The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Introduction · Section 4

The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication · Religious polemic · Introduction · Section 4

p. 51SECT. 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 p. 52after 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.vvhichwhich 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.Deut 4:2Deut 12:32 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 p. 53everting 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… p. 54Arbitrary 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 p. 55ſpirit 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 p. 56Divinam 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, vvhichwhich 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 p. 57Church, in all the parts of piety and Religion, that vvhichwhich 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, foreign, 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, p. 58and 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 foreign, 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 p. 59adding 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 p. 60fidei 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 foreign Statutes rights, and foreign 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, foreign 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 p. 61my 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 p. 62Loc. 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 p. 63them 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 p. 64time 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 p. 65the 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, p. 62duplicate page p. 63duplicate page p. 64duplicate page p. 65duplicate page p. 66but 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 p. 67of 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 p. 68hath 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; p. 69becauſe 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. foreign; 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 foreign; 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 foreign, the ſeal of the Scriptures Teſtimony, foreign. And how ſhall it Cyril Alex. Glaphyro in G…t. l. 2. foreign.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, p. 70—And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then Chryſ. hom. 10. in Ioan. 59. foreign.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 p. 71is 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 p. 72have 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 vvhichwhich 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 vvhichwhich 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 vvhichwhich vve naturally perform, and not only that vvhichwhich 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 p. 73ſome 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 p. 74forth 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 p. 75ſuch 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 foreign, 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.

p. 76Hooker: 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 p. 77Law 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.