­semblies of Christian Churches, Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament: As for the Lords personall raigne on earth, it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it, no Word, Sacraments, Ordinances, no Tem­ple, as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and sub­mission, the Priests and Levites, that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords House, when others went astray, I take to be a prophecie of these Pastors under the New Testament, to wit, the Apostles of Iesus Christ, and Pastors, and teachers that Christ left in his Church; for the edifying of his body, Ephes. 4. 11. 12. When these Scribes and Pharises did sit in Moses his chaire for a while, Mat. 23. but onely as porters and inferiour Officers in Gods house, yet they were to be heard, while God should cut them off, as he prophecied, Zach. 11. 8.

We cannot say as some doe, that persons were deprived amongst Object. the Iewes, of Church communion in the holy things of God, because of Ceremoniall, not of Morall uncleannes, but now under the new Te­stament only Morall uncleannes can exclude persons from the holy things of God; and therefore to argue from ceremoniall uncleannes in the old, to morall uncleannesse in the new, is no good consequence. ICeremoni­all exclusi­on from holy things under the old, did ti­pifie exclu­sion for morall un­cleannesse under the New Te­stament. Levit. 5. 2 [...]. answer, the Ceremoniall uncleannesse in the Old, which did ex­clude from the holy things of God, doth strongly conclude that morall uncleannesse under the New Testament doth exclude from the holy things of God, if that exclusion of the Leaper out of the campe seven dayes, and the touching of the dead, though impru­dently, did typifie some other exclusion from the holy things of God, as no question it did, then the consequence must be strong. 2. It is also false that morall uncleannesse did not exclude from the holy things of God under the Old Testament, For 1. what was more ordinary, then that sacrifices should be offered for sins of [Page 246] ignorance, for trespas [...]es, and while this was done, the person was not admitted to partake of the holy things of God. 2. Whence was the Lords frequent complaints of wearying his soule with sa­crifices, solemne assemblies, feast dayes, and new Moones, when they were morally uncleane, and their hands were full of blood, and they had not put away the evill of their doings, did not love judge­ment and justice, Isaiah 10. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19. And when God complaineth so of them, Ier. 7. 8. Will ye steale, murther and commit adultery, and sweare falsely, and burne incense unto Baal, and walke after other Gods whom ye know not? 10. And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my Name? Ergo, Murtherers and adulterers were debarred from entring into the Congregation of the Lord, and partaking of the holy things of God, while they repented. Let none say by prophecying, or the keyes of knowledge in preaching the Word, they were declared unworthy to enter into the Temple; but that will not conclude that it was the Priests office by power of discipline to exclude them from coming unto the Sanctuary of God. Ans. But if the Porters were set at doores of the Lords house, to hold out the uncleane, and if the Lord charge the Priests with this crime, that they Ezek. 44. 8. set keepers of the charge of the Lords house for themselves, that is, for their owne carnall ends, and not for the honour of the Lord: And that ver. 7. They brought into the San­ctuary of the Lords house uncircumcised in heart, that is, such as were morally uncleane, then had the Priests a power to debarre from the Sanctuary such as were morally uncleane, and if the Priests are said to beare rule by their meanes, Ier. 5. 31. Then the Priests did beare rule and governe, though they abused their Power, and the word [...] signifieth to have dominion over any, Psal. 72. 8. Psal. 110. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 24. Levit. 26. 17. And the Scrip­ture gives a power of judging and governing to the Priests. And 2 Chron. 30. 6, 7. The Posts that Hezekiah and the Congregation of Israel sent through the Land, commandeth a morall prepa­ration to those that were to keepe the Lords Passeover, to wit, that they should turne againe unto the Lord God of Abraham, and should not be like their Fathers, nor like their Brethren, that tres­passed against the Lord God of their Fathers. And ver. 11. divers of Ashur, and Manasseh, and Zebulun humblid themselvs, and came [Page 247] to Ierusalem to keepe the feast of the Passeover. This proveth clear­ly that people under the Old Testament were no lesse to try and examine themselves, by the King and Priests commandment, car­ried to them by Postes before they should eate the Passeover; then they are to try themselves before they eate and drinke at the Lords Supper: onely the adversaries say, the Priests by preaching were to debarre from the Passeover those who were morally unclean, but not to debarre those who were morally uncleane, so they were not typically and ceremonially unclean, by any power of Discipline, or by Porters set at the gates to keepe them out of the Sanctuary. But I an­swer, 1. How are the Priests Ezek. 22. 26. reproved for violating the Law of God, and prophaning his holy things, in that they put no diffe­rence between the holy and prophane, the clean and the unclean? Sure­ly the Priests prophaned in the highest way, the holy things of God, in admitting into the Sanctuary, those who were not onely ceremonially, but morally uncleane, as murtherers, adulterers, Who cryed the temple of the Lord, Ier. 7. And they put no diffe­rence betweene the Holy and Prophane, when they admitted to the holy things of God, and into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in heart, for they doe more pollute the holy things of God, who partake of them being morally uncleane, and uncircumcised in heart, then those who are onely uncircumcised in flesh.

Object. But the Church under the New Testament can no otherThe Chur­ches exclu­sion from the Seales declarative, not co­active by violence. way but morally, and by preaching (as it would seeme) onely de­barre scandalous persons from the Seales and Prayers of the Church; for should a scandalous person, or an excommunicate person obtrude himselfe on the Lords Supper, against the will and sentence of the Church, the Church cannot use any bodily violence to hinder such prophane intrusion upon the holy things of God, because the Churches weapons are not carnall but spirituall; bodily violence can be noRemonstrant in Apollo. spirituall weapon, that the Church as the Church can use, so do the Remonstrant Arminians argue, and some other for the congre­gationall way.

Ans. This Argument is against all Church-censures, but though the Church as the Church cannot hinder scandalous intruders upon the holy things of God, by bodily violence, it doth not follow; Ergo, The Church can keep the holy things pure no way, but morally, that is, by preaching only, for we can give a third way: The re­bukes, [Page 248] admonitions and Excommunication, or delivering to Satan Censures applied to some by name. are all transacted without any bodily and externnll violence, Christs Kingdom resigneth all such carnall weapons to the Magistrate, who is the only Governour of the Church of Christ, as the Opponents say, All Church Censures are by way of Declaration, applied to such men by name; and there co-action, though penall, is not by bodily violence, but by acting upon the conscience of men and putting them to shame.

Hence 2. We argue, if beside the preaching of the word, inArg. 2. which Commandments, Promises and threatnings are proposed to all in generall; there be rebukes of the Church, the sentencing of such and such persons by name, as Hymeneus and Philetus, and other Blasphemers; the Authoritative Declaration, that such a bro­ther is to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican, and bro­therly fellowship of eating and drinking with such an one de­nied, that he may be ashamed, if these be, then are some de­barred from the holy things of God, by Church-Censures, beside the preaching of the word of God.

But the former is true; Ergo, so is the latter.

The Proposition is proved, because all wicked persons and heart-hypocrites are excluded from the holy things of God, by the Preaching of the Word: But only these that are notoriously, and by testimony of witnesses, convinced to be scandalous or contumacious in atrocious sins, after they are by name rebuked, and are declared to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans; and from whom we are to withdraw brotherly fellowship, are ex­cluded from the holy things of God, by Discipline and Church Censures.

The Assumption I prove: Because the word is preached to all by one in office, and that a Steward and dispenser of the myste­ries of God, and he excludeth all unworthy ones known to be such, or invisible only, from the kingdom of God. But the Censure, 1. Is inflicted by many, 2 Cor. 26. by the Church, Matth. 18. 17. conveened together, 1 Cor. 54. (2.) It is applied to such persons by name, 1 Cor. 5. 5. He that hath done such a deed, ver. 2. Hymeneus, Alexander, 1 Tim. 1. 20. Jezabel, Rev. 2. 20. (3) The whole con­gregation is not to eat or Table with such an one, 1 Cor. 5. 11. We are to note and observe him, and to have no company with him, that he [Page 249] may b ashamed 2 Thes. 3. 14. to esteeme him as an Heathen and a Publican, and exclude him from the Seals of the Covenant, so long as he remaineth in that state.

3. Arg. If a person may for not hearing the Church, be judged as an Heathen and a Publican, and his sinnes bound in heaven by the Church; then by discipline he is excluded from the holy things of God in a peculiar way, in the which contumacious persons, uncir­cumcised in heart are excluded, in foro interno Dei, in Gods secret Court; But the former is true, Matt. 18. 15. 16, 17, 18. Ergo &c. Now if there be two Courts, one before God, Rom. 2. 16. Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Ioh. 3. 21. Another of the Church, Mat. 18. 15. 16, &c. 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5, 6, 11, 12. and two sorts of bindings, two sorts of Witnesses, two sorts of Sentences, then can it not be de­denyed but the Church hath a spirituall Court for censures, as well as for preaching the Word.

4. Arg. Exclusion of an offender from the societie of the Saints, and not to eate or drinke with him, is some other reall visible cen­sure accompanied with shame, then any censure by the preaching of the Word; but there is such a censure inflicted by the Church, Ergo, The Proposition is cleare from Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you brethren, marke them that cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which yee learned [...] and avoid them. Here is a reall, visible, and personall note of shame put on Schismaticks, a bodily declining and avoiding of their company, which could not possibly be done by preaching of the Word. But (some may say) this was not done by the Church court, but every one as private christians were to eschew the society of Schisma­ticks, and by this you cannot conclude any Church censure.

Answ. Not to say that it were unjustice to decline any, and re­nounceEschewing the society of scanda­lous church members must be a church cen­sure. society with him, before he were convinced to be facti­ous according to Christs order, Mat. 18. which to Erastus is a way of common and naturall equity. And so in order to some pub­lique censure before the Church. Paul w [...]i [...]eth to a constitute Church at Rome, in which he prescribeth Rom. 12. the Officers duty, as what Pastor, Doctor, Elder, Deacon, ought to doe in a Church body; We cannot imagine he could command every pri­vate Christian to inflict the censure and punishment, (for a punish­ment it is in order to a publike sin) of avoiding any in Church [Page 250] communion, professing they serve the Lord Iesus Christ, as these doe, verse 18. upon their owne private opinion: Iesus Christ and his Apostles must have left men loose in all order and discipline by this way, howbeit the adversary would deny a church punishment, here is a punishment inflicted by many, 2 Cor. 2. 6. And it is not inflicted by way of preaching, so 2 Thes. 3. 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, have no company with him, that he may be ashamed, [...] by the learned is to put a publike church note on him that he may be confounded, make him a [...], a publike wonder, that he may be ashamed, as Piscator and P. Baynes ob­serve on the place expounding it of excommunication, and the same word [...] that is here, is used toward the incestuous man, who was to be excommunicated, 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle, not to keepe company with fornicators, the word [...] ver. 1. is ascribed to the incestuous man, and here they are not to be mixed [...] with fornicators, vers. 11. But now I have written unto you not to keepe company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eate. And that we may know that this is a church censure, he addeth ver. 12. For what have I to doe to judge them also that are without? Ergo, this no keeping company with such, is a Church judging.

5. Arg. The Church of Pergamus is rebuked for having amongst them, such as hold the doctrine of Balaam, and Revel. 2. 14. and Thyatira, that they suffered Iezabel to preach and seduce the servants of God, ver. 20. as the Church of Ephesus is praised v. 2. that they cannot beare with them that are evill, but had tryed such that said they were▪ Apostles, and were not, and had found them liars, Rev. 2. 3. Here is it clearely supposed that these churches were to censure false teachers, if any shall say they were to censure them no other waies, but by preaching against their errors; 1. This would establish a Prelate above the Church contrary to that of Mat. 18. Tell the Church, and 1 Cor. 5. Where the Church gathered together was to excommunicate. 2. The Angel of the Church is taken collectively, for all the Rulers and the whole Church to whom Christ writeth, as is cleare, in that he saith so often; He that hath an eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches, not to the Pastors only. 2. The re­moving of the Candlestick, is not from the Angel but from the Church; [Page 251] and repentance, and the fighting and overcomming, a reward of the crown of life, and many other things are evidently spoken to the Churches, not to the Angels of the Churches. And therefore the tryall of false Apostles must be by a Church, a Court, a col­ledge of church rulers, as Paul speaketh unto, Act. 20. 17. Where it is said, Paul called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, and ex­horted them to beware of false teachers, that should not spare the flocke, and should teach perverse things, v. 28. 29. 30. and of this sort were these lying and seducing Apostles, now how can one Angell or many Pastors by preaching onely try false Apostles, and finde them lyars? This trying and sentencing of lying seducers, Rev. 2. 2. must be by a court, such as we find to be the practise of the Apo­stles and Elders at Ierusalem, who in a Synod Act. 15. did finde these who taught a necessitie of Circumcision, to be perverters of soules and liars, saying, They had the Apostles authority for what they taught, whereas they had no such thing, and Schismatick troublers of the people, Acts 15. See what further I have said for Excommunication before, cap. 2. and sect. 7. which proveth also the same thing. The Church of Thyatira would not be rebuked for suffering Jezabel to teach, if they had no power of Church censures to hinder her; It is not enough to say that the Angel of that Church did sufficiently hinder Jezabell to teach, when in publike he declared and preached against her false doctrine, and by the same reason Pastors exoner their conscience, if they preach that such and such scandalous persons are not to eate and drinke their owne damnation, though they debarre them not in a visible court by name from the Lords table, and though they never excommunicate them, and there­fore there is not any censure but Pastorall rebukes by way of preach­ing, not any other by way of discipline.

Ans. The Angel of Thyatira had not sufficiently hindered Jeza­bel The hin­dering of Jezabel by preaching onely not sufficient. to seduce the servants of God, by only preaching against her false doctrine, in regard that Paul and Barnabas not only hindred those that teached, that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised, Act. 14. cap. 16. by Preaching; but also had recourse to the power and au­thority of a Synod, that in a Synod which is a Court essentially consisting of many Pastors and Elders, they might be declared to be perverters of souls, and liars, as indeed they were judicially decla­red to be such, Act. 15. 24. Hence I argue; if the Apostles could not be said sufficiently to hinder Jezabels and Seducers, by only [Page 252] Preaching, and Disputing against their errors, except in case of their persisting in their errors, they should tell the Church convened in a Synod, as Christs order is, Mat. 18. Then the Angel of Thyatira, or any one Pastor do not sufficiently hinder scandals, but may be well said to suffer them by only private rebuking and publick Preach­ing, except they use all these means to hinder Iezabels, false Tea­chers, and all scandalous persons, that the Apostles used, and there­fore the Angel of the Church of Thyatira must be rebuked for not using the Authority and power of the Church against Iezabel. And here by the way, when these false Teachers had sinned against their brethren in perverting their souls, they take not the course that Erastus dreameth to be taken according to Matth. 18. They com­plain not to the Synedrim, or Civill Magistrate, who should use the sword against them, but to the Church Synodically convened at Ierusalem, who used against them the Spirituall power that Christ the head of the Church had given them.

6. Arg. If there be an Ecclesiasticall debarring of scandalousDebarring of the scandalous from the seals pro­ [...]ed. persons from the holy things of God, especially from the Supper of the Lord by Censures, and not by the preaching of the word only, then there be Censures and power of jurisdiction in the word be­side preaching of the word. But the former I make good by these following Arguments.

1. Arg. If the Stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God, are to cut the word aright as approved workmen, 2 Tim. 2. 15. And are to give every one their portion of bread according to their need, and measure, Matth. 24. 45, 46, 47. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2. 3. and must not s [...]ay the souls which should not die, by denouncing wrath against the righte­ous, nor save the souls alive that should not live, by lying words, Ezec. 13. 19. by offering mercy to the wicked and impenitent, then as they should not deny the seals of salvation to Believers, hungring and thirsting for Christ; neither should they give the seals of life to those that are walking openly in the way of destruction.

But the former is true; Ergo; so is the latter. The Proposition is clear: As the word should not be divided aright, if wrath should be Preached to believing Saints, and life and salvation offered to the obdurate and wicked, so neither should the Stewards cut the seals of the word aright, if the Supper were given to wicked men: If they should say, This is the blood of the Covenant, shed for the [Page 253] Remission of your sins, Drink ye all of it: They should save alive those that should die, with lying words; for the seals speak to the Communicant, and apply to him in particular, the very promise that in generall is made to him; and this will prove as the Magistrate being no Steward of the word, and not called of God thereunto, as Aaron was Heb. 5. 4. can no more distribute the word and sealsIt belon­geth not to the Magi­strate to [...] debar from the seals. to whom he pleaseth, Ex officio, then he can Preach and Admini­ster the Sacraments, nor should another man, who is no Steward, but a Porter or Cook, Teach, and that by his office how, and to whom the Steward should distribute Bread: nor is it sufficient, to say, by this one man, not the Church, is to debar from the Sacra­ments, for the seals being proper to the Church, as the Church, he must act here, in, and with the power of the Church. 2. It is ano­ther question, whether by the Minister, or by the Church any ought to be debarred, and whether there be any such Censure as debarring from the Seals; and its another question, by what power, whe­ther by the power of order, or by the power of jurisdiction, Mi­nisters may debar the scandalous from the seals; I conceive by both powers, they may keep the Ordinances pure; and if it belong to the Magistrate to debar any more then to preach the word, and by the way of Erastus: The Magistrate by his office, as he is a Magi­strate only is deputed of Iesus Christ to Steward the seals to whom he pleaseth: Ergo, (say I) to cut the word aright to whom he pleaseth, must be his due.

2. Arg. As the dispensers of the word must not partake of o­ther mens sins, 1 Tim. 5. 22. so neither should they distribute to wicked and scandalous men, such Ordinances, as they see shall cer­tainly be judgement and damnation to them, and as maketh the Communicants guilty of the body and blood of our Lord: Now that the Stewards Communicate with the sins of these manifestly scan­dalous, to whom they administrate the Supper: I prove: 1. Be­cause they that sow pillows under the head of the openly wicked, preaching peace to these who should die, do hunt souls, Ezech. 13. 20. and partake of their presumption, and they that heal the wound of the people with smooth words, are false dealers, and concurreth to the wound of the people, Ier. 8. 10, 11. As the Prophet that preach­eth lies partaketh of the peoples presumption; which believe those lies, Ier. 14. 14, 15, 16. 2. If Eve should but reach the fruit of the [Page 254] forbidden Tree to Adam, and say take and eat, she partakes of A­dams sin, if the mother give poyson willingly and wittingly to a childe, she killeth her childe, though it be told the childe that it is poyson: The Supper to those who knowingly to us, eat unwor­thily, is forbidden meat, and poyson.

3. A third Argument is, from the nature of holy things. It is not lawfull to give that which is holy to dogs, nor to cast pearles be­fore swine, least they trample them under their feet, Matth. 7. 6. But the Sacraments are holy things, saith Erastus, and no man canThomas Erastus lib. 3. con­firmat. Thesium lib. 3. [...]. 3. pag. 207. Nam et sa­cramenta sub sub [...] nomine comprehendi concedo. deny it; Ergo, we are not to give the Sacraments to the scandalous and openly prophane.

But Erastus answereth, That the Lord preached the word to Pha­risees, and the word is a holy thing, and a pearl, and by Dogs, and swine, he meaneth open persecutors. They that will seem members of the Church, and confesse their fault, and promise amendment, are not such as will trample on the Sacraments, and will turn again to tear you: Et si quis talis reperiatur hunc ego admittendum minime censeo, for such (saith he) Are not to be admitted to the Sacrament.

Ans. These holy things, which prophane men and openly scan­dalous can make no use of, but pollute them to their own destru­ction, and the abusing of the Ordinances, no more then Dogs and Swine can make use of Pearls to feed them, but onely trample on them, are not to be given to the prophane and openly scandalous: But the Lords Supper is such a thing, being Ordained only for those that have saving Grace, not for Dogs. Now the Assump­tion applied to the word, is most false, (as it is applied to the Lords Supper, it is most true) for the Word is Ordained by speciall Com­mand to be Preached to Dogs and Lions, that thereby they may be made Isa. 11. 4, 5, 6, 7. Isa. 2. 3. 4. Lambs and Converts; the Sup­per is not a mean of Conversion; and since Dogs can make no use of it, but trample it under foot, we are forbidden to give such holy things to them. It is true, They'll trample the Pearl of the word; but we are Commanded to offer the word to all, even while they turn Apostates. 2. If Christ Commanded the word to be Preached to Pharisees and Saduces; these were such persecuters as sinned against the Holy Ghost, Dogs in the Superlative degree, Matth. 12. 31, 32. Joh. 9. 39, 40, 41. Joh. 7. 28. Joh. 8. 21. Ergo, Christ Com­manded [Page 255] some holy things, the word to be given to Dogs; and yet his precept cannot be obeyed, if we give them the Sacrament. 3. By what Doctrine of Scripture will Erastus have these that trampleth on Ordinances, and turn again to tear us, debarred from the Supper? For in his Thes. 26. 27, 28, 29. he holdeth it unlaw­full to debar any Judas from the Supper; doth he think there be no Dogs in the Visible Church? Peter saith, There be such Dogs as have known the way of truth, and turn to their vomit; and such may promise amendment, confesse their sin, and desire the Sacra­ment.

4. Arg. Those who will not hear the Church, but doth scandalize, not only their Brethren, but also a whole Church, and are to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans, are not to be admitted to the highest priviledge, and to feast with Christ, when the Church know­eth they want their wedding garment: But there may be, and are many in the Church of this sort; Ergo, such should not be ad­mitted: For the Major, I set down the words of Erastus grantingErastus, Confi. thes. l. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Qui mem­bra externae volunt ec­clesiae vide­ri, illi non calcabunt Sacramenta nec offere [...] ­tem laniare tentabunt, & fiquis talis reperi­atur hune ego minime admitten­dum cense [...]. it. The Assumption, both Scripture and experience proveth; for there be in the Visible Church, Dogs, Persecuters, Jezabels, as there be many called, and few chosen.

5. Arg. If the incestuous man must be cast out, lest he leaven the Church, then can he not be admitted to Communicate with the Church, in that which is the highest seal of Christs love; but the incestuous man must be cast out, lest he leaven the whole Church, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5, &c. Ergo, The Proposition is clear, because none can be put out of the Church, but they must be separated from the Ta­ble of the Children of the Church; the Assumption is 1 Cor. 5 13. [...] Put him out, ver. 7. Purge him out. Now the Church hath no power by bodily violence to attempt a locall separating of him in person from them, as they are men, though they may separate themselves from him; then it must be a declarative casting of him out, as unworthy to Communicate with the Church in such holy Ordinances, as distinguisheth the Church from other Societies, and these be the Seals of the Covenant.

6. We are not to suffer sin in any, Levit. 18. 17. Rev. 2. 20. but to hinder it so far as we can according to our vocation, 1 Sam. 3. 13. As the Priests hindred Ʋzziah to Sacrafice, 2 Chron. 26. 18, 19, 20. And must pull them out of the fire, Jude ver. 23. As the [Page 256] Law of nature would teach the Mother, not only, not to co-ope­rate with her sonne attempting to kill himself; but to hinder and stop him by pulling a knife or sword out of his hand, when he is about to destroy himself; if so, then ought not the Church and her Officers to co-operate so far with those who do Eat and drink their own Damnation, as to exhibite and give to such the seals of the Covenant, to pray that these seals may be blessed to scandalons ones, which is to pray directly contrary to the revealed will of God in his word, and against that which the faithfull Pastors and Paul Preacheth, That every one should try and examine themselves, and so eat and drink: Now a reall and physicall co-operating of the Church, with such manifest impiety, must then be the Churches suffering of sin in a brother, or not hindring him [...]o eat his own Damnation; if the Lord have committed a power of dispensing the seals to Christians, not to Pagans and Turks: Let Erastus show any precept or practise, why we might not admit Jews, Turks, In­dians, though never Baptized, to eat and drink the Lords body and blood, (we are to Preach the Gospel to them, if they were amongst us) except that such as are to communicate according to the will of Christ, are Christians, members of the Church, who doth try and examine themselves; and Jews and Turks though dwelling and born amongst us are not such, yet Erastus would that such should never be admitted to the Lords Supper, though they should desire it: Officers also have a command not to dispense some parts of the word to all, as we are not to rebuke open Scorners: Should any of our Church turn Iew and blaspheme Christ, and pertinaciously after conviction persist in his Apostacy; might not Erastus aske by what command of Christ will ye not Preach the Gospel to such an one? Christ made no exception, but said, Preach to all Nations, why do you make Exceptions? might we not answer, Christ hath given a power of dispensing the Gospel to all; yet hath he excep­ted some, because its against the will of Christ that such can obey the Gospel: We are bidden pray for all, yet are there some that we are not to pray for, because they sin unto death: so is the case here in some kinde.

7. It is for our instruction that the Priests were rebuked, for that they admitted into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in flesh and heart, that they put no difference betweene the cleane and the un­cleane, [Page 257] and prophaned the holy things of God, Ezek. 44. 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13. And this was a shadow of things to come, as was observed before, teaching us, that farre lesse should the Pastors of the New Testament suffer the holy things of God to be pro­phaned.

8. We read that Iohn Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sinnes, and professed [...]aith in Iesus Christ, it would then appeare to be the will of Christ, that every one should not be admitted to the Lords Supper, though some say, the Apostles baptized single persons not in Church communion, so that Pastors administer the Sacraments by reason of the power of order, as they are Pastors, not by power of jurisdiction, as having war­rant from any Church, in regard Churches at the beginning had the Word and Sacraments before they had any Church Govern­ment, yet I conceive the Lords Supper is a Seale of a Church­communion, 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. and the like I say of Baptisme typed by Noahs Arke, 1 Pet. 3. 19, 20, &c. and though the Apostles, partly by priviledge, partly through necessitie, the parts existing before the whole, were necessitated first to baptize, and then to plant Churches, yet the Churches being once constitute, these are▪ Church priviledges to be dispensed both by the power of order, and the power of jurisdiction.

CHAP. VI.

Quest. 2.

Some speciall Reasons of Thomas Erastus against Ex­communication, examined.

THomas Erastus a Physitian, who medled not much with Divi­nity, save in this, in which he was unsound, in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame, and nothing but a device of Pastors affecting domination.Confirmati [...] Thosium E­rast. Cons [...]. thes. l. 1. c. 1. p. 72.

1. Object. Onely Pet [...]r killed Ananias; onely Paul excommuni­cated Alexander and Hymeneus, onely Paul said he would come to the Corinthians with the rod, and for a long time onely Bishops excommunicated, Presbyters gave advise onely. Ergo▪ This power is not in the Church.

[Page 258] Ans.▪ The consequence is naught, Christ said only to his Disci­ples in person, Go teach and Baptize, Is it a good consequence therefore, that none hath power to teach and Baptize, but only the Apostles? Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians, to mourn for the incestuou [...] mans fall, therefore no Pastors have power to exhort in the like kinde. 2. We grant the Apostles did many things out of their Apostolick power, which in a constitute Church, the Church onely may doe, as Paul his alone disputed against Circum­cision of the Gentiles, Act. 15. 2. What? Ergo, Paul in a Synod, and a Synod hath not power to dispute and determine the same, the contrary is evident, Act. 15. 12, 22, 23. 3. It is false that the Au­thority and rod, with which Paul said he would come to the Coriu­thians, 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apostle, the same he giveth to Timothy, and to all the Elders. 3. If Bishops exer­cised the same power for many ages, Erastus must shew us Bishops who could kill miraculously, such as Ananias and Elimas, and work miracles; now beside that, Erastus must with his new opinion, hold up a new creature called a Prelate, unknown to the Apostles or Ierome and the Fathers, he must parallel Bishops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apostles.Erast. will have no man ex­cluded from the Sacraments pag. 86. Si per sub­ductionem pabuli in­telligis ver­bi aut sacra­mentorum negationem, de tu [...] hoc dicis, non l [...]queris cum scripturis, quae nus­quam jubent pabula haec subducere.

Obj. 2. The Apostles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven, and so bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments, so also do the Ministers daily, and yet Christ in his word commanded not those to be debarred from the Lords Supper.

Ans. It is very true, the Apostles and Pastors of Christ that now are, denounce eternall wrath, and that authoritatively against those that are invisibly to men heart-hypocrites, who yet before the Church (who know not the heart) go for Saints, and are neither excluded from Sacraments, nor so much as rebuked. But it is a vain collection, that therefore externally scandalous are not to be debar­red from the Supper, and Excommunicated: The Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God; yet Heathens cannot be Excommu­nicated; and yet (I hope) Erastus dare not deny, but Christ hath forbidden, that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sa­craments: Though I dare provoke any Erastian, and attest them by their new Doctrine, to shew me a warrant from Christs Testa­ment, why the Church should refuse the Seals to a Turke; they [Page 259] will say, A Turk is not willing to receive, and therefore the Seals According to Erastus his way we cannot de­ny the seals to a Turk. may be denied to him, and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though scandalous, if he desire it, and professe repentance.

But I answer, Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals; What if he should be willing, and require to be Baptized, yet re­maining ignorant of Christ and the Gospel we should not Baptize him: Now by the Doctrine of Erastus, we have no more re warrant to deny the seals to him, then to deny them to Judas; we desire a Scripture from the adversary, which will not conclude with equall strength of reason against the giving of the seals to any scandalous member of the Church; it is true, a Turk ignorant of Christ, though he should desire the seals is uncapable, and he is unwilling vertually, in regard he as yet refuseth the knowledge of the Gospel, and so is the scandalous professor no lesse uncapable (though we may grant degrees of incapacity) for he is vertually unwilling to receive Christ in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-sins: 2. Though a Turk should be unwilling (as its like enough he will be) yet we de­sire a Scripture, why we cannot make offer of the Sacraments to a Turk, and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him, 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also con­clude, we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments, being both uncapable of them, as also because they can but trample on these pearls,, no lesse then the Turk should do; the Argument then is just nothing: We exclude many from the Kingdom of Hea­ven, whom we do not excommunicate on earth; But he should say, we Excommunicate many, whom we do not exclude out of Heaven.

Erastus. These two are not one, to declare a person hatefull inP. 75, 76. Heaven to God, and to be cast out of the visible Church; for if they be both one, then one private Pastor may Excommunicate, for he may declare from Gods word, that an offender is excluded out of Hea­ven: hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many? the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude, also why should this be as good a consequence (God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God; Ergo, he is to be cast out of the visible Church) as this (God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall: Ergo, God will not have him to live in this temporall life) Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not [Page 260] worthy of life eternall, to whom he hath given power to cast out de­vilsToexclude men from the King­dom of Heaven not one with Excom­munication in his name? Matth. 7.

Ans. All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God; for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication: So Iudas might have Excommuni­cated himself, and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven; he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church; he is cast out of the invisible Church: But that is not Ex­communication, except it be done for a publick scandall that offen­deth the Church: 2. Except it be done by the visible Church. 3. Ac­cording to the rule of Christ, Matth. 18. 4. That he may be asha­med, and repent and be saved: Gods binding of the offender in Heaven, is a part of Excommunication, but not all, nor the very same with Excommunication. 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause, is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor, and yet the Conscional casting out by one, insuo genere is as valid as the other, subordinata non pug­nant. 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation, but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule, God thinketh those who walketh inordinately, and causeth divisions, not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints; and must binde them in heaven to that censure, in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word, Rom. 16, 17. 18. 2 Thes. 3. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation, and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these; he may deny sal­vation to the wicked, and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter, dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence? God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath. Ergo, he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish. This consequence dependeth on the meer di­spensation of God, nor is this our Consequence. God judgeth such unworthy of heaven; Ergo, they must be cast out of the visi­ble Church, we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven, for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommu­nicated, and only these, which is false; for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ, and yet they are to be excommu­nicated, if they refuse to hear the Church, as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy, and many whom God judges [Page 261] unworthy of life eternall, may so belie a Profession, as they deserve not to be excommunicated, and both these may fall out, and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ.

Erastus 4. objecteth. Excommunication