The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication

SECT. IV.

ANy Positives not warranted by some special word of God shall be additions to the word of God: But these are expressly forbidden, Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18, 19. To this Formalists answer: 1. They have a general Commandment of God, though not a special. 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 general and universal knowledge of mysteries of Faith and Ceremonies belonging to Religion, but many particulars are to be received by tradition from the Church: but of this hereafter. 2. Master Prynne answereth that is a wresting, These Texts (saith he) speak only of additions to books or doctrines of Canonical Scriptures then written, not of Church-Government or Ceremonies; yea, God himself after the writing of Deutronomy caused many Canonical 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 Cajetan, 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 anything may seem Divine, which is not, or anything not seem, which is, were plainly to abuse even to falcifie divine evidence: To quote by-speeches in some Historical narration, as if they were written in some exact form of Law, is to add to the Law of God. We must condemn (if we condemn all adding) the Jews dividing the supper in two courses: their lifting up of hands unwashed to God in Prayer, as Aristaeus saith, Their Fasting every Festival day till the sixth hour. Though there be no express word for everything 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 God's glory. The Prelate Usher, in the question touching traditions; We speak not of Rites & Ceremonies, which are left to the disposition of the Church, and be not of Divine, but of Positive and Human right: But that traditions should be obtruded for Articles of Religion, parts of Worship, or parcels of God's word beside the Scriptures, and such Doctrines as are either in Scriptures expressly, or by good inference we have reason to gainsay.

Here is a good will, to make all Popish Traditions that are only beside, not contrary to Scripture (and in the Popish way all are only beside Scripture) as Lawfull, as our Ceremonial additions, so they be not urged as parts of Canonical Scripture: Well, the places Deut. 4. & 12. Prov. 30. Rev. 22. (say our Masters of mutable Policy) forbid only Scriptural, or Canonical additions, not Ceremonial additions: But I wonder who took on them to add additionals Scriptural: if Baals Priests should add a worship of Jehovah, and not equal 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 add to the word, &c. 2. Additions explaining the Word, or beside the Word, as Crossing the bread in the Lord's-Supper are Lawfull, only additions corrupting, or detracting from the word, and everting the sense of it, are here forbidden, and in effect these are detractions from the word, and so no additions at all by this distinction are forbidden, but only detractions: The word for all this will 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 signify no more, but that we must not either by addition, or subtraction, change or pervert God's Commandments, be they written, or unwritten: Else why were the Books of the Old Testament written afterward; if God had forbidden anymore to be written or taught, beside▪ that one Book of Deutronomy? Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many Volumes after this, had read these words, or understood them not, or did willfully transgress them? D. Abbot answereth, What the Prophets wrote, serve to explain the Law, they added no point of Doctrine to Moses Law, for Exod. 24, 4. Moses wrote all the words of God, Deut. 31. 9, 10. Moses wrote this Law, then he wrote not a part of the Law, and left another part unwritten. The Jesuit 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 traditions—Post pentateuchum accesserunt libri josue, Prophetarum, &c. Tamen nemo reprehendit, quia illi libri fuerunt consentanei sacrae Scripturae: Additions contrary (say they) to the word are forbidden, not such as agree with the word, such as are all the traditions of the Church; for after Deutronomy were written the Books of Joshua 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 prohibit 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 proprie addere. Formalists (as Dr. Morton say) It is sin to add to the word anything, as a part of the written word, as if Ceremonies were a part of the written Scripture, and spoken by the immediate inspiring spirit that dyteth Canonic Scripture, they come only a • 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 word, nor necessary parts of the written Scripture, but inferior 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 word of God written, called the holy Scripture; And there is another word of God not written, 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 collateral parts of great Britain; the Scripture (say they) is the imperfect rule of Faith, and not the complete will of God, as touching Faith or manners, but Scripture and Tradition together, are the perfect and total rule: so say Formalists, that Scripture is the complete and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Moral acts; But the other part of the distinction is, that Scripture is not a complete and full rule to regulate all our Moral Acts whatsoever, whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy, as it is no rule to my conscience and practice to believe, for orders, cause and obedience to my Superiors, and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linen 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 Cross the Air above the face of a Baptized Child while I baptize, to betoken his dedication to Christ's 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 immediately inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture, more then our Ceremonial 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 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 immediate inspirante) dictatis, aut pro Scriptures sacris addere; It is not lawful for any man to add to the word anything of his own, as his own, 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 Scriptural spirit; So I make this good from famous Jesuits; 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 Jews (saith he, objecting the instances of Formalists) added many things to the Law, as the engraving and adorning of the Temple, the feast of Purim, of Dedication &c. And these traditions were not ordained and instituted by God (Ergo, not by the immediate inspiring spirit, as is the Holy Scripture) but by the Jews, 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 Ceremonial traditions of Papists, for which Formalists contend, are not added to the word as coming from God, or the immediately inspiring spirit that diteth scripture; but from the Church, without warrant of Scripture, just as Popish traditions, which we count unlawful additions to the word. And Tannerus the Jesuit 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 err: 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 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 positive notificantem significet. And the like saith Malderus, in 22. de virtu. Theolog. That, though traditions come from an infallible spirit, no less 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 merely Divine, which 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 Apostolic, 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 immediate 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 plane probibere corruptionem Libri illius, non tamen prohibit ne alij Libri scribantur, vel alia Dogmata tradantur. Stapletonus, Relect. Prin. fidei Doct. Contaver. 4. q. 1▪ Art. 3. Sed non prohibit vel legis interpretationem per sacerdotes faciendam (imo hoc diserte prescribit, Deut. 17.) Vel aliquid aliud in fidem admittendum qúod lege scriptâ non contineatur. Alioqui quicquid postea prophet • predicaverunt, et Divinis Scriptures 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 Eternal to those that love the Lord with all their heart, and, that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses, no Article of Faith necessary to be believed▪ but did expound and apply to the use of the Church, in all the parts of piety and Religion, that which Moses had taught. Lorinus, followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus (inquit) et Apostoli pentateucho, plura adjecerunt, immo in vetere Testamento, Joshua, Prophetae, Reges, Christ (saith he) and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses; yea, in the Old Testament, Joshua, the Prophets and the Kings, David and Solomon, did also add to Moses. But the truth is, suppose any should arise after Moses, not called of God to be a Canonic writer, Prophet, or Apostle, and should take on him to write Canonic 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 add. For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith; it containeth a formal, a heavenly form, style, 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 joints 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 Canonic Scripture, which may be proved from many places of the Word, they could not have added Canonic 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , beside that which we have preached unto you, Let him be accursed: And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this, confess, That, if that of the Apostles, Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word, but applied 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 Anathema dicit, Gal. 1. 8. Iis, qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit, id est, adversum et contrarium. So doth Cornelius a Lapide, and Estius expound the place, Gal. 1. 8. And they say, that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel: But withal, 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 Canonic Scripture, that Moses had; and so the Church hath the same warrant to add Traditions to that which the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles did write; which they had to add to Moses; And therefore the Council 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 received 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 imperfect, 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, Baptism, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 special direction from God, by the sole will of men; or because some Ceremonials commanded of God, are not commanded in the Moral Law or Decalogue, either expressly or by consequence; and so these Ceremonials, though instituted by the Lord, be beside the Moral Law; that therefore they are contrary to the Moral Law: Yea, to come nearer, because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis, containing the Doctrine of man's fall and misery, and Redemption by the promised seed, is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book, it doth not follow that it is contrary, or that Moses adding the third Chapter, and all the rest of the five Books, did therefore • ail against this precept, Thou shalt not add 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 expressly, nor by just consequence; but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to add the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second, except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to add 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 Usher 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 human Right: Hence it must infer the principle of Papists, that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals, for it is a Moral of Decency and Religious signification, that a child be dedicated to the service of Christ, by the sign of the cross. 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 anything of tradionals in special, yet in general it doth hold forth the traditions of the church.

So Tostat. Abulens. in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit. saith, Hic commendatur lex ex perfection, 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. Cano 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 implicitly believed by the Apostles, and contained in Universal general precepts, as that the Saints are to be worshipped, that Canonical Books containeth the word of God: the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter, and Catholic pastors, &c. and he saith, Quod ecclesia non posset novum 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 believed; 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 Moral and Ceremonial Law, called by the names of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Statutes rights, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judgments 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 Christ's Death, Nativity, Ascension; Dedication to Christ, by a Cross in the Air, should have the same influence and impression on our hearts (if they be lawful) that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon David's spirit, Christ being the object and soul of both? 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws, Moses faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 lawfulness 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 Canonical 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 judgments that I teach you, that ye may live, and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments, which the Lord my God commanded me, v. 8. And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments 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 add 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 special Law, either the Moral only, or the judicial and Ceremonial only, not to the former; for then additions to the Decalogue only, should be forbidden; this never man taught: Stapleton, indeed, Relect. Prin. fid. Doctrine, cont. 4. Q. 1. Art. 3. restricteth it to the Ceremonial 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 judgments 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, until 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 Passover, 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 pattern 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 Canonic 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 Heretics, Com. in Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister & relator verborum (dti) esset, & non legem conderet: As if Moses were a mere servant, and a naked reporter of the Lord's Law and words, and not a Law-maker. For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions, we judge that all the Canonic writers were mere patients, as the people are; for God is the Commander, and Moses the person Commanded, and a mere servant, Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3. 3, 4, 5. And Moses and all Canonic writers were only to receive the word at God's mouth, and to hear it, Ezek. 3. 8. As mere 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; Canonic 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 remembered, that as Papists say two things to the place, so do Formalists. 1. That it is not against Ceremonies. 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word, that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome: This I make good in the words of a famous Jesuit, who citeth the words of a Learned Papist, approving them.

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 honoring of Jupiter, but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Jupiter at eight of clock in the morning, rather then at ten, in this place Physical, rather then this, is no worshipping of Jupiter, but a mere Physical circumstance, neither up, nor down to the worship, and time and place Physical, 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 sphere 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 linen, but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies, except that, the Lord's 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 Lord's commanding such a thing in the Gospel, is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent forever, except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only, as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies, and so God's 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 anything to be for a time only, and alterably in his worship, is a reason why it should be for a time only, & alterably in his worship; so to us God's Commandment is a reason, why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church, because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be: and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be, is because he hath commanded no such thing: Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel, is from God, never from the Church: as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle, and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle, and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle, its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle, and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon: 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church, till the body Christ come, Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come, and his coming sufficiently published to the world, then are his own Ceremonies altered, and removed; but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul, or the Church, but by God himself. 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house, which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices, then these offices are so long in his Church, as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts; and when God denieth these gifts essentially requisite, sure it is, his immediate will hath altered and removed the office, not the will of the Church, so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles, who could speak with tongues, and seal their doctrine with Miracles, Evangelists, Prophets extraordinarily inspired, gifts of healing, &c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all, but of goods, as the community of goods, love-Feasts, matters of civil conversation, these are only in their morality, as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints, and brotherly kindness, unalterable, and no otherwise.

Now for these things that are smaller or weightier, we hold they are not in their weightiness or smallness 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 less then this, Christ came into the world to save sinners, in regard of Canonical authority stamped upon both: R. Hooker with other Formalists, Will have the lightness of matter to make the Law alterable: Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill, being put in the balance with the love of God in itself, 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 moral exhortations, which Canonic 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 primo, illam secundo, aliam tertio 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 Canonical, that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses: I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead allege them, to prove that the Church may add 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 immediately inspired spirit, that the Prophets and Apostles had, and that our Prelates saw the visions of God, when they saw but the visiones aulae; the visions of Court, and that their calling was, as Paul's was, Gal. 1. 1. not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus 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 add Canonical and Scriptural 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 add, &c. was given to the Lord himself to bind up his hands, that no Canonic Scripture should ever be, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 but the only writings of Moses, which is (as some write) the dream of Sadducees, 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 Canonic 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 natural Theology, that we had in our first creation. 2. I do not conceive, that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents, or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Foreign 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 form and style, and then signs it, and seals it without anymore 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 style as they pleased, but that in writing every jot, tittle, or word of Scripture, they were immediately inspired, as touching the matter, words, phrases, expression, order, method, majesty, style 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 additional, or accidental worship, touching Surplice, Cross, and other Religious Positives of Church▪ Policy, it is, that they are warranted to add to the word, and how they are distinguished from Scriptures, Doctrinals: They give us these Characters of it, 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals, and hath expressed them fully in scripture: But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals, and this is essential to it, that it is not specified particularly in scripture, as Bread and Wine, Taking and Eating in the Lord's Supper is; for then it should be a Doctrinal point, and not Accidental. 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 essential 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 tradition 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 Jews two Suppers, and their additions to the passover, 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 add, 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 prelates did their Crossing and their Surplice.

Ans. 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many, and more then are known to us, and the particulars of that Government that we contend for, are in Scripture, that is, there should be no Government, but what is either expressly in Scripture, or may be made our, by just consequence, we believe, if they cannot be proved from Scripture, let them fall as men's 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 natural reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship, such as Surplice, betokening Pastoral Holiness, without any Scripture, is a great untruth▪ for natural reason may warrant new Sacraments, as well as new Sacramentals. 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God, not from the manner of delivering them, that is, from being contained in scripture, or not contained in it; then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture: For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah, by the Vocall Preaching of Paul, or by the written scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles, it is all one, it is the same word, and coming from Christ, must be of the same Divine authority: But this is to beg the question, for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition; because it is unwritten, to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God. For Lorinus, Cornelius a Lapide, Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius, Com. in. 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine, Tannerus, Malderus, Becanus, say, Whither the Lord deliver his mind to us in his Written Scripture, or by Tradition, it is still the Word of God, and hath authority from God. But the truth is, to us it is not the Word of God, if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses, or the Prophets and Apostles; for though the Word have authority only from God, not from the Church, nor from men, or the manner of delivering of it, by word or writ; yet we with the Fathers and Protestant Divines, and evidence of scripture, stand to that of Basilius, Homil. 29. Advers. c • l • mnian • es. S. Trinit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Believe what are written, what are not written • eek not after: And so, seek not after Sur • lice, Crossi • g, and the like: And that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Every word (and so this, That Crossing Surplice, are Religious signs of spiritual duties) and everything or action, must be made good by the Testimony of the heavenly inspired Scripture; these things that are good (and so Religiously decent and significant) may be fully confirmed, and these that are evil, corfounded: And to us, for our Faith and practice, if it be not Law and Testimony, it is darkness, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the seal of the Scriptures Testimony, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And how shall it 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 men's devising) how shall we receive it, and account it, amongst things that are true? And it is not that which Heretics of old said, for their Heresies to say ( • s Hooker doth) that anything 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 Heretics, saith Chrysostom, — And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawful way then the Scripture. And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Cross 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 easy 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 Prelates for their additions; to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be God's Word; and in the very style of the Council 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 shall the Surplice and Cross and such stuff, 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.

Ans. 1. It is a vain comparison to resemble God to an earthly wise man in this; for a King of Kings, such as Artaxerxes, if he were building a stately Palace for his Honor 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 Mathematics, 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 Honor and Magnificence be declared in every small pin of that Palace, is a business 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 is above the wisdom of Moses, and Moses cannot frame a Tabernacle or a Temple for God's Honor 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 Honor, in the means and smallest way of Illustrating of it: Yea, in the smallest Pin, then earthly Princes are, for earthly Princes may Communicate with their inferiors the glory of curious works set forth, as speaking monuments of their honor; 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 honoring his glorious Majesty to men. 2. God hath thus • ar condescended in his wisdom, to speak particularly in written Oracles of every Pin, Ring, tittle, Officer of his house, of every Sign, Sacrament, Sacramental never so mean and small; Ergo, It is no derogation from the dignity of Scripture, to have a mouth to ask counsel, where God hath opened his mouth to give Counsel in written Oracles: 3. There is nothing positive in God's 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 inferior to written Scripture, that to ask 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.

Ans. Then because the scrip • ure hath not forbidden the killing 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 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 ways 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 School 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 controversy would end, in which we contend, that all our actions are ruled by the word: If 1. we would keep ourselves within the compass of moral actions, actions which have in them vice or virtue: 2. If we would not exact at their hands for every action, the knowledge of some place of Scripture, out of which we must stand bound to deduce it. Then it is like the School of Christ, the word can and doth teach us, what is a Moral action good or ill, an action in which there is virtue or vice; and to me it is a wonder, that the Old and New Testament, which containeth an exact system and body of all Morals, whither natural or Civil, or supernatural, should not be the only rule of all Morals.

Ans. I speak of these more distinctly hereafter, here I answer, that as there be some actions in man purely and spiritually, but supernaturally moral, 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 moral in the substance of the act, as many things commanded, and forbidden in the Moral Law; and these are to be regulated by the Law of nature and the Moral Law: 3. There be 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 special 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 moral, for to move may be purely natural, as if a man against his will fall off a high place, or off a horse, to start in the sleep are so natural, that I know not any morality in them; but sure I am, for Nathaniel to come to Christ, which was also done by a natural motion, is not a mere natural action, proceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature; so to sleep hath somewhat natural 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 natural 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 natural 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 Prelatical, 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 wind, and easing or obeying nature? And therefore they bring in these instances to make sport: But I conceive, sleeping moderately, to enable 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, Moral, & so ruled by Scripture, and Scripture only, and not regulated by natural instincts: But what is all this to the purpose? are Surplice, Crossing, Saints-days, 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, then a beast is to be ruled by Scripture in moving, in sleeping, in eating grass?

2. Express and actual reference and intention to every Commandment of God, or to God's glory in every particular action; I do not urge, a habitual reference and intention I conceive is holden 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 Baptism to dedicate him to Christ, have need of any express or actual reference to any Commandment of God or God's 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 signs 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 man's misery and Redemption in Christ?

Now the Prelates and Papists devise a third blank book of unwritten Traditions and mutable Ceremonials▪ We see no Warrant for this book: 4. Hooker maketh a man in many Moral 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 Moral Atheist, or like a beast to act things, or to do by the mere instinct of nature. Whereas being created according to God's Image, especially, he living in the visible Church, he is to do all his actions deliberate, even natural and moral 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 ways, according to God's word.

Ans. 1. The Law of reason in Morals (for of such we now speak) is nothing but the Moral 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 Neighbor in extreme danger of death, because he doth these according to the Law of Reason, shall it follow that these actions which are expressly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 2. 14. the things or duties of the Law, are not warranted by express Scripture, because they are done according to the Law of natural reason? I should think the contrary most true. 2. Such duties (saith he) Moral duties (I hope he must mean) to God and our Neighbor, may be deduced by some kind of consequence out of Scripture: But by what consequence? Such as to Argue, Quidlibet ex quolibet. The Catechism taught me long ago of duties to God and my Neighbor, that they are taught in the ten Commandments. Now if some Moral 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 Prelates and the Papists; if the Scripture warrant some duties to God and our Neighbor, and do not warrant some, the Scripture must be imperfect. 2. The warranting of actions that may be service to God, or will-worship, or homicide by no better ground then Surplice and Cross, 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 unlawful in itself, because the agent cannot see by what consequence it is warranted by Scripture, it followeth only to him that so doth, it is unlawful, Rom. 14. 14. In that he doth Bonum, non been, a thing lawful, not lawfully. 4. It is unpossible to deduce all truth out of any truth: For then because the Sun riseth today, it should follow, Ergo, Cross and Surplice are Lawfull: I might as well deduce the contrary, Ergo, they are unlawful.

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 Moral goodness nature teacheth, that same doth the Moral Law teach, so the one excludeth not the other. 2. It is false, that Scripture only as con • adistinguished from the Law of Nature, doth direct us to Heaven: for both concurreth in a special manner, nor is the one exclusive of the other. 3. For his third classe its expressly 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: Both 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 Cross and linen Surplice, which is against experience. 2. That these Positives are not necessary to salvation, with a proper final necessity, as I take, is granted by all. 3. I think Cross 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 imagery 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.

FOR farther light in this point, it is a Question: What is the formal object of our obedience in all our our Moral actions? that is, Whether is the Faith practical 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 we believe and practice: 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 intrinsical conveniency in the thing itself, which is discernible by the light of nature? Ans. This Question is near of blood to the Controversy between Papists and us, concerning the formal 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 itself furnisheth light and faith of itself, from itself; 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 Jews 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 Ceremonial observance; because Moses and the Priests or Church, at their godly discretion, without God's own special 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 formal reason of our obedience, which is unlawful. If it be said, that we are to believe and Practice many things in natural necessity, as to eat, move, sleep, and many circumstantials of Church-Policy, because the Law of natural reason saith so; and because there is an intrinsical conveniency, and an aptitude to edify, & to decore and beautify 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, sleep; and here with leave I distinguish Factum, the common practice of men from the jus, what men in conscience ought to do, as concerning the former, moral and natural men's practice is all resolved in their own carnal will, and lusts, and so they eat, move and sleep, because nature, and carnal 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 Moral Law, or Decalogue, and so a part of Scripture) doth so warrant us to do; and therefore the moving, eating, drinking of natural Moralists, are materially lawful and conform to scripture, for God by the Law of nature commandeth both Heathen men, and pure Moralists within the visible Church, to do natural acts of this kind; 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 carnal 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 natural 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 natural acts, because God hath revealed his will in these natural actions, as they are moral to natural 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 natural actions in a spiritual way, though their eating, moving, sleeping be lawful materially, Et quod substantiam actus, yet because they do them without any the least habitual reference to God, so commanding in natures Law and scripture, they are in the manner of doing, sinful; otherwise Formalists go on with Papists and Arminians to justify the actions of the unregenerated, as simply Lawfull and good, though performed by them with no respect to God or his Commandment: 2. As concerning actions of Church-Policy, that cannot be warranted by the light of nature, and yet have intrinsical conveniency and aptitude to edify 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 formal reason of our obedience, but because partly the light of the Law of reason, partly scripture doth warrant them; but that Cross 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 Public 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 Moral: and when the Church formeth a Directory for worship and Government, the Directory itself is in the Form not simply Divine. And if it be said that neither the Church of the Jews, nor the Church Apostolic had more a written Directory, nor they had a written Liturgy or book of Common Prayers or Public Church-service: I answer, nor had either the Jewish or Apostolic Church any written Creed or system, written of fundamental Articles, such as is that, which is commonly called the Apostolic Creed; but they had materially in the scripture the Apostolic Creed; and the Directory they had also the same way, for they practiced all the Ordinances directed, though they had no written Directory in a formal contexture or frame: for Prayers, Preaching, Praising, Sacraments and Censures never Church wanted in someone order or other▪ though we cannot say that the Apostolic Church had this same very order and form: But a Liturgy which is a commanded, imposed, stinted Form, in such words and no other, is another thing then a Directory as an unlawful thing is different from a Lawfull: 2. There be some things Positive human, as the Ordering of some parts, or worship, or Prayer, the form of words or phrases, and some things of the Circumstantials of the Sacrament, as what Cups, Wood or Mettall, in these the Directory layeth a tie upon no man, nor can the Church in this make a Directory to be a Church Compulsory to strain men: And this way the Directory is not ordered and commanded in the frame and contexture, as was the Service-Book; and the Pastor or people in these, are not properly Moral Agents, nor do we press that scripture should regulate men in these. But sure in Crossing, in Surplice men must be Moral Agents, no less then in eating and drinking at the Lord's-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 Symbolical 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 practical 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, Ministerial, and visible judge of things necessary and expedient, or of things not necessary and expedient: But we know no such question in this Controversy, as who shall be judge: but supposing the Church to be a ministerial 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 enjoin these, though they have no warrant from Scripture, as things necessary, and to bind 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 diet of ten a clock, the indifferency of either nine or ten is removed, and the practice 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 God's providence accomodating itself to the season, climate, the conveniency of the congregation as they lie in distance from the place of meeting, hath determined already: But neither Providence, scripture, nor natural 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, Catholic Pastor of the Catholic visible Church, or that Crossing should betoken Dedication to Christ's service, only will as will must determine positive Religious observances, such as these are.

SECT. VI.

FOr the more clear opening of the ensuing Treatise, it is necessary to speak somewhat of worship and Adoration, and especially of these, 1. Honor. 2. Praise. 3. Glory, 4. Reverence. 5. Veneration. 6. Devotion. 7. Religion. 8. Service. 9. Worship. 10. Love. 11. Obedience. 12. Adoration. 1. Honor, is a testification of the excellency of any, Arist. Ethic. l. 8. c. 8. Aquinas. Honos est signum quoddam excellentiae. Honor is a sign or expression of Excellency in any, it doth not import any superiority in the party whom we honor, as Adoration doth. Praise, is a special honoring of any, consisting in words. Glory, is formally the effect of Honor, though it be taken, Pro claritate, 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, cheerfulness, or spiritual propension of the will to serve God; Religion is formally in this, when a man subjecteth himself to God, as to his supreme Lord, and thence ariseth to give him honor, 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 honor; if any object that the subjection of the creature to God is humility, not Religion, Raphael de la Torres in 22. tom. 1. de obj. adorat. q. 81. art. 1. disp. unic. n. 8. answereth that subjection to God, as it issueth from a principle of tendering due Honor to God for his excellency, its Religion; but as it abandoneth the passion of hope in the way of attaining honor, it is an act of humility to God, as the giving of money for the paying of debt, is an act of justice; but as it is given to moderate the desire of money, it is an act of Liberality. The acts of Riligion are of two sorts, some internal and elicit, 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 virtues, 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 less 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. Job 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 internal 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 internal Worship; if they be adoration formally may be a Question.

It is an untruth which Raphael de la Torres, with other schoolmen say, That with the same Religion by which we Honor holy men, we Honor God; upon this reason, because holiness in them is a participation of the Divine Nature, therefore God must be the intrinsical end, and formal reason, for which we Honor the Saints. For Holiness in Saints, is a participation of the Divine nature; but it is a Temporary and a created participation, it is not the same very holiness 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 Neighbor, 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 God's excellency, properly so called; but upon his jurisdiction and Authority to Command.

Adoration is the subjection or prostration of soul or body to God in the due recognition and acknowledgement of his absolute supremacy. There is no need, that Vasquez should deny, that there is any internal Adoration, for that Adoration is only an external 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 Paradise, 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 spiritual 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 external 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 Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and of vocal praying and praising under the New Testament, which are in their externals, external worship. I grant internal Adoration, is more hardly known: But 'tis enough for us to say, as external 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 supreme a Lord; so there is a heart-prostration, and inward bowing of the soul, answerable thereunto.

As the profession, whither actual or habitual, in a local and bodily approach, or in verbal titles of Honor, in which we Honor great personages, by bowing to them, in prostration and kneeling, is an act in its state Civil, not Religious, we intending (I press not the necessity of a • ormall or actual intention) only to conciliate Honor to them, suitable to their place and dignity: so a profession, whither actual or habitual, in a Religious bodily approach to God, either by prayer or prostration, or in • lination of the body tending to the Honor of God is a Religious act. Now bodily prostration of itself, is a thing in its nature indifferent, and according as is the object, so is it either Artificial: as if one should stoop down to drive a wedge in an image; or civil, if one bow to Honor the King; or Religious, when God and Divine things are the object thereof: But with this difference, the intention of the mind, added to external prostration to a creature reasonable, may make that prostration idolatrous, and more then civil honor. Thus bowing to Haman, Honoured by Ahasuerus, who hath power to confer honors, if people bow to him as to God, is more then civil honor: And Cornelius his bowing to Peter, Act. 10. as to more then a man, is Idolatrous, and not civil honor; and the Carpenters bowing to an Image, as to a piece of Timber formed by Art, is only Artificial bowing; and if any stumble at a stone before an Image, and so fall before it, it is a casual and natural 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 artificial, natural, or civil prostration, if therefore they be terminating objects of bodily kneeling or prostration; these Religious objects, to wit, God, and Religious things, must so specify these bodily acts, as that they must make them Religious, not civil acts, 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 Jupiter's 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 civil worship. Hence let this be observed, that intention of bowing can, or may change that bowing which other ways were but civil (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 civil kneeling, because civil or natural bowing to creatures, is more under the power of an human and voluntary institution of men, then Religious bowing, which hath from God without any act of man's free will, its complete nature. When we kneel to Kings, we signify by that gesture, that we submit ourselves to higher powers, not simply (saith P. Martyr. ) but in so far as they Command not things against the Word of the Lord. When we Adore God, we Adore him as the Supreme 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 sinful 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 Civil Adoration, only keeping the same object it had before.

Worship is an action, or performance, or thing, by which we tender our immediate honor to God, from the nature of the thing itself: 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 Ministry is a worship, and yet not an action; Sometime, Time itself, as the Sabbath Day is a Worship; yet it is not an action: So the Lord calleth it His Holy Day: and undeniably the lewish days, the High Priests garment, and many things of that kind, were Divine or Religious performances, things, or adjuncts of Divine Worship, but so, as they are not merely adjuncts of Worship, but also worship; for the High Priests Ephod was not only a civil ornament, nor was it a mere Physical or natural 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 signs of vanity and lightness, 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 Mosaical garments were Divine Worship, by which God was immediately honored, but not adjuncts only, or actions; but Religious things or performances. 3. It is such a performance, as from thence honor doth immediately redound to God, but that this may be the clearer; I conceive that there is a twofold immediate honoring of God, in the worship of God: 1. An honoring of God less immediate, as hearing of the word, is an immediate honoring of God, because honor floweth immediately 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 less immediate honoring of God, in regard, that I may also hear the word even from the condition of the work, and so from the intrinsical end of the worker, that I may learn to know God, and believe, for thus far I am led to honor God immediately in hearing the word; that action of its own nature conveying honor to God; there interveeneth also a medium amidst between me and honoring of God, to wit, the Preacher, or the Bible; to which no external adoration is due: There is another more immediate worship, to wit, praising of God, from which by an immediate result, God is honored, and in worship especially strictly immediate, God is immediately honored both in the intention of the work, and the intrinsical end of it, and the intention of the worker; though no other thing be done, and others be not edified either in knowledge, increase of Faith, or any other ways: 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 alms to save the life of my brother, or of his beast, are not acts of worshipping God; their intrinsical end, and the nature of the work being to do good to the creature, principally, Ex naturâ, & conditione operis, though God also thereby be honored; yet in a more secondary consideration: For I praying to God, do immediately from the nature of the action honor God, though no good should either redound to myself, or to the creature; thereby, it is true, God, by acts of love and mercy to our neighbor, is honored two ways: 1. In that men seeing our good works do thence take occasion to glorify our Heavenly • ather, whose truth teacheth us by the grace of God to do these works, but the intrinsical and proper use of these, is to do good to ourselves as in works of sobriety, and to our neighbor, as in works of righteous dealing, but not immediately, and i • the first and primary consideration to honor God, as in works of Piety, holiness and worship, the honoring of God by secondary resultance, doth issue also from these duties of righteousness, but not as from the acts of praying, praising, Sacramental eating, drinking. 2. The doer of these acts of mercy, may, and is to intend the honoring of God.

There is a twofold intention in worship, one formal and properly Religious, and is expounded Moral, 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 intrinsical intention, Ex naturâ & conditione operis, to worship, and that from two grounds conjoined together: 1. Here is bowing down: 2. Bowing down to a Religious Object, commanded by a Prince, and so cometh under the Moral notion of the command of a Judge. When the object of bowing down is Religious, the signication that we give divine honor 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 vocal swearing by the name of God, or as any man should be an Idolater, who in express words should say to an Idol, O my God Jupiter help me, though that Adoration were feigned, and he who so prayeth, should in his heart abhor and detest Jupiter and all false God's: But there is another intention not Religious; if a Child read 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, signs of things, not of holy things, and here the object not being Religious, the intrinsical operation cannot raise up any Religious intention of the Child. Upon this ground, it is easy to determine whether or no an intention of Worship be essential to Worship or not, the former intention which is intrinsical, and Intentio operis, may be essential, 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 Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. The Learned Salmasius, thinketh it but a National sign of honor, no ways 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 kiss the Stake, as the Instrument by which they glorified God, in dying for the truth; all these being Objectam quo, and means by the which they conveyed their worship to the true God, and natural 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 prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head: But it is not his meaning, that he dishonoreth God. 2. The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honor: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honor: If therefore the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lord's Supper, and Pray and Prophecy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonoring of their head, or not of dis-respect of the Ordinances of God: Though Paul having regard to a National Custom in Corinth, did so esteem of it.

Antonius Corduba a Franciscan, enumerateth nine external acts of Adoration, but speaketh nothing of uncovering the head; as 1. Sacrificing. 2. Martyrdom. 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. Prelatical Formalists side with them, in Building and Consecrating of Churches, and Holy-days, which are but will▪worship, as used by them: And for Martyrdom, it is formally an act of Christian fortitude, not worship, the confession of God's truth a Conc • mitant of Martyrdom, is indeed worship. How suiting of Pardon, and suiting of Grace are two external acts of Adoration, I see not: for by this way, if we regard the multitude of things that we suit, there should be moe then two: Consecrating of Churches is taken two ways: 1. For a mere dedication or Civil destination of anything to its end and use: As when a house is built, a garment is first put on, when we refresh ourselves with a draught of water, we may pray for a blessing on these, and on all the Creatures for our use, and the very habitual intention of the builder of an house to dwell in, is a Civil 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 daily walking in and out, my Physic, 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 condemn in Religious dedication of Churches: 1. That the end being sacred, to wit, the habitual 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 applied 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 to God in the Synagogue for the houses sake, then prayers in any other place. 3. God shall bind 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 Jews and Gentiles, more holy then all the little holy Temples now consecrated as holy places, and where shall this be? And what typical signification shall it have? It must signify Christ to come, or already come, both is unlawful.

2. Again, if habitual Dedication by virtue of Prayer make a place holy, by the same reason actual 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 unlawful to do any civil business there, more then it is unlawful (as Formalists teach) to do any other civil business 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 nowhere appointed and prescribed these for the meeting places of the New Testament, but hath said that all places are alike, as touching any Religious holiness, John. 4. 23. 1 Tim. 2. 8. 4. Shall we think God is not acceptably served, and that the Synagogues of the Jews, of which we read not any pattern or rule for Dedication, are Profane, because they are not Dedicated by the Bishops laying the first foundation stone of the house? Or because they want the ornaments of whorish Ceremonies, that Durand enumerateth? or because they have not the surpassing beauty of admirable Temples, that Christians now a little overswelling with the zeal of prosperity built 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 tolerable Emperors, such as Severus, Gordianus, Philip, and Galienus, as Eusebius teacheth? Or that we are to give a Testimony of as cheerful affection for the beautifying of Temples, void of all typical relation to the glory of Jesus Christ, as David did show, 1 Chron. 28 14. 2 Chron. 2. 5. And that it is Moral and perpetually obligatory under the New Testament; that we bestow charges upon sumptuous Temples, upon these fancied grounds of Master Hooker? For his first Moral ground is, Nothing is too dear to be bestowed about the furniture of God's service: 2. Because sumptuous Temples serve to the world for a witness of his almightiness, whom we outwardly serve, and honor with the chiefest of outward things, as being of all things himself incomparably the greatest: 3. It were 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 employed 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 alms, what should be done for houses to edify the living Temples redeemed by Jesus Christ: To all which I say: 1. The Temple of Jerusalem 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 testify the greatness and Almightiness 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 built to the honor of false gods, and to declare the Royal magnificence of mortal Kings: God never for his own honor appointed such a banquet as Ahasureosh did, to continue for an hundred and fourscore days, Esther 1. 4. More might, and ought to have been done by David and Solomon, if it had been a moral ground to build a house, to be a witness of Almightiness: 3. And God appointed sacrifices, and Sacraments in both Testaments, as Testimonies of the great Lord Jesus; yet in base and obvious creatures; we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightiness 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 spiritual: Then the Argument may be strongly retorted, we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christ's body (which yet is not secular vanity) then on dead stones; except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold, for which we can see no Warrant: 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists, for Images and rich Churches: Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this, but what Papists gave before him: Have ye not houses (saith he) to eat and drink in; Ergo, He teacheth a difference between house and house, and what is fit for the dwelling place of God, and what for man's habitation, the one for common food, the other for none but for heavenly food.

Ans. That there was public meeting places and Churches in Corinth, now under Heathen Rulers, 1 Cor. 6. is denied, by all both Protestant and Popish writers, far less 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 Lord's 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 profess is Logic, I do not understand, it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses, sacred and profane and no more.

Neither am I much moved at that, Psal. 74. which is said, ver. 8. They have burnt all the convening places, or all the Congregations of God in the land: Vatablus, expoundeth it of the Temple: Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum: Or all the question will be, why the Synagogues are called God's Synagogues, as they called the Temple, Ier. 7. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Temple of the Lord, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The house of the Lord: Whither because every Synagogue was no less in its own kind a house holy to the Lord then the Temple: Certainly there is no rational 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 special 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 Jerusalem, and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd: and why? He shall perform all my pleasure, so Hos. 2. 9. Therefore will I return (saith God) and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax (given) to cover her nakedness, To say nothing that all the holy land was God's land, Hos. 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lord's land; and consequently all the Synagogues were God's houses; and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalm, was thus bold, as notwithstanding Canaan was God's Heritage and proper Land in a special 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 actual 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 shoes who came into the Synagogue, God showing 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 Material 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 shall be more holy, as our worship is more spiritual then carnal Commandments of the Levitical 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 spiritual 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.