alterable and may put out Pastors and Teachers because God hath put out Apostles we have a new world of alterable Church-Policy 5. Reverent Beza referreth the Commandment to the Platforme of Discipline So Ambrose in Loc. and Chrysostome Homil. 18. so Diodat This Commandment which is ver 11 12. Or generally all other Commandments which are contained in this Epistle Popish Writers confesse the same though to the disadvantage of their Cause who maintain unwritten Church-Policy and Ceremonies So Lyra and Nicol. Gorran Mandatum quod Deus ego mandavimus the Commandment of the Lord and of me his Apostle Corneâ—a lapide Quicquid tibi O Episcope hac Epistolâ prescripsi demandavi hoc serva Salmeron alii per mandatum intelligunt Quecunque mandavi spectantia ad munus boni Episcopi SECT II. THE Adversaries amongst these things of Church-Policy do reckon such things as concerne the outward man and externals only and therefore Bilson Hooker and the rest as Cameron and others will have Christs kingdom altogether Spirituall Mysticall and invisible and Christ to them is not a King to binde the externall man nor doth he as King take care of the externall government of his own house that belongeth say they as other externall things to the Civill Magistrate who with advise and counsell of the Church Bishops and their unhallowed Members may make Lawes in all externals for the Government of the Church and all these externals though Positive are alterable yea and added to the word though not as additions corrupting but as perfecting and adorning the word of God and his worship In opposition to this our fourth Argument shall be he who is the only Head Lord and King of his Church must governe the politick externall body his Church perfectly by Laws of his own spirituall policy and that more perfectly then any earthly Monarch or State doth their subjects or any Commanders or any Lord or Master of Family doth their Army Souldiers and members of their Family But Christ is the head and only head of the Church for by what title Christ is before all things he in whom all things consist and is the beginning the first borne fram the dead and hath the preheminence in all things and he is onely soâ—ely and absolutely all these by the same title he is the Head and so the onely Head of the Body the Church Col. 1. 17 18. And he is the head of his Politick body and so a head in all externals as well as of mysticall and invâ—sible body for if his Church be an externall Politicall body and ruled by Organs Eyes Watchmen Rulers Feeders and such as externally guideth the flock as it is Eph. 4 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 16 17 18. A society to which Christ hath given the keys of his House and so externall power in a visible Politick Court on earth to binde and loose to take in and put out to open and shut the doors of his visible Politick house then this Politick body must have a head in externall policy and this head in externals must as a head governe by Laws all the members in their externall society for a body without a head is a monster and a Politick body without a head Politick and one that ruleth Politically is a Monster And Christ is the King yea the only King of his own Kingdom either as this Kingdom is mysticall and invisible or as it is Politick externall and visible on earth as these Scriptures proveth 1. Mat. 28. 18. Iesus â—aith unto me is all power given in Heaven and in earth I hope this power is only given to Christ not to Pope or earthly Prince It is the name above all names Phil. 2. 9. King of Kings Rev. 17. 14. And upon this Kingly power Christ doth an exâ—ernall Act of Royall power and giveth not only an inward but also a Politicall externall power to his disciples ver â—9 Go Teach and Baptize all Nations Is this only inward and heart-â—eaching and inward Baptizing by the spirit I think not God hath reserved that to himself only Isa 54. 13. Ioh. 6 44. 45. Joh. 1. 33. and Ioh. 20 21. 22. Upon this that the Father sent Christ and so set him his King upon his holy hill of Zion Psa 2. 6. Christ performeth an externall Politick mission and sendeth his disciples with power in a Politick externall way to remit and retain sins in an externall way for there is clearly two remittings and retainings of sins in the Text None can say of the Church it s my Church but he who is King of the Church and Christ saith Matth 16. 18. that it is his Church and upon this it is his Kingdom and the keyes are his keys and they are keys of a Kingdom visible and Politick on earth as is evident ver 19. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth in an externall Politicall court of Church Rulers as it is differenced from an internal and mysticall binding in Heaven shall be bound in Heaven c. For it is clear that there is an internall binding in Heaven and a Politicall and externall binding on earth and both are done by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven But Christ can have or give no Politicall or exâ—ernall keys of an externall and Politicall King but as he is a King Yea and Excommunication doth not only binde the inward man in Heaven but also the externall man on earth excluding him from the Society of the Church as a Heathen and a Publican and purging him out from the externall communion of the Church as if he were now no brother Matth. 18. â—7 18. 1 Cor. 5. 7. 10 11 12. Now this externall separating and judging of an offender by the Church is done by the keys of the Kingdom Ergo by Christ as a King ruling the externall man Politically and so by the key of the house of David which is laid upon Christs shoulder Isa 22. 22. And by a Royall Act of him upon whose shoulder is the Government Is 9 6. Who sitteth upon the throne of David to order the kingdom to establish it with judgement justice For the Church doth bind and loose in the externall Court either by a Commission from him who as head of the Church and who as King gave to her the Keys of the Kingdom or by a generall Arbitrary power given to the Magistrate and Church to do in these things as they please so they do nothing contrary to the Word though not according to the Word as they are to do in Doctrinals if the former be said then must the externall Government be upon the shoulder of Christ as King which is that which we teach If the latter be said then might the Magistrate Church appoint such an Ordinance as excommunication and so they may by their Artitrary power make a Gospel Promise of
the Sacraments to a Turk and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also conclude we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments being both uncapable of them as also because they can but trample on these pearls no lesse then the Turk should do the Argument then is just nothing We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven whom we do not excommunicate on earth But he should say we Excommunicate many whom we do not exclude out of Heaven Erastus These two are not one to declare a person hatefull in Heaven to God and to be cast out of the visible Church for if they be both one then one private Pastor may Excommunicate for he may declare from Gods word that an offender is excluded out of Heaven hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude also why should this be as good a consequence God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God Ergo he is to be cast out of the visible Church as this God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall Ergo God will not have him to live in this temporall life Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not worthy of life eternall to whom he hath given power to cast out devils in his name Matth. 7. Ans All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication So Iudas might have Excommunicated himself and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church he is cast out of the invisible Church But that is not Excommunication except it be done for a publick scandall that offendeth the Church 2. Except it be done by the visible Church 3. According to the rule of Christ Matth. 18. 4. That he may be ashamed and repent and be saved Gods binding of the offender in Heaven is a part of Excommunication but not all nor the very same with Excommunication 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor and yet the Conscional casting out by one insuo genere is as valid as the other subordinata non pugnant 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule God thinketh those who walketh inordinately and causeth divisions not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints and must binde them in heaven to that censure in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word Rom. 16 17. 18. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these he may deny salvation to the wicked and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath Ergo he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish This consequence dependeth on the meer dispensation of God nor is this our Consequence God judgeth such unworthy of heaven Ergo they must be cast out of the visible Church we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommunicated and only these which is false for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ and yet they are to be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the Church as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy and many whom God judges unworthy of life eternall may so belie a Profession as they deserve not to be excommunicated and both these may fall out and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ Erastus 4. objecteth Excommunication must exclude men from only the externall society of the Church for he only can joyne us to Christ or separate us from internall and spirituall society of Christ who can beget lively faith in us and extinguish lively faith when it is begotten for by faith only we are made living members of Christs body and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie But no Church no creatures can either beget lively faith in us or extinguish it in us or thus men can neither give to us nor take from us salvation therefore Excommunication should not be defined by cutting men off from salvation Ans This is the only Argument of Erastus that seemeth to bear weight But it is false and groundlesse it supposeth the false principle that Erastus goeth on that Excommunication is a reall separation of a member from Christs Invisible and Mysticall body and that the Excommunicated person who may be an Invisible member of Christ and regenerated may be an Apostate and fall from Christ and leave off to be a member The contrary of which all our Protestant Divines teach against Papists whereas Excommunication is only a Declarative but withall an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church and no reall cutting off of a believer from Christ But you will say It presupposeth a cutting off in heaven from Christ and therefore the Excommunicated person is declared to be cut off Let me Answer I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation Regeneration or non-Regeneration for its object or terminus but only it cutteth a contumacious person off from the Visible Church on earth and from the head Christ in heaven not in regard of his state of Regeneration as if Christ ratifying the Sentence in heaven did cut him off so much as conditionally from being a member of his body No but in regard of the second Acts of the life of God and the sweet efficacy and operation of the spirit by which the Ordinances are lesse lively lesse operative and lesse vigorous the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton saith As a palsie Member in which life remaineth but a little withered and blunted and he in Satans power to ve◠his spirit and therefore I grant all to wit that Excommunication is not a reall separating of a member from Christs body only unbelief doth that but it followeth not Ergo it is a separation only from the externall society of the Church For 1. This externall cutting off is ratified in heaven And 2. Christ hath ratified it by a real internal suspension of the influence of his spirit in heaven But I deny that this universall doth follow from Christs binding in heaven That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven all these are to be cast out of the Church he cannot prove this consequence from our grounds Erastus Argueth thus If God dam any as
ratifying an Ordinance in heaven and of pardoning sins in heaven for he that can make the ordinance can make also the Gospel-Promise and he that can by an Arbitrary power make one Promise or part of the Gospel may make all And if either Magistrate or Church can appoint such an Ordinance as hath a Promise of bâ—nding loosing made good in heaven they may also take away such Ordinances and Gospel Promises for it is the same power to make and adde to unmake and destroy Ordinances Hence also I argue for the Immutabiliâ—y of a Scripturall Platform that the Church cannot alter at her will thus That must be of Divine institution which is an essentiall part of the Gospel but the Platform of Church-Government in the word is such and so must be no lesse Immutable then the Gospel I make good the major Proposition thus That which essentially includeth a Promise of the New Testament that must be a part of the Gospel which consisteth especially of Promises Heb. 8. 6. 2 Cor. 7. 1. Gal. 3. 17. Gal. 4. 23 24. But there 's a Promise of forgiving sins in Heaven made to the Church using the Keys aright and of Christs presence in the excercise of the Keys as walking amongst the golden Candlesticks Matth. 18. 18 19. 20. Math. 16. 18 19. Iob. 20. 23. Rev. 2. 1. Now if any shall object this Argument proveth only that which is not denyed to wit that some part of Discipline only is of Divine institution which is not denyed for a power of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins is of Divine institution But hence it is not concluded that the whole Platform and all the limbs joynts bones and toes are of Divine institution they being matters of smaller concernment I Answer As from a part of the Doctrine of the Law and Gospel that is of Divine institution for Example that I keep observe and do the Law that I believe and repent which are things of Divine institution I infer that the whole Platform of Law and Gospel is of Divine institution and the particulars of Obedience and Faith are not Arbitrary to the Church just so in Discipline I say the like there is no more reason for one part written by God then for another Farther if the Church be a visible Politick Kingdom as it is Mat. 13. v. 45 46 47 48. Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 8. 12. And if the Word be the Word Scepter and Law of the Kingdom as it is Matth. 6. 10. Matth. 13. 11. Luk. 4. 43. Matth. 4. 23. Mark 13. 8. Luk. 21. 10. 14. Luk. 8. 10. Yea the Sword and Royall power of the King Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 19. 15. By which he Ruleth and Raigneth in his Church Isa 11. v. 4. Psal 110. 2. Heb. 1. 8 9. Psal 45. 3 4. 5 6 7. Isa 61. 1 2. 2 Cor. 10. 4 5 6. 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. And if by this Word the King Raigneth bindeth looseth and conquereth souls and subdueth his Enemies Matth. 18. 18 19 20. Matth. 16. 19. Rev. 6. 2. Then certainly Christ must Raign Politically and externally in his Church and walk in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. 2. 1. And if Christ Ascending to Heaven as a Victorious King Leading Captivity Captive gave gifts to men and appointed an externall policie for the gathering of his Saints by the Ministery of certain officers of his Kingdom as it is Psal 68. 18. Even that the Lord God might dwell amongst them Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Then he must Raign in the externall Policie of Pastors Teachers Elders by Word Sacraments and Discipline Now the King himself the Lord who Raigneth in this externall Policie must be the only Law-giver Iam. 4. 12. Isa 33. v. 22. There can be no Rabbies or Doctors on earth who as little Kings can make Laws under him Mat. 23. v. 8 9 10. Yea not Apostles who can teach how the Worship should externally be ordered but what they receive of the King of the Church 1 Cor. 11. 23. Act. 15. v. 13 14 15 16 17 18. How the house should be Governed Heb. 3. 1 2. 4 5. Yea nothing more reasonable then that Whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven should be done in and for the house of the God of Heaven under the pain of his Wrath Ezr. 7. 23. 1. That there should be Officers in a Kingdom and Laws to Govern the Subjects beside the will of the Prince or Judges of the Land or that the Members of a Family or Souldiers in an Army should be Governed by any Rule Custome or Law beside or without the will of the Master of the House and of the Generall Commanders is all one as if Subjects Families and Souldiers should be Ruled and Governed by their own will and wisdome and not by their King Iudges Masters and Commanders for the question is upon this undeniable supposition that Christ is the only Head and King of his Church and so the Head and King of Prelats if they be of the body and of the Rulers Guides and Pastors of the Church which are to be Governed and Ruled by certain Laws no lesse then the people whither or no this Representative Church of Rulers being Subjects and Members of the Head and King of the Church are to be Ruled by the wisdome Laws and Commandments of this King the Lord Jesus or if they have granted to them a vast Arbitrary power to Govern both themselves and the people by adding Positive Mandats of Arbitrary Commanders such as Prelats are in the minde of those who think they have no patent of any Divine right and of Surplice Crossing kneeling for reverence to wood to bread and wine The matter cannot be helped by saying that Christ is the Mysticall Invisible King some doubt if he be the only King of the Church which is too grosse to be resuted of the Church in things spirituall and in regard of the inward operation of the Spirit but he is not a Politicall and visible Head in regard of externall Policie this distinction must hold also in regard of the people who as Christians and believers are rather under Christ as a Mysticall and invisible Head then the Rulers who are not as Rulers but only in so far as they are believers Mysticall Members of the Head Christ for Christ exerciseth no Mysticall and Internall operations of saving Grace upon Rulers as Rulers but upon Rulers as believers then he cannot be the Mysticall and invisible King of Rulers as Rulers to give them as a King an Arbitrary power to be little Kings under him to Govern as they please and the truth is Christ is a Politicall Head and King of his Church not properly a visible Head 2 Cor. 5. 16. Except that he is a visible Head in this sense in that he Raigneth and Ruleth even in the externall visible Policie of his Church through all the Catholick visible Church in his Officers Lawfull Synods
Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercitâ— of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is tâ— come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the patternâ— shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And
out a corrupting and leavening incestuous man and this is all we seeke for Excommunication Erastus I never finde the name of the Passeover in the New Testament put for the Supper of the Lord. Ans We are not in such need of that interpretation as to put the name of the one for the other But let Erastus shew where he readeth that the thing to wit that the one Sacrament succeeded to the other and Beza may thence inferre his point if God would have no man to eat the Passeover with leavened bread and if eating of leavened bread and bread it selfe was to be put out of all the houses of Israel thereby signifying that incestuous and scandalous persons are to be cast out of the Church and so from the Sacraments let Erastus see what Beza hath said amisse here Erastus God would have the Iewes to eate the Passeover without leavened bread that they might remember of their wonderfull deliverance out of the hard bondage of Egypt and of the deliverance of their first borne Ans Reverend Beza saith thesetwo were by-past benefits remembred in that Sacrament But we have the Holy Ghost expounding that â—he putting away of leavened bread did typifie the purging out of the incestuous men and other scandalous persons out of the Church which is our point otherwise let Erastus shew us what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Masse and lumpe for it signifieth either one single man Or 2. The Masse and body of the visible Church of which the incestuous man was a Member or some third thing which Erastus and his followers must teach us Now the whole lumpe can neither signifie the incestuous man nor any other single member of the Church Not the incestuous man 1. He was not the whole lumpe in danger to be leavened for he was the leven then he was not the lump in danger to be leavened for the one is the agent infecting the other the patient infected The whole lumpe was the thing out of which the leaven was to be removed the terminus à quo the incestuous man was to be purged out therefore the leaven cannot signifie wickednesse in abstracto as Erastus saith but the wicked man in concreto for the leaven must signifie that which is cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them v. 2. Now this was not incest but the man that had his fathers wife and had done that deed 2. Again the leaven was the person to be delivered to Satan that had a soul to be saved in the day of the Lord Iesus But wickednesse in abstracto is not delivered to Satan nor hath it a Spirit to be saved in the day of the Lord. 3. The leaven is such a one as is to be judged as is within the Church v. 12. and is called a brother with whom we are not to eat v. 11. now this cannot be said of wickednesse in abstracto But neither can the whole lumpe be one single man 1. One single man needed not the solemn conveening of the Church in the Name and power of the Lord Jesus for his personall purging for his personall purging is not a Church-act but an act of a mans daily conversation and Christian walking 2. The purging out and the casting out is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 out of the midst of them then there was a society to be purged Ergo not a single man onely Much more I said before which cannot but mist Erastus or any his followers except they expound this whole lump to be the body of the visible Church of Corinth 2. So Gal. 5. 9. he addeth v. 10. he that troubleth you the lump in danger to be leavened shall bear his judgement v. 12. I would they were cut off that trouble you Then the whole Churches of Galatia were the troubled lumpe so it must be here if this truth be so convincing out of the Text let any Erastian extricate himself if he can deny but here is a Church-lump a Church of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the Name and power of the Lord Iesus that purgeth out of it selfe leaven not wickednesse in abstracto as I have demonstrated but a wicked man named a brother lest he leaven the whole Church to the end his Spirit may be saved Iudge reader if this be not name nature and thing of that which Erastians deny to wit of Excommunication I humbly provoke them to make good sense of the 1 Cor. 5. and shew me what is the wicked man 2. The casting out of the midst of you 3. The saving of his Spirit 4. The convened together court instructed with the Name and authority and power of Christ and if this be not a Church power efficacion and authoritative being steeled with the power of the Head of the Church 5. What is the leaven 6. What is the act of leavening 7. What is the whole lumpe 8. What is the purging out putting out and judging of the man 3. We know Erastus denieth any Church Government at all but some acts of punitive justice in the Magistrate But the Churches praying consenting that a scandalous person shall be delivered to Satan or some other waies punished by the Christian Magistrate are acts of Church government so proper to the Church as the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot exercise such Acts. Erastus Paul-delivered Hymeneus and Alexander the same way to Satan by miraculous killing of him and whereas it is said that they may learne not to blaspheme Judges speake so when they kill Murtherers and Theeves that he shall teach them to doe so no more by taking the head from them Ans That word of a judge killing a man for Murther Sirra I le teach you other manners then to kill can no waies be ascribed to Paul who doth not scoffe so at taking away mens lives Paul who wished to be separated from Christ for the contumacious Iewes and would not kill any by Satan since his rod and power was for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. and that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. he speaketh more gravely and lesse imperiously and without boasting and jeering in a matter of Salvation 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may be instructed or disciplined not to blaspheme cannot be simply that they may blaspheme no more because killed by the Devill For 1. let Erastus in the Old or New Testament produce a parallel place for that Exposition where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed is ascribed to the dead but this is a common fault in all Erastus his expositions of Scripture that they want all ground in Scripture as let me put upon all the followers of Erastus to give a parallel to this Exposition of Mat. 18. Let him bee to thee that is to thee onely when Christ speaketh of a generall Rule of all that scandalizeth 2. Let him be as a
Heathen Give a place of Scripture for this 1. Let him be as such Heathen onely as acknowledge Cesar and his Deputies for lawfull Iudges 2. A parallel for this we seek Let him be as a Heathen that is convene him before an heathen Iudge 3. What Scripture expoundeth delivering to Satan for edification and not destruction 1 Cor. 5. to be a Magistraticall killing by the power of the Devill that others may feare 4. Put out purge out judge those only that are within are expounded by Erastus pray for a miraculous destruction by the devill as the lictor and hangman of the Apostle that none may be killed miraculously for enormous scandals no not such as Elimas the sorcerer who was never within the Church but those that are within And did the company of the Saints pray with the Saints that signes and wonders and so miraculous killing might be wrought not on any but on those that are within the visible Church not on the enemies and Iews haters of Christ and without the Christian Churches when the Apostles miraculously escaped out of their prisons Act. 4. 29 30. Act. 5. 19 20 21 22. Act. 12. 7 8 9. Act. 16. 25 26. 27 28 I might alledge many other such like interpretations of Erastus 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament signifieth to instruct and chastise the living never any such thing is ascribed to the dead Gal. 5. 22 30. Tit. 2. 20. Rev. 3. 19. Heb. 12. 10. Luk. 23. 16 22. 2. Cor 6 9. Act. 22. 3. Act. 7. 22. as they that are taught to sinne no more by being killed 6. Robert Stephan citeth in the margent 1 Cor. 5. 5. to expound it of excommunicating of Hymeneus and Alexander so doth Piscator so Calvin Beza Marlorat so Vatablus saith Quos ejeâ—i ex ecclesia et censui magis dignos esse ecclesia Satane quam Christi si non resipiscant 7. Beza De Presbyt p. 87. learnedly observeth that it is no Grammer for if the effect of learning not to blaspheme be suspended upon the miraculous killing of Alexander then he was first killed then learned not to blaspheme But so Paul could have said he was killed ut non blasphameret that he might not blaspheme not that he might learn not to blaspheme CHAP. XII Quest 8. The eschewing of company with the scandalous vindicated from Erastus his exceptions BEsides other arguments from Mat. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. for excommunication we argue thus Those upon whom the Church is to put such a publike note of shame or a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they are to withdraw from their company and not to eat and drink with them those are cast out of the Church and so cut off from the body of Christ and excommunicated But the Church is to put such a note of shame as to withdraw from the company of and not to eat with those that are named brethren and yet are fornicators covetous idolators extortioners railers 1 Cor. 5. 11. and cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel who serve not the Lord Jesus but their owne belly Rom. 16. 17 18 who walk disorderly are busie-bodies idle and obey not the Doctrine of the Apostles 2 Thes 3. 11 12 13 14 15 Ergo. The proposition I prove 1 Cor. 5. 11. he saith v. 9. I wrote to you in an Epistle not to keep company with fornicators the same word that in the abstract is spoken of the incestuous man v. 1. by which it is clear Paul had forbidden any company with such incestuous men Now he had not forbidden them to keep company with dead men if the man was to be miraculously killed Ergo it was his will before that such a one should be judged and put out else he could not so sharply rebuke them for not casting him out and if now only he had first taught and written to them to cast him out as if excommunication had been in this same very Chapter instituted by Paul and v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now I have written unto you not to keep company with one named a brother who is a fornicator this must be in the same Chapter for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now I have written must be in relation to this v. 9. I wrote unto you in a Epistle before now if here at this present he wrote to them not to keep company with him it must be when he commandeth to cast him out v. 13. and to judge him v. 12. so that not to keep company with such fornicators must necessarily presuppose a casting out and that the fornicator with whom we are not to keep company in a familiar manner is a man cast out of the Church and so excommunicated 2. Paul would never forbid brotherly familiarity with any remaining a brother a member of the Church and of a body with us in visible profession of the truth as partakers of one body and blood of Christ as all the members of the Church eating at one Lords table are 1. Cor. 10. 16 17. 3. The Apostle saith such a fornicator is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 named a brother and so in the esteem of the Church no brother and so not of the visible body of Christ 4. Paul bringeth in this as a reason why they should cast out the incestucus man v. 9. did not saith he I write to you before and do I not now write v. 11. even now that you are not to kâ—ep intimate familiarity with such titular brethren who are brethren in name only Therefore put out from amongst you this man v. 13. the Apostles argument to infer they ought to judge and put such a man out of the Church because they are not to eat with him were of no weight if this â—schewing of familiarity with one who is a brother only in name did not infer the Churches casting of him ouâ— Erastus it is false that Paul forbiddeth to eat with him who is cast out for he forbiddeth not eating with a dead man Ans This is to beg the question Erastus should teach us how Pauls argument cohereth for the text saith he must be cast out why you must not eat with him then he supposeth he must be a living man for Paul needed not fear they would eat with dead men nor can this be Pauls consequence you are not to eat with the incestuous Ergo he must be delivered to Sathan that he may be miraculously killed for that is a false consequence for then all covetous persons all drunkards all idolators all extortioners should have been killed by Paul because with none of these we are to eat Erastus It is false that Paul forbiddeth as to eat meat with such Yea in no place he forbiddeth to eat with heathen but elsewhere granteth it to be lawfull and in this Chapter he permitteth private commerce with them Ans 1. Let the reader judge whether Erastus resuteth Paul or Beza Paul forbiddeth to eat with a
as the Magistrate doth is an act of the Magistrate performed by power of the sword Whether the Magistrate do rule in his owne person or by his deputies and servants Ergo the Apostles governing the Church medled with the sword which Christ forbade Luk. 22. 25 26. Rom. 13. 4. Luk. 12. 13 14. and all the Pastors and teachers now in the exercise of discipline do usurpe the sword Yea if they be the deputies of the Magistrate in dispensing word and Sacraments they must use the Magistrates sword as Ministers of the Gospel for what servants do in the name of the supream swordbearer that the swordbearer must principally do by the servants so Ministers by this use both swords 5. That the Magistrate cannot be the chief officer of the Church is thus proved he who is subject himself to heare the Church and to submit to those that watcheth for his soul and to be put out from amongst the midst of the Church if he be scandalous is not the principall Governour and head of the Church to command all But all Christians and so the Christian Magistrate is such for if God accept not the persons of men those places Matth. 18. If he hear not the Church c. Heb. 13. 17. and 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 4 12 13. must tye the Christian Magistrate except God have excepted him but God hath no where excepted the Magistrate But as David had Gad Nathan and other Seeâ—s so the Magistrates now have some to watch for their souls The proposition is proved because if the Magistrate be supream to command Elders as Elders both in Doctrine and discipline and in all Ecclesiasticall censures then the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot be under the Elders and Ministers as such for that involveth a contradiction that Pastors as Pastors should watch over the souls of Magistrates that they erre not and oppresse not in judgement and that the Magistrate as Magistrate should be over the souls of Pastors to watch for them in the same kind if any object that the Pastors as Pastors have souls and therefore they must have some to watch for their souls and therefore can neither be supream nor excepted in those places Mat. 18. Heb. 13. 1 Cor. 5. It is answered by granting all of this or this single Pastor but not of the whole company for when they erre we know not a whole communitie over them but those of the Catholick visible Church and if they erre the Kings of the earth here may command them to do their duty under paine of bodily censure and punish them But none are above them to watch for their souls that we know but they by office watch both for their owne souls and for the souls of others even as the King governeth himselfe and the people both politically 6. Whatever power in matters of Christs Kingdome or the Government thereof the Magistrate hath that must be given of Christ who only can appoint Elders and officers over his owne house but no where in Scripture find we any such power given to the Magistrate Ergo we are to beleeve he hath not any such power The proposition is true because Christ being a perfect Lawgiver and King doth give Lawes for his owne house as particularly as Moses did for every severall pinne in the Lords Tabernacle and David and Solomon for the Temple the assumption I prove because the Government of Christs house is spirituall as the weapons of their warfare are not carnall 2 Cor. 8. 5. and it is in binding and loosing forgiving and retaining sinnes by the power of the keys of the Kingdome of God given to the Church and to such as are sent as the Father sent his Son Christ Matth. 18. 18. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21 22 c. But Magistrates as Magistrates do punish sinnes with the sword Rom. 13. 4. but not forgive sins nor binde and loose in earth or heaven nor exercise any spirituall power nor deal with the consciences of men no more then they cure the diseases of the body though indirectly and externally they take care that there be Physicians who can cure diseases The power of governing the Church is the supream power under Christ which can say to the Magistrates power We must obey God rather then men But no such supream power agreeth to the Magistrate as Magistrate For Ministers as Ambassadors of Christ can and may preach binde and loose Rebuke Excommunicate against the will of the Magistrate though he command the contrary as Prophets have rebuked Kings Jer. 1. 18. 22. 1 2. 2 Sam. 12. 7 8 9. 1 King 21. 18 19. Mark 6. 17 18. The Magistrate as the Magistrate can do none of these nor hath he power to command the Ministers of Christ by way of privation but only by way of accumulation he may command them to do their dury and to preach the Gospel soundly and forbid and punish the preaching of false Doctrine the same way Whatever power Christ hath given to his Church that the Christian Magistrate when he becomes Christian cannot take from the Church But Christ gave to the Churches of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth to the seven Churches of Asia c. a full power to dispense the word and Sacraments to govern the Churches to censure Wolves and false Teachers who draw Disciples after them in Synods to condemne perverters of Soules and refute their Doctrine to put out incestuous persons to Excommunicate such as will not hear the Church and a power to reject a Heretick after twice admonition and to rule well the Church as they should rule their own house and to rule well and to labour in the Word and Doctrine c. when they had no Magistrates at all to rule and govern them as a Church Now if the Church be a perfect visible body society house city and Kingdom of Jesus Christ in esse operari in being and all Church-operations then the Magistrate when he cometh to be Christian to help and nourish the Church as a father he cannot take away and pull the keys out of the hands of the stewards and throw the rod authority power to rule govern binde loose convene in Christs courts and Assemblies from the Church and inthrall the Church This evidenceth how falsely some say That the Church as the Church is without a Magistrate as an Army without a Commander or Leader a Ship without a Pilot a body without a head When the Church in the Apostles times wanting a Magistrate was a perfect spirituall body gathered edified attaining to the unity of faith Eph. 4. 11 12 c. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 4 5 c. Builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. Feed by their own Pastors Act. 20. 28. Sufficiently secured by Jesus Christ from Wolves 29. 30. Golden Candlesticks perfect and intire Christ walking in the midst of them and praised and commended of Christ Rev. 1. 20. 2.
Christ mediator for he denieth expresly Ioh. 18. 36. that he hath such a Kingdom as Mediator or that he was instructed with the sword as Mediator Luk. 12. 13. Now as God and Creator of the world Christ could not deny but he had a Kingdom worldly and that he hath a regnum potentiae an universall Kingdom of power as Lord of Hoasts to dispose of all the Kingdoms of the world and to rule amongst the children of men and to rule over the children of men and to give them to whomsoever he will Dan. 4. 25. 8. 18. â—er 27. v. 6 7 8 9. Psal 24. 1. Psal 50. v. 12. Nor is this Kingdom and Power given to Christ nor is he made Prince and a King as God but as Mediator to give repentance to the House of Israel and forgivenesse of sins Act. 5. 31. I grant it is said Phil. 2. 9. God hath highly exalted Christ and given him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and of things in earth and things under the earth What doth not this say the adversaries comprehend a royall power given to Christ and hath not Christ from this power to substitute Magistrates in his place as his vicars under him and as little mediators I answer it doth in no sort follow for that is a spirituall power as is clear Rom. 14. v. 9. For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived that he might be Lord both of dead and living v. 11. For it is written as I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confesse God So it is clearly expounded of Christs exalting at the right hand of God Act. 5. 31. for spirituall and supernaturall ends I grant as Mediator and King he breaketh his enemies Devils and men Psal 2. 9. With a rod of yron and dasheth them in pieces like a potters vessel and maketh his enemies his footstool Psal 110. 1. But that is no carnall power such as earthly Kings useth it is a spirituall power for the reason is given ver 2. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Sion By which v. 5. as a great Anti-royalist He strikes through Kings in the day of his wrath Now Christ as Mediator sendeth not out Kings and Princes to conquer souls to him with their sword Renowned Salmasius saith When Christ sent his Apostles first to preach the Gospel and to lay the foundation of the Christian Church did he send out with them lictors pursevants men of war with a bundell of rods and with axes to compell men to come in to his Kingdome Commanded he to smite them with swords and axes who would not receive the Gospel No yea he would not have them to take with them a staffe a scrip or shoes But though Christ subdue all his enemies Devils and wicked men it shall never follow that Christ is for that King and head of Devils and wicked men For Christ is as Mediator King and Head or mediatory King and Head of those that are the subjects and redeemed conquest of this King and of those who are members of the body of which he is Head now this body is his Church only Col. 1. 18. He is the Head of the Body the Church Eph. 1. 22 23. And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Which is his Body the fulnesse of him that filleth all The Body of Christ to be edified Ephesi 4 12. Till we all all that body of the Saints to be perfected v. 11. come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ v. 16. from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the edifying of it selfe in love Now never Divine can say that Devils and wicked men who shall bow to Iesus are the subjects of this Kingdom of Christ who have right to the fruits of the Kingdom Righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. far lesse that they are of the Body that is Christs Body Christs fulnesse Christs Body to be perfected edified to Come in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect man c. Arg. 6. These Megistrates that are the mediatory vicars deputies and heads of the Head Iesus Christ and his Kingdom these are of his Body and subjects under the King and Mediator Christ the chiefe Head and King For it is not to be presumed that Christ will appoint these to be heads and vicars of his Body and little Kings over his Kingdom as he is Mediator who are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom But Magistrates as Magistrates are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom no more then Husbands as Husbands Fathers as Fathers are members and their should have been Husbands and Fathers though the Lord Iesus never had been Mediator advocate and Priest of a redeemed Church Obj. But are Pastors and teachers and Elders as such members of the Christian Church Ans If eyes and ears be members of the body and watchmen members of the city then are they ex officio by their office members of the Church But if the Magistrate as a Magistrate be a member of the Church then all Magistrates Heathen and Turkish are members of the Christian Church ex officio by vertue of their office Arg. 7. That opinion is not to be holden which layeth ground that Christ Mediator is a temporary King hath under him Magistrates even heathenish who have nothing to do with a Mediator to bear a temporall sword for a supernaturall and spirituall end as Christâ— under heires he himselfe being the first heir of all such and so maketh heathens within the verge of the mediatory Kingdom as if Christ were as Mediator a King to Heathen and all and every one of mankind who must have Magistrates and so maketh the Kingdome of men as men and the Kingdom of Grace commensurable and of alike latitude and extension and maketh nature and grace of equall comprehension But such is the former opinion the proposition cannot be denied except by Arminians Socinians Papists who do maintain an universall redemption a grace universall a Catholick Kingdom of Grace comprehensive of all and every man of Pharoah Evil merodach Belshazer all the Kings of Romans Persians Assyrians Chaldeans and of Turk India and such as worship the Sunne and Moon the Devil and the work of mens hands The assumption is granted by Master Coleman who saith Christ is the rightfull King of the whole earth he meaneth Christ as Mediator to whom the Father hath given a Kingdom Obj. Doth not Christ as King make all
the Church in his dominion leave to live under him as Nebuchadnezzar did to the Church in captivity The Christian Magistrate is a Governour for the Church 1. Men are governed as men politically by Magistrates though Heathen 2. Men are governed as Christians and Citizens of Heaven and Members of Christs invisible body by the inward government of the Spirit and Word 3. Men are governed as Members of Christs visible Body in Church-society Ecclesiastically by Church-officers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13. 7. 13. who watcheth for our Souls and are over us in the Lord and must give an account to God whom we are to obey in a Church-society so Pilate is called Mat. 27. 2. it is given to Kings and Rulers 1 Pet. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 23. 24. so it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one that serveth Luk. 22. 26. no question it is a word borrowed from the seventy interpreters who use it Iosh 13. 21. Mich. 3. 9. Ezech. 44. 3. Dan. 3. 2. the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thes 5. 12. are ascribed to Church-officers Yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler or a Commander Act. 23. 5. is ascribed to the High-Priest who was but a Church-officer and the stile given to Rulers Exod. 22. 28. from which these words are taken is Gods so Ioh. 10. 35 36. compared with Psal 82. 1. Exod. 21. 6. and proveth the same though Church-officers be onely Ministers not Lords not Princes having any dominion over the Lords inheritance Obj. 8. But is not this an easie way to extricate our selves out of all doubts if we say in Church-government that the doctrinal and declarative part is in the Ministers of Christ as Mat. 28. Go teach c. and the punitive and censuring part in the Christian Magistrate Rom. 13. according to that for the punishing of evill doers as Mr. Coleman saith Ans This Erastian way will intricate us not a little and is destructive of the Covenant of both Kingdoms 1. It s a distinction void of Scripture and reason for the Apostolick Churches by it must have no Government as Churches at all for to publish the Gospel which is made the one half Yea all Church-government for this punitive part is a dream is not Church-government nor any part thereof 1. Master Coleman desires that the Parliament would give to preachers Doctrine and power of preaching and wages learning and competency as for Governing of the Church let the Magistrate have that Ministers have other work to do and such as will take up the whole man Sermon Pag. 24 25. Then preaching the Word to the Church cannot be any part of Governing of the Church 2. Because Church government is properly acted by the Church with the power of the keyes to bind and loose in earth as in Heaven by Church-censures and pardoning of an offender and committed to many to the Church to a society gathered together Mat. 18. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. But publishing of the Gospel is done by one single Pastor even to the end of the world even where there is no Church even in the hearts of the Athenienses Act. 17. 33 34. of Felix Act. 24. 25. of the Iayler not Baptised Act. 16. 29 30 31. of the woman of Samaria Ioh. 4. 28 29 30. The Gospel exerciseth a doctrinall and externall government on thousands the like without the Church visible yea and who never are members of a visible Church is this any Church-government of which we now speak and in all the Scripture a power of the keyes to govern the visible Church was never committed to any one single man by Iesus Christ if an Apostolick-priviledge of Pauls excommunicating his alone be objected I can easily answer Apostles continue not to the end of the world 2. This doctrinal publishing of the word is the plants and flowers of the Gardens but Church-government is the hedge and those two are not to be confounded 3. Paul differenceth them as two distinct qualities of a Preacher 1 Tim. 3. while he will have him apt to teach ver 2. and v. 4 5. one that can rule the Church of God well and 1 Tim. 5. 17. ruling well is distinguished from labouring in the Word and Doctrine as a charge worthy of lesse honour from a charge worthy of double honour 4. All Protestant Divines distinguish Doctrine and Government the former belonging to the being and essence of a visible Church as an essentiall note thereof I mean the publike and settled publishing of the Gospel the other is only a thing belonging to the well being of the visible Church and an accident thereof so it is a heedlesse tenent to make the former a part with the latter 5. When we swear a conformity of Doctrine and worship in one Confession one Catechisme one Directory we do not swear the same over again when we swear to endeavour the nearest uniformity in Church-government c. which we cannot but do if the Doctrine and Worship be nothing but a part of Church-government or if it be all Church-government nâ—w if Mr. Colemans punitive part be but his own dream as I hope is easily proved there is no Church Government at all Now how Mr. Coleman did swear to indeavour the nearest uniformity of a Chimera and a thing that is just nothing let himself consider As for Mr. Colemans punitive part of Church Government by the Magistrate this by his way is done by the power of the sword of the Magistrate saith he and therefore citeth Rom. 13. He beareth not the sword in vain c. Hence either the Apostolique Church had no censures at all and so no visible government and order but preaching of the Word was all and except we would adde to our pattern and be more wise then the Holy Ghost and the Apostles we ought to have no Church Government but onely preaching the Word or then the Apostles Pastors and Teachers medled with the sword of the Emperour Nero in discharging the punitive part for with no other instrument doth the Magistrate punish ill-doers but with the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. This text Mr. Coleman citeth to make bloody Nero a Church-governour But no ground is for this in the Word that Paul Peter Timothy Archippus meddled with the Emperours sword or that the weapons of their warfare were carnal or that Paul was the Minister of God bearing the sword for the punishment of evil doers I think Paul speaketh of civil bodily punishing Rom. 13. and no violence greater can be offered to the Word of God for if that power be an Ecclesiastical administration every soul and so the Christian Magistrate is to be subject to this Ecclesiastical and Church power and if so then to the Church If Mr. Coleman deny the consequence I conceive to be subject to the Magistrate is Rom. 13. to be subject
dicitur Scriptura sacra aliud est verbum dei non scriptum dicitur ecclesiae traditio There is one vvord of God vvritten called the holy Scripture And there is another vvord of God not vvritten and it is called the Tradition of the Church Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture but another part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture then the body is a part of the soul or Scotland a part of England for both England and Scotland are collaterall parts of great Brittain the Scripture say they is the unperfect rule of Faith and not the compleat will of God as touching Faith or manners but Scripture and Tradition together are the perfect and totall rule so say Formalists that Scripture is the compleat and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Morall acts But the other part of the distinction is that Scripture is not a compleat and full rule to regulate all our Morall Acts whatsoever whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe for orders cause and obedience to my Superiours and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linnen creature called a Surplice or not to wear it or that I am to excercise or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Crosse the Air above the face of a Baptized Childe vvhile I baptize to betoken his dedication to Christs service And hitherto neither Traditions nor Positives of Church-Policy are added as necessary parts of written Scripture 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture by Papists as coming from the immediatly inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture more then our Ceremoniall Positives of policy It s true Papists say they come from an infallible spirit But Formalists I hope refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood yet in this they agree that Traditions are not added by them as descending from the immediate inspiring spirit of written Scripture Therefore Cornelius a Lapide saith Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor aliquid scilicet tanquam meum vel a me dictum aut jussum nulli enim homini licet prescripta aut precepta sua pro preceptis a deo a spiritu sancto immediatè inspirante dictatis aut pro Scripturis sacris addere It is not lavvfull for any man to adde to the vvord any thing of his ovvn as his ovvn or as spoken and commanded by himself For no man may broach his own injunctions and precepts as if they were the precepts taught by the immediate inspiring spirit speaking in the Scriptures Hence Papists teach that their Traditions flow from a little lower Spring then from the immediately inspiring Scripturall spirit So I make this good from famous Iesuites Cornelius a Lapide in Deut. 4. 1 2. saith Sed et ipsi judaei multa addiderunt legi ut coelaturas omnemque ornatum templi ut festum sortium sub Eester festum dati ignis festum Encaeniorum c. Hec enim non a deâ— sed a judaeis sancita et instituta sunt denique hec non sunt addita sed potius inclusa legi dei Quia Lex jubet obedire parentibus Magistratibuâ— pontificibus eorumque legibus The Jevvs saith he objecting the instances of Formalists added many things to the Lavv as the ingraving and adorning of the Temple the feast of Purim of Dedication c. And these traditions vvere not ordained and instituted by God Ergo not by the immediate inspiring spirit as is the Holy Scripture but by the Iews and they were not added to the Law but included in the Law because the Law biddeth obey Superiors and their Laws whence it is evident that these very Ceremoniall traditions of Papists for which Formalists contend are not added to the word as coming from God or the immediatly inspiring spirit that diteth scripture but from the Church without warrant of Scripture just as Popish traditions which we count unlawfull additions to the word And Tannerus the Iesuit saith Tom. 3. in 22. de fide spe et cha dis 1. de fide Q. 1. Dub. 8. That the assistance of the spirit that the Church hath in proposing unwritten traditions requireth no positive inspiration or speech made by God to the Church but it is enough that the Church have a very negativehelp of God only by which she is permitted not to erre His words are these Nam assistentia illa dei quà ecclesiae adest ne ejusmodo rebus fidei in traditionibus non scriptis proponendis erret por se non dicit nec requirit positivam inspirationem seâ— locuâ—â—onâ—m Divinam ipsi ecclesiae factam sed contenta est quovis auxilio dei etiam mere negativo quo fit ut ecclesia ijs in rebuus non sinatur errare Cum tamen nova revelatio utique novam inspirrtionem seu Locutionem dei aliquid positivè notificantem significet And the like saith Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog. That though traditions come from an infallible spirit no lesse then Scripture yet traditions are the Word of God because they are heard and constantly believed But the Holy Scripture is the Word of God because written by the inspiration of the holy spirit Q. 2. Art 1. Dub. 4. pag. 83. And therefore he maketh two sorts of traditions some meerly Divine vvhich the Apostles received either immediately from the Holy Ghost or from the mouth of Christ as those touching the matter and form of the Sacraments Others saith he are properly Apostolick as those touching the Lent Fast instituted by the Apostles ib. tract de trad Q. Vnic Dub. 1. Traditiones inquit per apostolos traditae aliae sunt Divinâ— quas immediatè ipsi a spiritu sancto dictante vâ—l ex ore Christi acceperunt ut de materia et potissimum de formis sacramentorum aliae autem propriâ— dicuntur Apostolica ut de Iejunijo Quadragesimali quod Apostoli Iâ—stituerunt Hence it is evident if Papists cannot but be condemned of impious additions to the Scriptures by these places Deut. 4. Deut. 12. Formalists are equally deep in the same crime and the same is the answer of Malderus ibid. Dub. 2. vetat Apoc. 22. Ne quis audeat Divinam prophetiam depravare assuendo aliquid aut abradendo Turrianus tom de fide spe et cha de traditio disp 20. Dub. 2. pag. 255. Respondetur Joannem planè probibere corruptionem Libri illius non tamen prohibet ne alij Libri scribantur vel alia Dogmata tradantur Stapletonus Relect. Prin. fidei Doct. Contaver 4. q. 1 Art 3. Sed non prohibet vel legis interpretationem per sacerdotes faciendam imò hoc disertè prescribit Deut. 17. Vel aliquid aliud in fidem admittendum qúod lege scriptâ non contineatur Alioqui quicquid postea prophetâ— predicaverunt et Divinis Scripturis adjectum est contra hoc dei mandatum factum
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
sendeth his Apostles and Pastors to the end of the world as is clear if we compare Matth. 18. 18. and Matth. 16. 19. with Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. 23. Mar. 16. ver 15 20. Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Luk. 24. 45 46 47 48. 5. It is against the course of the Text that we should restrain this to private pardoning of light injuries between brother and brother 1. Becase Christ labours to decline this that one shall be both his brothers judge to put him in the condition of an Heathen and Publican and binde his brothers sins in Heaven and Earth and also that he should be his party and accuser Now Christ will have the private brother do no more personally but admonish his brother and gain him 2. If that prevail not then he is to admonish him before two or three witnesses See here the brother is not both party and judge but witnesses have place 3. If that prevail not the businesse is to ascend higher even to the Church which undoubtedly is an Organicall body 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 8. 6 7 c. Act. 20. 28 29 30. Whereas two or three private Christians are not a Church but an homogeneal body Now who would believe that Christ is to bring down the businesse which is so high as before the Church to the lowest step again to a private binding and loosing to one brother who both as judge and party judgeth his brother yea and may do this though there were no Chuâ—ch on earth What power hath the Church above the offended brother or the offender if the one may binde the other under guiltinesse in earth and heaven 2. Erastus will have light and private offences only spoken of here Now Christ speaketh of offences that God taketh notice of in Heaven and earth 3. Christs way is a wise and meek way that that which one cannot do and the offence that two three four cannot remove the Church shall remove but Erastus maketh one private man to remove it and to Excommunicate and binde in heaven and earth I might cite Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom The ophylact Hyeronimus and all modern interpreters both Popish and Orthodox for this interpretation not any of them dreaming of the insolent opinion of Erastus who misapplieth Augustine and Theophylact for his own way as Beza cleareth CAP. IV. Quest 1. That the place 1 Corinthians 5. doth evince that Excommunication is an Ordinance of God THE Argument for Excommunication may be thus framed from 1 Cor. 5. If Paul command that the incestuous man should be delivered to Satan ver 5. purged out of the Church least as leaven he should corrupt the Church ver 6 7. That they should iudge him ver 12. And put him avvay from amongst them ver 13. So as they vvere not to eat vvith him ver 9. 10. Then is there a divine command for Excommunication for the Commandments of the Apostles are the Commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2. But the former is true Ergo so is the latter There is no ground or shadow of reason to expound this expelling of the incestuous man by the preaching of the word without any Church-censures for all that is required in Excommunication is here 1. This putting out was not done by one single Pastor as putting out by the preaching of the word is done but by a company and Church ver 4. In the name of the Lord Iesus vvhen ye are gathered together and my spirit 2. Paul should have written to any one Pastor to cast him out by preaching but here he writeth to a Church 3. He forbiddeth company or eating with such like men v. 10. Now this is more then rebuking by preaching 4. This is a judging of the incestuous man and a casting of him out of their society which is another thing then preaching the word Erastus and others expound the giving to Satan of a delivering of the man to Satan to be miraculously killed as were Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. 5. And because at this time there was no Christian Magistrate to use the sword against the man therefore he writeth to the Church that they by their prayers would obtain of God that Satan might take him out of the midst of them Ans This insolent interpretation wanteth all warrant of the word For 1. To deliver to Satan hath no Scripture to make this sense of it to pray that Satan would destroy the man 2. It wanteth an example in the old or new Testament that the whole Church are fellow-Agents and joynt causes in the bodily destruction of any or in working of miracles such as was the killing of Ananias and Saphira The Apostles wrought miracles and that by their Faith and Prayers and Christ and the Prophets but that the Believers who should have mourned for this scandall 1. Who were puffed up 2. Who were in danger to be leavened with the mans sin and had their consent in Excommunication should joyn in a miraculous delivering to Satan is an unparalleld practise in the word 3. To deliver to Satan cannot be expounded here but as 1 Tim. 1. 20. Where Paul saith he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan now that was not to kill them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might receive instruction and be disciplined by this medicinall Church-revenge not to blaspheme I know of no instructing of these who are dead if there be two deliverings to Satan let Erastus and his expound it to us 4. The Apostle expresly saith he wrote to them not to keep company with such men nor with Fornicators covetous men Drunkards Extortioners Idolators Now Erastus his minde must be that the Apostles and Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica grievouâ—ly sinned against God in that they did not miraculously kill all the Drunkards the covetous persons the fornicators whereas they are commauded to admonish them as brethren 2 Thess 3 14 15. and to pray for them if they sin not against the holy Ghost 1 Ioh. 5. 16. 1 Tim. 2. 3. 5. Paul rebuketh this as a morall fault amongst the Corinthians such as is not to mourn for this mans fault and to keep him as leaven in the midst of them and not to cast him out Whereas in all the Scripture you finde none ever rebuked because they put not forth in Acts an extraordinary and miraculous power to work miracles working of miracles came upon persons called thereunto by extraordinary rapts and were in men not as habits under the power of free-will but as immediate Acts of God even as fire-flaughts are in the Aire So I conceive while I be better informed 6. And shall it not follow that now when the Churches have Christian Magistrates it is the will of our meek saviour that they kill with the sword all the Drunkards Fornicators and all that walketh unorderly which should make the Church of Christ a Butcher-house whereas we are to admonish all such as brethren 2 Thess 3.
House when others went astray I take to be a prophecie of these Pastors under the New Testament to wit the Apostles of Iesus Christ and Pastors and teachers that Christ left in his Church for the edifying of his body Ephes 4. 11. 12. When these Scribes and Pharises did sit in Moses his chaire for a while Mat. 23. but onely as porters and inferiour Officers in Gods house yet they were to be heard while God should cut them off as he prophecied Zach. 11. 8. We cannot say as some doe that persons were deprived amongst the Iewes of Church communion in the holy things of God because of Ceremoniall not of Morall uncleannes but now under the new Testament only Morall uncleannes can exclude persons from the holy things of God and therefore to argue from ceremoniall uncleannes in the old to morall uncleannesse in the new is no good consequence I answer the Ceremoniall uncleannesse in the Old which did exclude from the holy things of God doth strongly conclude that morall uncleannesse under the New Testament doth exclude from the holy things of God if that exclusion of the Leaper out of the campe seven dayes and the touching of the dead though imprudently did typifie some other exclusion from the holy things of God as no question it did then the consequence must be strong 2. It is also false that morall uncleannesse did not exclude from the holy things of God under the Old Testament For 1. what was more ordinary then that sacrifices should be offered for sins of ignorance for trespasâ—es and while this was done the person was not admitted to partake of the holy things of God 2. Whence was the Lords frequent complaints of wearying his soule with sacrifices solemne assemblies feast dayes and new Moones when they were morally uncleane and their hands were full of blood and they had not put away the evill of their doings did not love judgement and justice Isaiah 10. 11 12 13 16 17 18 19. And when God complaineth so of them Ier. 7. 8. Will ye steale murther and commit adultery and sweare falsely and burne incense unto Baal and walke after other Gods whom ye know not 10. And come and stand before me in this house which is called by my Name Ergo Murtherers and adulterers were debarred from entring into the Congregation of the Lord and partaking of the holy things of God while they repented Let none say by prophecying or the keyes of knowledge in preaching the Word they were declared unworthy to enter into the Temple but that will not conclude that it was the Priests office by power of discipline to exclude them from coming unto the Sanctuary of God Ans But if the Porters were set at doores of the Lords house to hold out the uncleane and if the Lord charge the Priests with this crime that they Ezek. 44. 8. set keepers of the charge of the Lords house for themselves that is for their owne carnall ends and not for the honour of the Lord And that ver 7. They brought into the Sanctuary of the Lords house uncircumcised in heart that is such as were morally uncleane then had the Priests a power to debarre from the Sanctuary such as were morally uncleane and if the Priests are said to beare rule by their meanes Ier. 5. 31. Then the Priests did beare rule and governe though they abused their Power and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to have dominion over any Psal 72. 8. Psal 110. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 24. Levit. 26. 17. And the Scripture gives a power of judging and governing to the Priests And 2 Chron. 30. 6 7. The Posts that Hezekiah and the Congregation of Israel sent through the Land commandeth a morall preparation to those that were to keepe the Lords Passeover to wit that they should turne againe unto the Lord God of Abraham and should not be like their Fathers nor like their Brethren that trespassed against the Lord God of their Fathers And ver 11. divers of Ashur and Manasseh and Zebulun humblid themselvs and came to Ierusalem to keepe the feast of the Passeover This proveth clearly that people under the Old Testament were no lesse to try and examine themselves by the King and Priests commandment carried to them by Postes before they should eate the Passeover then they are to try themselves before they eate and drinke at the Lords Supper onely the adversaries say the Priests by preaching were to debarre from the Passeover those who were morally unclean but not to debarre those who were morally uncleane so they were not typically and ceremonially unclean by any power of Discipline or by Porters set at the gates to keepe them out of the Sanctuary But I answer 1. How are the Priests Ezek. 22. 26. reproved for violating the Law of God and prophaning his holy things in that they put no difference between the holy and prophane the clean and the unclean Surely the Priests prophaned in the highest way the holy things of God in admitting into the Sanctuary those who were not onely ceremonially but morally uncleane as murtherers adulterers Who cryed the temple of the Lord Ier. 7. And they put no difference betweene the Holy and Prophane when they admitted to the holy things of God and into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in heart for they doe more pollute the holy things of God who partake of them being morally uncleane and uncircumcised in heart then those who are onely uncircumcised in flesh Object But the Church under the New Testament can no other way but morally and by preaching as it would seeme onely debarre scandalous persons from the Seales and Prayers of the Church for should a scandalous person or an excommunicate person obtrude himselfe on the Lords Supper against the will and sentence of the Church the Church cannot use any bodily violence to hinder such prophane intrusion upon the holy things of God because the Churches weapons are not carnall but spirituall bodily violence can be no spirituall weapon that the Church as the Church can use so do the Remonstrant Arminians argue and some other for the congregationall way Ans This Argument is against all Church-censures but though the Church as the Church cannot hinder scandalous intruders upon the holy things of God by bodily violence it doth not follow Ergo The Church can keep the holy things pure no way but morally that is by preaching only for we can give a third way The rebukes admonitions and Excommunication or delivering to Satan are all transacted without any bodily and externnll violence Christs Kingdom resigneth all such carnall weapons to the Magistrate who is the only Governour of the Church of Christ as the Opponents say All Church Censures are by way of Declaration applied to such men by name and there co-action though penall is not by bodily violence but by acting upon the conscience of men and putting them to shame Hence 2. We argue if beside
the preaching of the word in which Commandments Promises and threatnings are proposed to all in generall there be rebukes of the Church the sentencing of such and such persons by name as Hymeneus and Philetus and other Blasphemers the Authoritative Declaration that such a brother is to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican and brotherly fellowship of eating and drinking with such an one denied that he may be ashamed if these be then are some debarred from the holy things of God by Church-Censures beside the preaching of the word of God But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is proved because all wicked persons and heart-hypocrites are excluded from the holy things of God by the Preaching of the Word But only these that are notoriously and by testimony of witnesses convinced to be scandalous or contumacious in atrocious sins after they are by name rebuked and are declared to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans and from whom we are to withdraw brotherly fellowship are excluded from the holy things of God by Discipline and Church Censures The Assumption I prove Because the word is preached to all by one in office and that a Steward and dispenser of the mysteries of God and he excludeth all unworthy ones known to be such or invisible only from the kingdom of God But the Censure 1. Is inflicted by many 2 Cor. 26. by the Church Matth. 18. 17. conveened together 1 Cor. 54. 2. It is applied to such persons by name 1 Cor. 5. 5. He that hath done such a deed ver 2. Hymeneus Alexander 1 Tim. 1. 20. Jezabel Rev. 2. 20. 3 The whole congregation is not to eat or Table with such an one 1 Cor. 5. 11. We are to note and observe him and to have no company with him that he may b ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. to esteeme him as an Heathen and a Publican and exclude him from the Seals of the Covenant so long as he remaineth in that state 3. Arg. If a person may for not hearing the Church be judged as an Heathen and a Publican and his sinnes bound in heaven by the Church then by discipline he is excluded from the holy things of God in a peculiar way in the which contumacious persons uncircumcised in heart are excluded in foro interno Dei in Gods secret Court But the former is true Matt. 18. 15. 16 17 18. Ergo c. Now if there be two Courts one before God Rom. 2. 16. Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Ioh. 3. 21. Another of the Church Mat. 18. 15. 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 6 11 12. and two sorts of bindings two sorts of Witnesses two sorts of Sentences then can it not be dedenyed but the Church hath a spirituall Court for censures as well as for preaching the Word 4. Arg. Exclusion of an offender from the societie of the Saints and not to eate or drinke with him is some other reall visible censure accompanied with shame then any censure by the preaching of the Word but there is such a censure inflicted by the Church Ergo The Proposition is cleare from Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you brethren marke them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which yee learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and avoid them Here is a reall visible and personall note of shame put on Schismaticks a bodily declining and avoiding of their company which could not possibly be done by preaching of the Word But some may say this was not done by the Church court but every one as private christians were to eschew the society of Schismaticks and by this you cannot conclude any Church censure Answ Not to say that it were unjustice to decline any and renounce society with him before he were convinced to be factious according to Christs order Mat. 18. which to Erastus is a way of common and naturall equity And so in order to some publique censure before the Church Paul wâ—iâ—eth to a constitute Church at Rome in which he prescribeth Rom. 12. the Officers duty as what Pastor Doctor Elder Deacon ought to doe in a Church body We cannot imagine he could command every private Christian to inflict the censure and punishment for a punishment it is in order to a publike sin of avoiding any in Church communion professing they serve the Lord Iesus Christ as these doe verse 18. upon their owne private opinion Iesus Christ and his Apostles must have left men loose in all order and discipline by this way howbeit the adversary would deny a church punishment here is a punishment inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And it is not inflicted by way of preaching so 2 Thes 3. 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man have no company with him that he may be ashamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the learned is to put a publike church note on him that he may be confounded make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a publike wonder that he may be ashamed as Piscator and P. Baynes observe on the place expounding it of excommunication and the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is here is used toward the incestuous man who was to be excommunicated 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to keepe company with fornicators the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 1. is ascribed to the incestuous man and here they are not to be mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fornicators vers 11. But now I have written unto you not to keepe company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or an extortioner with such a one no not to eate And that we may know that this is a church censure he addeth ver 12. For what have I to doe to judge them also that are without Ergo this no keeping company with such is a Church judging 5. Arg. The Church of Pergamus is rebuked for having amongst them such as hold the doctrine of Balaam and Revel 2. 14. and Thyatira that they suffered Iezabel to preach and seduce the servants of God ver 20. as the Church of Ephesus is praised v. 2. that they cannot beare with them that are evill but had tryed such that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them liars Rev. 2. 3. Here is it clearely supposed that these churches were to censure false teachers if any shall say they were to censure them no other waies but by preaching against their errors 1. This would establish a Prelate above the Church contrary to that of Mat. 18. Tell the Church and 1 Cor. 5. Where the Church gathered together was to excommunicate 2. The Angel of the Church is taken collectively for all the Rulers and the whole Church to whom Christ writeth as is cleare in that he saith so often He that hath an eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to
come to the Supper Be not Iudges of mens Conscience Ans Christ Commanding not to cast Pearls to Swine and scourging out those that polluted that Temple that was a type of his body doth Argue clearly that the holy things of God should not be prophaned But that Christ rebuked all abuses in the worship of God in particular Erastus cannot say 2. It is one thing to forgive our brother by putting away private grudge and a church-pardoning in the name of Christ is another in the former sense we are to forgive our enemy though he repent not Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Luk. 23. 34. But this forgivenesse Luk. 17. is not said to be ratified in heaven for God doth not alway forgive when we forgive God doth forgive when the sinner repenteth Erastus will have a lying confession ratified in Heaven 3. When the Church in Christs Name forgiveth not upon words and lies but upon Visible Testimonies of repentance they are no more Iudges of the heart then Isaiah when he said Except ye believe ye shall not be established and Paul when he said to the Jaylor Believe and thou shalt be saved for without more then lying words of mouth yea without true lively faith neither could the one be established nor the other saved Erastus When Paul dehorteth the Corinthians to eat things Sacrificed to Idols in the Idols Temple because they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils he bids them not forsake the Supper of the Lord but only not to go to the Feast of Idols because the Supper and these Tables of Devils are inconsistant therefore he saith I will not have you to have fellowship with Devils but he saith not I will not have you to come to the Supper of the Lord nor deth he bid them approve their repentance â—re they come to some I know not what Presbyters And in this place he speaketh of an externall Communion as the purpose and words prove because he speaketh of Israel according to the flesh 3. Because those that eat things Sacrificed to Idols were perswaded there was no difference between those meats and other meats Ans Erastus his Argument is this being reduced to form is if Paul say not 1 Cor. 10. I will not have you come to the Lords Supper but only I will not have you to have fellowship with the Devil in his Table then he will have none debarred by the Elders from the Lords Supper But the latter is true I deny the Proposition it is a connexion that one who taketh on him to refute such a precious and eminent divine as Theod. Beza may be ashamed of and yet his book from head to foot standeth most upon a negative Argument from some particular place of Scripture for he speaketh nothing of the power of Elders to keep the holy things of God pure What if he should say Moses in the first of Genesis saith not I will not have you not to come to the Lords Supper Ergo there is no authoritative debarring of men from the Lords Supper Such sandy consequences no learned Divines would ever dream of 2. Beza nor any of our Divines never dreamed that God in the Old or New Testament said Nolo vos ad mensam domini ad sacramenta venire which are the words of Erastus so his conclusion cometh not near the controversie Iews and Gentiles are invited and commanded to come to Christ and so to all the Ordinances and Sacraments but I hope this will not infer that all should come to the Sacraments hand over head and whether they be clean or unclean circumcised or Baptized or not circumcised not Baptized God commanded Aarons sons to serve in the sanctuary and appear before him in their charge What Ergo it is not Gods will that they come not to the Sanctuary and before him unwashed and with strange fire and without their holy garments this is the very consequence of Erastus Our question I conceive is whither all must be admitted promiscuously and whether even those that come immediatly from the Devils Table without any preparation known to the Church should be set at Christs elbow to eat the Lords body and blood Erastus saith Paul never said Nolo vos ad mensam domini venire then because two negatives make one affirmative Paul must say I will that all that are partakers of the table of the Devil come and be partakers of the Lords body But the conclusion is contradicent to Erastus himself who faith right down I judge that he vvho vvill but trample the Sacraments should not be admitted unto them and to Paul 1 Cor. 11. 27 c. 3. Erastus confoundeth two Questions one is whither all should be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus saith every where in his book none are to be debarred another by whom are they to be admitted or debarred By the civill Magistrates saith Erastus by the Stewâ—rds and Officers of the house of God the rest of the Church consenting say we 4. The Argument will conclude that not onely the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ but they ought to command them to come it being Christs will they should be admitted and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged though keeping fellowship with the Devil to come and eat their own damnation for Paul saith by this reason in the place 1 Cor. 10. No more I will not have the partakers of the Devils table to come to the Lords table nor he saith I will not have the Elders to debar them if Erastus say they should try and examine themselves and come He flees from the controversie which is not whether the worthy but whether the scandalous and unworthy should come Erastus saith all should come 5. Whereas Erastus will have the Apostle to speak of the externall Communion of the Elements onely 1. It is false 2. Nothing to the purpose it is false 1. ver 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that must be more then externall Communion 2. ver 17. We many are one body this is not an externall body only for it is the unity of the body of Christ signified by one bread 3. It is not externall only but internall and spiritual fellowship with Devils that is condemned ver 20. 21. Ergo It must be internall Communion with Christ in his death that is sealed and commanded 4. This is meer Socinianisme to have the Sacraments only memorative signes as is clear 2. It is not to a purpose for if the Church debar only from externall society from the Church and externall Seals this debarring being ratified in Heaven Matth. 18. It is sufficient for our conclusion 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table as inconsistent with eating and drinking of the Lords body he must expresly forbid those who eateth
is not to kill were Hymeneus and Alexander delivered to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme what learning or Discipline can dead men be capable of 2. There 's need of mourning when any is cut off from Christs body it being the highest judgement of God on earth 3. Without the visible Church altogether as Heathens are there is no salvation But to be so without the Church as the casting out is a medicinall punishment That the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord is a mean to bring the soul in to both the invisible and visible Church and putteth none in that state that they cannot be saved but by the contrary in a way to be saved so the man periret nisi periret Erastus It would seem it may be proved from the Text that the man persevered not in that wickednesse for the Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done and that hath wrought this deed not he that doth this deed and therefore it seems Paul would inflict punishment as a good Magistrate useth to do even though the man repent and he saith that his spirit may be saved then the man repented Ans 1. Reconcile these two Paul was as a good Magistrate to kill the man though he should repent and yet at their intercession saith Erastus he did forgive him durst Paul at the request of men pardon a Malefactor contrary to the duty of a good Magistrate 2. Can Paul intend in miraculous killing only the saving of the mans soul and knowing that he was saved and having obtained his end yet he will use the mean that is he will kill him or if he intended another end also that others might fear how could he not kill for this end A good Magistrates zeal should not be softned and blunted for the request of men Erastus he saith He decreed to deliver the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the soul may be saved now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to give over to permit here a person given a person to whom a person giving to wit Paul and the end wherefore that the spirit may be saved it is as if I would give my son to a Master either to be instructed or chastised so 1 Tim. 1. Act. 27. 28. Matth. 5. 18. Matth. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 15. The brother shall deliver the brother to death and the Lord saith to Satan behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give him to thee this is to deliver one afflicted killed condemned Ans All this is needlesse to be delivered over is to be recommended and taken in a good sense also Act. 14. 26. Commended to the grace of God Act. 15. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we deny not but to be delivered to Satan is to be delivered to be afflicted but the question is what affliction is meant here the affliction of the flesh say we or of the unrenewed part opposed to a saved spirit Erastus It is unpossible that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destruction can be shown to signifie the destruction of the desires of sinfull flesh in all the New-Testament it alwayes signifieth killing death destruction nor doth the thing it self compell us to take it other wayes here nor for killing and death as 1 Thes 5. It is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to kill destroy crucifie are so taken but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in either sacred or prophane Authors Ans I conceive Chrysostom knew Greek better then Erastus the man was delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he might scourge him as he did Job with a hurtfull boyle or some other sicknesse Hence as that learned and judicious Divine who hath deserved excellently of the Protestant Churches Petrus Molineus saith on the place Chrysostom Homo Grece eloquentiae Râ—rum exemplum A rare example of Grecian eloquence doth think per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word destruction not death but some heavy torment to be meant And I am sure Hieronymus a man in the tongues incomparably skilled said by destruction here was meant jejunia egrotationes fasting and diseases 2. Nor need we contend for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in all Authors of the world signifieth destruction for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to destroy the question will rather be what is meant by the flesh but certainly it is in prophane Greek Authors as unusuall I except sacred Greek Authors such as Basil Chrysostom who knew what mortification meant to speak as Paul doth Rom. 8. 13. If ye mortifie the deeds of the flesh ye shall live Let Erastus finde me a parallel to that in the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think Erastus may not deny that this is to mortifie the sinfull works of the body of sin yet Aristotle Plato Lucian Plutarch Hâ—siod Homer nor any prophane Greek Author ever spake so We shall therefore deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth never to Greek Authors any thing but bodily death for 2 Thess 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting destruction is some more then bodily destruction 3. We say it is unpossible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be showen to signifie in either Old or New Testament a miraculous destroying of the body by Satan we retort this reason back upon Erastus his Exposition is not tollerable because it wanteth a parallel place it is his own reason Erastus The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body not of concupiscence because he addeth that the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be saved here the soul is opposed to the body Ans Though we should grant that by the flesh is meant the body yet it followeth not it is the miraculous killing of the man as I observed before 2. It maketh nothing against Excommunication for many learned Protestants teach that though to deliver to Satan were a bodily punishment or conjoyned therewith as the Learned Anto. Waleus doth observe yet the Apostle is clear for Excommunication in this chapter the learned Molineus denyeth delivering to Satan to be expounded of Excommunication and will have the destruction of the flesh to be some bodily tormenting of his body by Satan so doth sundry of the Fathers especially Ambrose Hyeronimus Augustinus and Chrysostom though Augustine be doubtful Yet Molineus saith Certum est paulum velle hunc incestum moveri communione Ecclesia sed id vult fieri ab ipsa Ecclesia Corâ—nthiacâ dicens ver 13. Tollite istum sceleratum è medio vèstrúm And that grave and judicious Divine Piscator saith on the place That the forme of Excommunication is this delivering to Satan but the destruction of the flesh he thinketh to be the exhausting of the naturall strength of the body with sorrow for his sin according to that Prov. 17.
that Feast pointed out holinesse all our life is utterly denyed for eating of leavened bread except in these dayes forbidden was not a sin nor any Ceremoniall type at all no more then our common bread and wine are signes of Christs body and blood 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel because it did Ceremonially infect corrupt and leaven them and so was to be purged so did the inâ—â—stuons man leaven the Visible Church of Corinth and was to be purged out Nor do I contend that the Lords Supper here is meant though I know no solemn Spirituall Feast that the visible Church now hath but the Supper of the Lord But rather I understand Church-Communion in the dainâ—ies of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16 17 18 c. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. Cant. 5. 1. Erastus The leaven of the Passeover does not so signifie impurity of life that Excommunication can be hence gathered therefore the Apostle alludeth to that place that or the like way as the Jews did Celebrate their Passeover without leaven so it becometh us to Celebrate our Passeover without the leaven of malice and wickednesse Leaven simply may either signifie good or evil as Matth. 13. and 16. and Potuit it might signifie our naturall corruption For God not only forbiddeth to eat leaven but to have it in the house and leaven signifieth 〈…〉 sse so to be punished as yeâ— say even by death Ans The Leaven of the Passeover signified so impurity as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church out of the Church as they were to put leaven out of the house and not only simply not to eat it so are we not only not to eat and drink with a scandalous man but he is to be reputed no member of the Church but a leavening and contagious man and therefore Paul doth not here as Erastus dreameth show what way every one in his own personall practise and duty as a single Christian is to do that he may save his own soul and therefore every one was to celebrate a Christian Passeover in his own soul laying aside the leaven of malice Though I grant That Paul ver 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personall purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisie out of every mans heart But Paul doth expresly command the Corinthians as a convened Church to put out from amongst them another man for the saving of that other mans soul And what they should do in a Church society toward the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who hath done this to wit down right they should Iudge him Cast him out purge him out as a leavening peece And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words then that as the Iews were to put all leaven from amongst them when they were to celebrate their Passeover So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work upon this incestuous man and to put him out from amongst them as one delivered to Satan as a lump of sowre leaven and we seek no more for Excommunication 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven But here it is corruption of contagious scandall in this incestuous man and such leaven as is to be cast out and purged away Now I hope we must not purge out and cast away the Kingdom of heaven and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadduces that corrupteth the hearts of men is meant and of this leaven we are to beware But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven which Paul would have us to detest I know not a reason but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians lest he should infect the flock and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ that his soul may be saved and this is the very excommunication that we assert 3. This leaven saith he may signifie naturall corruption Now Erastus putteth us to a may be but a may be will not do it For the Text saith not I hope by Erastus his confession that the poor man must be delivered to Satan that is miraculously killed for naturall concupiscence All the world thus are delivered to Satan as being heirs of wrath for sin Originall at least in demerit 2. The man was not judged purged out and cast out as leaven that sowred the Church for naturall corruption 3. Paul offendeth not with them that they were puffed and mourned not for the mans Originall sin but for his actuall wickednesse because he had gone in to his fathers wife an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name Erastus Then the man must be killed as he that eat leavened bread was killed and though the punishments of Moses Law as such must not be brought in the Christian Church yet if God subject men to the Magistrates Sword men cannot free them from it though there may be degrees of punishment Ans We denyed that those that eat leavened bread with the Passeover were killed but onely excommunicated and cut off from the congregation God never subjected any to the sword for that cause 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lords day those that are stubborn to Father or Mother those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament must be stened to death by the Magistrate or miraculously killed by the Apostles it must be by the same consequence that Erastus reasoneth here But did God kill immediatly any offenders at all for originall sin some one more nor other as Erastus dreameth this man was killed 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devill killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament and any of the children of God whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord proferat tabulas Erastus saith it neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it Erastus said an Anagogicall sense is not concludent Ans Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense it is false saith Beza 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament Erastus Where I pray you doth Paul say that the punishment of eating leavened bread did typifie your Excommunication Ans The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word Sacrament Trinity But the thing is not ours but an ordinance of Iesus Christ 2. Paul saith in this very place as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passeover so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out judge and purge
Thes say Est not â— quâdam insignire et in aliquem animadvertere ut censores apud Romanos notare aliquem solebant they expound it the publike note of Excommunication Beza saith it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie and declare but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notate veluti inustâ not â compungite So Calvin Marlorat And I wonder that Erastus can say with any that it is in our power to converse or not to converse with wicked men are we not discharged by Gods Spirit to converse with them As we are commanded to eat and drinke at the Lords Table and is it in our power morally to obey or disobey any Commandement of God Except Erastus will say with Papists that God doth here give counsels not commands Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 9 11. And whereas Erastus saith Paul will have us 2 Thes 3. 15. to admonish this man as a brother Ergo In holy things and in the Sacraments that are helpes of piety and Salvation we are not to â—ast him off It is true the cast out man is not to be reputed as an enemy but a brother Yet a sicke and diseased brother under the roughest Medicine of the Church to wit the rod of Excommunication that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. But withdrawing of brotherly fellowship is not a meere civill unbrothering of him for if the brotherly fellowship of Christians must be spirituall religious and for the edifying of one anothers soules for exhorting one another to prevent hardning of heart for provoking one another to love and to good works to teach one another to comfort and support one another as we are expresly commanded by the Holy Ghost Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thess 5. 11 14. Mal. 3. 16. Jer. 50. 5. Zach. 8. 22. Psal 42. 4. I wonder where Erastus learned this Divinity to say the denying of this edifying Communion to a scandalous brother while he be ashamed and repent Is to deny nothing that belongeth to his salvation Admonition is but one of twenty comfortable acts of Communion which we deny not to him least the man should despaire and we should cast off all care hope or intention to save his soul whereas the genuine and intrinsecall intention of avoiding him and casting him out of the Church is that he may be saved Lastly we deny not admonition and preaching of the word to the man thus cast out because they be converting Ordinances simply necessary to work the mans humiliation and repentance but the Lords Supper is a confirming Ordinance and denied to the excommunicated while he is in that condition upon that very reason that it is denied to Pagans and Heathens and though it be an help of piety it is no help either to a Pagan or an excommunicate man but damnation But it may be the excommunicate man hath faith I answer To us in the Court of the Church in which the Seals are dispensed he hath no more then a Heathen hath and therefore in confirming Ordinances he is looked on by the Church as an Heathen and if the reason of Erastus be good The Church is to deny no helps of godlinesse and salvation to him though we deny private food to his body because the Sacraments are necessary helps Then 1. I much doubt if the Church be to deny the necessary helps of godlinesse and salvation to a Pagan living amongst us Ergo shall we not deny the Sacraments to a Pagan 2. We are not to avoid his company and deny the edifying acts of Communion which I named before for these are necessary helps of salvation 3. It is not the mans sin by this reason That he eateth and drinketh unworthily for if it be not the Churches sin to give him the seals because the Seals are adminiclees and helps of piety and saving of the soul by the same reason it is not the mans sin to receive the Lords Supper for it must be equally an help of godlinesse and salvation to the Communicant receiving as to the Church giving Now Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh to himself judgement So Erastus teacheth us that it may be a sin to Swine publikely known to be such to receive pearles when it is no sin but the Churches duty to give these pearls to such known Swine which is most absurd and impious Erastus I said before that God doth not exclude sinners from the Sacraments but gather them in to them that they may be more and more invited to repentance and more easily raised up again for Sacraments and so many Ceremonies also were for this end ordained that they might draw men to the love and care of true piety and holynesse as Moses saith Deut. 14. Ans Erastus acknowledgeth this to be no new Argument therefore we may passe it it is the chief pillar of his opinion But I put it in forme thus to Erastus Those whom God inviteth to repentance those he will not exclude from the Sacraments But now under the Gospel he inviteth all even many Pagans and Heathen to repentance 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all even Heathen Magistrates to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth so Act. 17. 30. God now commandeth all men every where even the Idolators and blinde Philosophers at Athens who erected an Altar to the unknown God ver 23. and who jeered at the Doctrine of the Resurrection ver 32. even those God inviteth to repentance Ergo God excludeth not Pagans from the Sacraments but the conclusion is absurd and blasphemous therefore so must one of the premises be but the Assumption is Scripture Ergo The Major Proposition of Erastus must be blasphemous God inviteth scorners to repentance and rebukes are means of repentance Ergo we may rebuke scorners Gods spirit saith Rebuke not a scorner Prov. 9. 7 8. His Proposition then must be Those whom God inviteth to repentance those God excludeth not from any mean of piety and sanctity It is most false God inviteth Dogs and Swine to repentance and commandeth them to be holy and the pearls of the Gospel are means of repentance and holinesse Must we therefore Cast pearls to dogs and swine The contrary our Saviour injoyneth Matth. 7. 6. 2. Moses Deut. 14. 1. forbiddeth diverse Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Heathen by this Argument Ye are the children of the Lord your God and he saith expresly that the stranger may eat some unclean thing but the Lord saith to them You shall not do so for thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God Whence it is evident Moses saith poynt blank contrary to Erastus for Moses saith that Ceremonies and Sacraments are for this end to draw only the holy and sanctified people of God to a further love and study of true piety and sanctity was not the eating of the Passeover a mean of Repentance as well
to Satan though I be absent in body what then would he have done he would all the Church being gathered together not some Presbyters only by his own spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus granted to him deliver the man to Satan that he might strike fear and terror on others and that the man might bear the just punishment of his wickednesse Ans Paul chideth them that they were puffed up and mourned not that the man might be put out of the midst of them Then whereas it might be said we want the presence of the Apostle Paul and his privity to the businesse To this Paul saith ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For me saith he I have as if I were present in body when you are Convened together c. Iudged to deliver such a one to Satan Now that this Decree was the judiciall Decree and sentence of Paul as a miraculous Magistrate giving sentence judicially when Paul himself was absent and had not convinced the man nor spoken with him I do not believe 1. Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie such a sentence of a man when the guilty is before him yet the word doth not necessitate us to this Exposition Luk. 19. 22. Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee for it doth as often signifie a simple act of the minde and the opinion of any not sitting in judgement as Act. 13. 46. Ye judge your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unworthy of life Eternall 1 Cor. 2. 2. I determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know nothing but Christ Luk. 7. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to Simon the Pharisee who was not on the bench Thou hast judged rightly Tit. 3. 12. I have determined there to winter 1 Cor. 10. 15. Iudge ye what I say Act. 27. 1. When it was determined to sail into Italy 2. We do not read that Apostle Prophet or Iudge gave out a sentence of death against any the person condemned not being present nor heard the Lord himself did it not to Adam nor to Sodom he came down to see he examined Adam Moses did not so condemn the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day Joshua convinced Achan the Prophet convinced Gehazi ere he smote him with Leprosie Peter convinced Aâ—anias and Saphira to their faces ere he killed them so did Paul convince Elimas the sorcerer in his face so did Christ in his miraculous purging of the Temple convince them that His Fathers house should be a house of Prayer Now Paul here giveth a judiciall sentence of death on a man he never spake of being at Philippi whence he wrote and the delinquent at Corinth if we beleeve Erastus 3. Erastus judgeth that Paul knew this man to be penitent and how knew Paul this It must be a miraculous knowledge by which Paul at Philippi looked upon the mans heart at Corinth one of the greatest miracles that ever Paul wrought for Paul had the knowledge of the mans sinne only by report v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported between Pauls writing the first verse of that Chapter and his writing the third verse there must interveene a miraculous discovery of the incestuous mans heart Paul being at Philippi and the man at Corinth and Paul knowing the man to be penitent and because of his penitency as Erastus saith Paul did not kill him Yet Paul so farre absent must have given out a miraculous sentence as a miraculous Magistrate I saith he by revelation as having the sword of God now in my hand have judged and given out sentence that this man shall be miraculously killed by Satan before your eyes that all may feare and do so no more and yet I know him to be penitent and that he shall not be killed by Satan a monstrous and irrationall sentence if it be said that by report Paul had knowledge of his sinne and by report also he had knowledge of his repentence and that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord and that this knowledge came not to Paul by any immediate revelation I answer Yet the sentence must stand by Erastus his mind touching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged and condemned him as a miraculous Magistrate to dye upon a report though I never heard him and I know he shall not dye for this sault for can it be said that Paul retracted a sentence which he gave out as the deputy of God and he even then when he wrote the sentence knâ—w there was so much repentance in the man as he would for it be moved not to kill him 4. There is no ground in the Text why Paul should be said to seek the naked presence of the whole people to do such a miracle before them he being himselfe absent for there is more then a naked presence of the Corinthians as only witnesses that they might be affraid do so no more for they were present as instructed with the spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to Satan as the words bear v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be conveened in the name of Christ being spoken Mat. 18. v. 20. of a Church meeting or in reference thereunto in the same phrase and to be conveened with the power and spirit of Paul and of the Lord Iesus cannot agree to Paul nor can it be said I Paul absent in body and present in spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan For 1. the Grammer of the words cannot beare that for being conveened in the name of the Lord with my spirit are constructed together in the Text. 2. It is no sence nor any Scripture phrase I present in spirit and with my spirit have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan 3. It is evident that Paul would as it were absent recompence his bodily absence with the presence of the spirit and road of Church censure which the Lord had communicated to them 5. Erastus needeth not object that there was a conveening of the Church not of some Elders for as there is no word of the word Elders in the Text so is there no word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text and so the debate will be what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether Elders or people or both but though every one in their owne place were understood yet the words beare a juridicall convention being conveened in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus Erastus The questions why Paul did not command to excommunicate the false Apostles in Galathia Or why he did not miraculousty kill them are both urgent But the latter is most urgent for the power of miraculous afflicting men was given to few men and to Apostles But it is a wonder if excommunication was ever
and every where to be observed in all Churches Yet Paul neither practiseth it here nor else where nor commandeth others to practise it now here he desireth they may be cut off but not excommunicated Ans We say the last is no question you never read in the New-Testament or in the Old that Prophets or Apostles consulted or advised with the people whether they should work miracles or not 2. Though Excommunication was an ordinary power as the power of binding and loosing given to the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 22 23. Yet the actuall exercise of Excommunication being the highest and weightiest censure and the most severe of any other on earth it is no wonder that Paul be as sparing and rare in the exercise of it as the Apostles were in killing mens bodies 3. It is a begging of the question to say Paul neither practised himself nor commanded others to excommunicate for he did both Erastus That which is Rom. 16. spoken for eschewing of those who cause offences is that every one single person beware of false Teachers it is not spoken to the Church to Excommunicate those false Teachers and therefore there is no such need of such a Presbytery as you dream of but only of good and diligent Ministers who may rightly instruct and prudently teach their hearers what Teachers they ought to eschew Ans 1. The eschewing of false Teachers is a generall and a duty no question given to all and every one of the Church But the place doth no more say in expresse terms that a single Pastor should give warning particularly by name that this man Iohn Hymeneus Alexander are those false Teachers to be eschewed then it saith that the Presbytery which we assert doth in expresse termes shew what false Teachers they be who by name are to be Excommunicated and eschewed but you see that Erastus is overcome by truth so far as he must say one single Minister may declare that such a false Teacher by name is to be eschewed as a Heathen and a Publican and so in effect excommunicated and put out of the Church but he denieth that the Church may declare him a Heathen as Matth. 18. and that many Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the name of Christ as it is 1 Cor. 5. may put out a false Teacher or a wolf out of the flock 2. We grant that it is spoken to every one that he should eschew false teachers yea and 2 Thes 3. All that walketh unordinately all fornicators extortioners drunkards 1 Coâ— 5. But that every man should eschew those whom he in his private judgement conceiveth to be such before he rebuke them and labour to gain them and in case of obstâ—nâ—cy Tell the Church as Christ commandeâ—h Matth. 18. is not commanded buâ— forbidden Matth. 18. Lev. 1917. Col. 3. 15. For if this should be that I might immediatly upon my own private grudge unbrother and cast out of my heart and intire fellowship every one whom I conceive offendeth me and walketh unordinately without observing Christs order or previous rebuking of him I make a pathway to perpetuall Schismes 2. A violation of all Laws of fraternity and Christian Communion 3. A dissâ—lving and breaking of all Church Communion and iâ— were strange if Erastus will have Christs order kept Matth. 18. in private offences done by one brother to another and not in publick offences when a brother offendeth twenty and a whole Church as if I were obliged to seek to gain my brothers soul in private and lâ—sse injuries and not in publick and more hainous offences Hence it is clear to me If we are to reject an Heretick after once or twice admonition and not to receive in our houses false Teachers and 1 Tim. 6. 3. If any teach otherwise and consent not unto the wholesome word even the words of our Lord Iesus Christ being given to perverse disputing as men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. We are to withdraw our selves from such and to save with severity and plucking out of the fiâ—e those that cannot be cured then certainly the Church of Christ must also turn away from such men and acknowledge them as no members of the body whereof Christ is the head if we say not this if one hath leave in a constituted Church to jâ—dge and condemne his brother and then we shall not take the course of the Apostles in the like case as Act. 15. which is not Apostolick for when false Teachers troubled the Brethren they would not peremptorily though great Apostles as Paul and Barnabas determine against either the false doctrine or the persons of the Teachers while the Apostles Elders and Brethren did meet in a Synod and determine against the Error and against the men as such as troubled the Brethren with words and perverted their souls Act. 15. Now Erastus is willing to acknowledge a sort of Divine Excommunication not a humane as he is pleased to call that Ordinance of separating of wicked men from the Church and holy things of God which yet was in the Church of the Jews instituted by Christ and his Apostles and which no Church wanted as learned Beza saith even in the time of persecution had Erastus explained to us his divine Excommunication as he calleth it it were easie to bring most of his owne Arguments with greater strength of reason against it then against ours which is the truely divine Excommunication CHAP. XIV Quest 10. Whether Erastus doth strongly prove that there is no Presbytery nor two distinct judicatures one of the Church another of the State Erastus I deny not First such a Presbytery as the Evangelists mention which is called a Presbytery a Synedry a Synagogue this was the civill Magistrate who had amongst the Jews the power of the sword 2. I deny not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. when the Church wanteth a civill Magistrate 3. I deny not a Presbytery of learned men who being asked may give their judgement of doubts of which Ambrose there was nothing of old done sine seniorum consilio without the Counsels of the Elders But I deny a Senate collected out of the body of the Church to judge who repenteth and are to be excommunicated and debarred from the Sacraments and who not or I deny any Ecclesiasticall judicature touching the manners and conversation of men different from the judgement or court of the civill Magistrate or that there be two supream Courts touching manners in one Common wealth Ans One simple head in a moment may deny more then many wise men can prove in a whole day it proveth they are more cumbersome in their disputes then strong that there was a Iewish Presbytery â—hat is a civill judicature is conâ—uted by Lev. 10. 10. where there is a Court of Aarons sonnes whose it was to judge of Church matters only and to put difference betweene holy and unholy betweene
Word and Sacraments if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments who made him a judge and a Ruler Will this satiâ—fie mens conscience The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister but the Minister may not play the Magistrate Now as Erastus saith the Minister in holy things is his servant called by him may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also Erastus Eli and Samuel were both Priests and Iudges and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent 2. Ministers ought not to usurpe the civill sword Ergo they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit it followeth not the contrary is evident 1 Thes 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7 8. Erastus Peter Martyr saith Com. 1 Sam. 8. Those that live wickedly may be corrected by the Magistrate But Papists give one civill Ecclesiastick power to the Pope and another to the Magistrate whereas the civill Magistrate is sufficient enough Ans Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expresly asserteth Excommunication and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors or Elders Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword Erastus Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is it is not pollitick externall visible for Christ reigneth in the world but his Government is invisible and spirituall in the Word and the Spirit Ans Christ denieth only that his Kingdome is of this World in regard it is not holden up by the civill sword of men or Magistrates as Erastus doth dreame who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the onely Catholick and principall Ruler in all Christs courts which Christ refuteth when he saith If my Kingdome were of this world mine owne would fight for me Now Erastus will have no weapon but the Magistrates sword to hold out and cast out all offenders out of Christs Kingdom but it is false that Christs Kingdom is not politicall externall and visible this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church Sure exhorting rebuking censuring withdrawing from the scandalous excommunication are visible externally and in a politick spirituall way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors for externall and spirituall are not opposed nor are politicall and spirituall opposed as Erastus dreameth and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus His Kingdom is not of this world Ergo it is not externall Erastus When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea and Gabinius having overcome Alexander had changed the state of Iudea the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up Ioseph bel Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph antiq l. 14. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synedrie for the most part had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus and under Archilaus it was more fully restored as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death setteth forth an Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them Ans Will then Erastus have Christ Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim in gaining a lost brother that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this 2. Say that the Sanedrim in sacris in in the holy things of God had its full power the Romans not impeding them hath any man a face to deny but Pharisees corrupted both Law Gospell Sanedrim and all and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government especially when they set themselves against the Messiah Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued but before they were subdued the Sanedrim was changed and corrupted 3. This is to beg the question to say they kept the power of the Sword For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power and forsooth because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles What then therefore the Sanedrim had the Law of God for it and Aaron and his sonnes might beat scourge imprison and kill as they killed Steven without Law or warrant except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature surely this is a vaine consequence 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both gave them liberty of their own Religion Ceremonies and customes at their pleasure and that is much for us the adversary so do reason from a corrupt unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law Erastus I have solidly proved there were not two distinct jurisdictions but that the Magistrate Governed all I deny not that the Magistrate took counsell at those that were skilled in the Law And I have proved that the Sanedrim in Christs time when he spake these words had the power of the sword in things pertaining to Religion Ans Let another man praise thee solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines is plain emptinesse 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law is not like the first pattern of Moses David Solomon who as Magistrates saith Erastus did rule all in the Church gave the Law to Aaron his sons directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord as nearest to him what they should do what Laws they should teach the people Shew us one precept practise or promise in the word where Moses David Solomon asked Counsell at Aaron the Priests Gad Nathan or the Prophets saying O sons of Aaron O Prophets advise us Magistrates what Laws we should command you touching your office your holy garments your washing your beasts clean and unclean your lâ—per your putting men out of the Camp touching the forme dimensions structure materials of the Arke Tabernacle Temple c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord for we are nearer to the Lord and have a more eminent place as Church-Officers then you who are but our Vicars Deputies and servants to be directed by us Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediatly from God and never consulted with any man either Aaron Priest or Prophet David and Solomon had the forme of the Temple given to them by the Lord in writing and advised with none at all therefore received from God and delivered to the Church what they received of the Lord. 2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers what they should command-Ministers to preach and do in their Ministery if by vertue of their Office they command Ministers 3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civill sword on their bodies to gain their souls which is the scope of Christ Matth. 18. CHAP. XVII Quest 13. Whether Erastus can make good that the
saith Ergo beside Ministers there must be some chiefe men which we call ruling Elders to represent the people that there may be as all our Divines and Scripture teach a threefold government in the Church A Monarchy in regard of Iesus Christ the onely head and King of the Church as the Iewish Church had their High Priest a Type of him and Aristocracy in Pastors and Teachers as the Iewes had their Priests and Levites and a Democracy in the ruling Elders as the Iewes had their Zekenim and their Heads of families and Elders in the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim and we in the Presbytery to represent the people and of these three the Iewish Ecclesiastick Sanedrim is made up 2 Chron. 19. 8. of the Levites and the priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the heads of Fathers or Masters of families Now Erastus yeeldeth that good Iehoshaphat departed not from Gods institution in his reformation all this Erastus passeth over in silence being ignorant of the Iewish Church government and not able to answer and he addeth something of Doctors not to a purpose and saith there be no Doctors but Pastors onely in the Word contrary to Rom. 12 7 8. Ephes 4. 11. where they are clearly distinguished Erastus Some chosen men must be in the Presbytery to represent the people Ergo these must be Doctors and Prophets but there is no need of that for Bishops of old represented the whole Church Ans Beza hath not any such argument he contendeth for Ruling Elders not for Prophets and Doctors to represent the people 2. Where doth the Scripture speake of such an office as a Bishop having Majority of power above Presbyters for since Erastus denieth all Ecclesiasticall Government in Teachers he must deny all Majority of Ecclesiasticall Governement also he that denieth the positive denieth also the comparative degree now this is a Bishop that neither Scripture nay nor popish Antiquity dreamed of 3. In what is a Bishop the representative Church The like is Erastus his third Argument Erastus 1 Cor. 12. How is Government a Presbytery how are Overseers governments Doctors Prophets There be many kinds of Governours I wonder that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Miracles you understand not the power of Excommunication that hath terrified all the World how are Doctors Prophets added to Pastors are they not teachers as well as Pastors but that they administer not the Sacraments how doe you prove that how prove you Overseers to be â—ther then Ministers Ans Governements to us are but a part of the Presbyterie 2. There be many kinds of Governours but he durst not venture to shew what is signified by governments lest he should say his Magistrate must be the onely Church Governour but he knoweth that a Magistrate as a Magistrate is no member nor part of the Church but as he is a Christian for then Cesar Herod Pontius Pilate as Magistrates must be set in the body of Christ as Apostles and Teachers and Prophets which all the World will cry shame on 3. Beza said never that Teachers and prophets are cast to Ministers to make a Presbyterie for by Teachers he meaneth Pastors 4. Because Paul setteth downe Governments different from Apostles Prophets and Teachers they must be some Officers different from them we can finde none else but such as rule well and yet labour not in the Word 1 Tim. 5. 17. let Erastus shew us what they are he dares not open his minde for he meaneth a Justice of Peace or a King or a heathen judge must be in the wombe of this 1 Cor. 12. 28. let himselfe be mid-wife Erastus answering to 1 Tim. 5. 17. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to labour is to labour diligently the meaning is like this I wish well to all Pastors but especially to those who with great industrie fidelity and paines feed the flocke committed to them as I love all inclined to studie but especially such as watch night and day upon studies for some are more diligent in teaching then others here 's no Tautologie to say I love all that sincerely and soundly teach the Word especially those that diligently teach it Ans I cannot particularly discusse this place I have done it else where fully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with two Articles noteth two species of Elders as Tit. 1. 11. 1 Tim. 5. 8. Gal. 6. 10. Phil. 4. 22. 2. This is a Tautologie I love all well governing and faithfull Elders especially those that labour in the word they may be well and painful feeding Pastors who are not painfull in preaching the Word and this is Tautologie I love all that are studious and studie excellently and especially those that studie night and day as Erastus must say if he make the phrase agree to the purpose to feed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well in a feeding Pastor includeth labouring in the Word since Erastus expoundeth the place 1 Tim. 5. 17. of Church officers he cannot deny but the place holdeth forth a Government and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church Officers for beside labouring in the Word and doctrine which is preaching here is well governing it is a shame then to Erastus to expound this place so and yet deny all Church Government except in the hands of the Magistrate Erastus Ancient and moderne Doctors deny two sorts of Elders Ans I have made the contrary appear in the place cited I will not weary the Reader with reasons set downe at full in another place Erastus Shew where the Church hath a judicature to punish sins different from the Magistrates judicature as the Lord made a power of burning incense to the Lord to be different from the Kings royall power Ans Mat. 18. Mat. 16. Ioh. 20. Mat. 28. 19 20. Eph. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 c. Rev. 2. 1 2. and 20. 21. Ministers are no lesse separated under the New Testament to all ministeriall acts of feeding by the word and rod of Discipline then Priests were of Old Erastus Nathan did not Excommunicate David Ans Nathan had assurance from God that his sin was pardoned 2. That the Sanedrim did not cast David out is a fact and proveth not they had no power for 80. Priests cast Vzziah out of the house of God for a lesse fault that carried in its face lesse scandall Erastus The Prophets never accuse the Priests that they admitted the unclean to the sacrifices and holy things of God Ans The contrary is evident Ier. 5. 31. Ezek. 22. 25 26. and 44. 8 9 10. contrary to their Office Deut. 17. 11 12. Levit. 10. 10. Erastus David Psal 51. sheweth he would have given Sacrifices but God craved a broken heart Ergo he had power to sacrifice Ans Not except withall he had offered a contrite heart to God Paul saith Erastus speaketh of coming to them with the rod of delivering to Satan of his comming with the authority God had given him of his
should not delay to pray till he were first delivered from the gall of bitternesse and then pray Sure if Peter had said to Simon Magus First labour to be freed of the gall of bitternesse and to have thy thoughts pardoned and then pray that the thoughts of thy heart may be pardoned as Christ saith First bee reconciled to thy brother and then offer and as Paul saith First Let a man try and examine himselfe and so let him eate and drinke the reply of Erastus should have nerves 2. It is true Christ speaketh not of the externall government of the Church but it is as false that he speaketh of the internall acts of the minde but he speaketh of the right ordering of the externall acts of divine worship which are regulable though not quatenus as regulable by the Church and draweth an argument from the words by necessary consequence which consequence Erastus cannot elude 3. But how doth Erastus prove this consequence if our Exposition stand and if we were to doe nothing in offering gifts at the Altar except we bee first reconciled to our brother and if God approve nothing which we doe which deviates from this perfection we should doe nothing that is good and right and so all must be excommunicated 1. Is Christ here injoyning a work of perfection and of supererogation Is Erastus popish in this 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright so is it not to eate and drinke worthily while first we be reconciled to our brother Erastus was so surfetred with charity as we heard before that if any but desire the Sacrament and professe repentance he thinketh he is obliged to beleeve he is fit for the Lords Supper and here if Christ require but that the partie be reconciled to his brother ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament this is too great strictnesse it should excommunicate us all and we shall so never doe any thing that is right and good 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internall acts onely and of that which our minde injoyneth for the Lord speaketh of three externall visible acts 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother 5. He saith not if the Presbyters bid you saith he leave your offering true he saith not that in words but supposing this that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering he had beene killing his owne sonne to Molech as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer while he should testifie his repentance and finding him impenitent whether should they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God and to be cast out of the Church as 1 Cor. 5. Certaine this is Christs order Be first reconciled to thy Brother and then offer try thy selfe first and then eate and if the Church see this order neglected whether are they to suffer clean and unclean to come and eat and holy things to be prophaned Erastus He shall expede himselfe out of this doubt easily who can distinguish the internall governing of the Church which is proper to God onely who knoweth the thoughts and can judge them without error from the externall governing of the Church in qua falli infinitè omnes possumus in the which we may all infinitely erre and in which we can doe nothing nisi quod mandatum expessè nobis legimus except what vve read to be expresly commanded for here he vvho is not against us is vvith us Marke 9. and no man ought to forbid those which God hath commanded so they bee externally done all externall actions quoad nos to us are good vvhich are done according to the prescript of Gods Word though to God vvho judgeth the heart they be not good every vvay many to day the Pharisees of old many in Pauls time preach for gaine many are ambitious and some out of envy preach Christ never for bad them to teach nor Paul but rejoyced Phil. 1. that Christ was preached hovvever since no man can understand the internall actions or thoughts and without error judge them there is no punishment by mans Law for them onely God vvithout error judgeth and punisheth them Ans There be many untruths here 1. If this distinction of internall and externall governing of the Church remove most of the doubts here he that eates and drinkes unworthily which is an act of externall worship which may be regulated and ordered by the Church for the Church may not administer the Sacraments to Pagans without the Church is no sinne to the unworthy eater because God commanded that externall act expresly as Erastus saith and so it is a good action quoad nos even to the unworthy eater for he knoweth not his owne thoughts nor can he judge them without error especially being unregenerated 2. If Erastus himselfe acknowledge this his owne disâ—inction he must acknowledge an externall Church-government and who then are the Governours especially in the Apostolick-Church where heathen Magistrates are Pastors and Teachers no doubt what meaneth this then my Brother trespasseth against me and will not be gained I tell the Church Erastus saith I tell the Christian Magistrate but there is no Christian Magistrate then there was no externall Government in the Church the first hundreth nay nor three hundred yeers in the Church or then it must follow that the Apostles and Pastors were the deputies of heathen Magistrates Ergo the heathen Magistrates should with imposition of hands have been ordained the officers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church And that they were not it was their owne fault for the principall officer must be more principally called to office by Christ and given by him as a gift when he ascended on high to edifie the body of the Church Eph. 4. 11. 3. Erastus will have men debarred from judging the inward actions because God only can judge them sine errore without error But so God only should judge all things internall and externall and there should be no Magistrates because men may erre in judging the externall actions of men and will not this gratifie the Papists who say in this Tell the Church that is the Pope who cannot erre Then the Synod cannot erre Protestants deny the consequence Synods may judge as Act. 15. and yet Synods may erre 4. Erastus will have us lyable to infinite errors in externall actions therefore saith he we should do nothing in externalls but what is expresly commanded but first may we not infinite falli infinitely erre in internall actions and thought and acts of beleeving are we more infallible in internall then in externall actions New Theologie and are we not as well tyed to what is expresly commanded in internall as in externall actions I think the word is as strict a rule and the Law of the Lord as
Law of God so the seventy translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieronym intrabunt in Ecclesiam Domini Vatablus in Not. erint de consortio populi Sancti The English Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13. 1 2. the Law is that the Moabite and the Ammonite should not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever It is said v. 3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude so that cleare it is to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church then to be separated from the Congregation must be to be cast out of the Church and deprived of the holy things of God as heathens and strangers were according to that Levit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eate of the holy thing What is this but Excommunication call it with another name we care not it is really to be separated from the Church 7. It is admirable to me to heare Erastus say It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of persons will not receive into his Kingdome a Bastard an Ammonite a Moabite Is not this to reason against the Law of God and the wisedome of God Deut. 23. 1. 2 3. who saith that he will not receive such into his Church which is his Kingdome and a company of Kings and Priests unto God which he hath freely loved Exod. 19. 5 6. Psal 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. as â—oâ— the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdome according to Gods decree of eternall Reprobation I deny Excommunication to be any such rejection of men it being onely a casting them out from the visible Church and the speciall Church priviledges that their Spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord and what can be more contrary to the Word then that Erastus should say God declared not that it was his will that Moabites Ammonites should not be circumcised anâ— admitted to the Sacraments Why then did hee not chuse Moabites and Ammonites for his people and make a covenant with them and give Circumcision a Seale of the Covenant as he dealt with the Iewes if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments so they repent and turne to him but now Erastus fights with his owneshaddow Who denieth but Iewes and Gentiles so they call on him are welcome to all the holy things of God and not to be cast out of either Church or Synagogue 8. To say to cast out of the Synagogue is a meeker word then to Excommunicate is but to beg the question Yea but saith Erastus it is lesse and a milder thing then to destroy and pro deplorato habere to esteeme a person lost we say Excommunication is not to destroy or to give for lost but though it be the most violent yet it is a saving remedy that the man may be ashamed humbled and his Spirit saved 9. We reason not from the fact of Pharisees if they cast any out of the Synagogue for a just cause they ought also by Gods Law to debarre them from Temple and Sacraments and therefore if they did not debarre it was their sinne not our Rule CHAP. XXI Quest 17. Divers other Arguments vindicated as from Communion with the Church subjection of Magistrates and Ministers The Ceremonially unclean from Matth. 18. Tell the Church Erastus Christ hath given a power to his Church to loose Ergo also to binde The Church admitteth Believers into Communion Ergo they cast out the impenitent Erastus Answereth Such a power as they have to Ioose and to admit such and no other have they to binde and to cast out but it follovveth not Ergo it is a povver to debar from the Sacraments and to Excommunicate it is à Genere and Speciem affirmativè Ans Erastus is mistaken and formeth the Argument as he pleaseth The Church pardoneth as a Church and receiveth into her body believers to participate of Church-priviledges and Sacraments in a Church Communion Ergo the Church hath power to binde and cast out from this same Church-Communion those that leaveneth the whole lump as a City may admit a stranger to all the City priviledges Ergo the same City may for offences against the City cast out and deprive of City priviledges offenders is this a Genere ad speciem affirmativè If the Church have a power to cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from amongst them a Member we shall not contend for the name of Excommunication Erastus The Ministers have none by whom in their office they can be corrected But saith Erastus If every soul be subject to the higher powers how are Ministers excepted if Ministers correct Ministers they play to others hands spare thou the nails and I shall spare the teeth Ans The Author doth not except Ministers from civill subjection to Magistrates But only he saith In Ecclesiasticall censures the Magistrate is not to judge the Ministers because a Ministery being an Ecclesiasticall office as such it is not liable to the civill power only the Ministers as they erre and sin in their persons are liable to civill punishment but not to Ecclesiasticall to be inflicted by the Magistrate 2. Through the corruption of mens nature every one may wink at anothers faults It is true But consider if this slow from the nature of Gods Ordinance to wit that the Citizen obey the Laws of the City whereof he is a member This is an Argument against any Senate Parliament Counsell of State or War or Aristocracy on earth if of an hundreth Lords of the States Generall one or ten play the Traytor to the State who shall take order with them Their Collegues and fellow-Senators Partiall judging falls out here through mens corruption spare thou the nails and I le spare the teeth and from Erastus his way if you Argue from mens corruption the same will follow May not the Magistrate say to the Minister Honour me before the people and Preach not against the sins of King and Court and I will oversee and wink at thy Pluralities non-residencies soul-murthers And may not the Minister say to the Magistrate Let me be above all Civill Laws and be Lord Prelat and sit on the necks of my Brethren and defraud oppresse and I shall be silent and preach nothing against the idolatry oppressions Sodomy uncleannesse of Magistrate and court Erastus The Ceremonially unclean were excluded from the Sacraments Ergo far more the Morally unclean But how saith he doth this follow You Excommunicate none but the obstinate for those that were Ceremonially unclean against their will were excluded from the holy things Ergo far more he that is Morally unclean is to be debarred though he be not obstinate How could Paul Excommunicate the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. he was never admonished or Peter Excommunicate Annanias as you say Ans All Types or comparisons hold only in that for which the spirit of God doth bring them Now the Ceremonially unclean were debarred from
contrary to what they judge in conscience ought to be done So Tell the Church to Erastus is Tell the one individuall single Magistrate who by office may judge without and contrary to the advice of all the Church Pastors Doctors Elders yea people and all Now though we grant that what the Emperour doth as Emperour and the Magistrate as Magistrate hath done that the Empire City and Incorporation doth which yet is never true in the Church which hath no King as a Church save onely the head and King Iesus Christ yet Erastus hath not proved what the Emperour doth without and contrary to the advice of all the Empire that the Empire hath done that Erastus Christ either understandeth by the Church the whole multitude of Ierusalem or then the Magistrates But he understandeth not the multitude 1. Because Christ would not change the Government of heathens farre lesse of that which his Father had appointed in Iudea in which the people did never Governe Yea the Apostles to their death did nothing against Moses his Law and how they take Christ to speak of a Church to be founded of new after his resurrection who beleeved not he should die and rise againe and after his resurrection knew not what a kingdome whether worldly or spirituall he was to â—ave cannot be conceived Ans 1. Many will deny the Major for he understood the rulers of the Christian Church not excluding the consent of the Christian Church of beleevers in the matter of Excommunication 2. I deny that Christ doth here re-establish a Synedry and bid them Tell the Scribes and Pharisees and those that were to crucifie himselfe and to persecute the Apostles to the death Christ knew those to be miserable healers of scandals betweene brother and brother 2. He knew this Sanedrim to be the Disciples of Christs capitall enemies he warned the Disciples to beware of the leaven of their corrupt Doctrine he prophecied this Sanedrim should be destroyed as a degenerated plant that his heavenly father had not planted and was it like Christ would direct them a perishing and degenerate remedie against scandals that he would have removed by his Church even till the end of the world 2. It is most false that the Apostles did keep to death the institutions and ordinances of Moses Act. 15. They abrogated all the ceremoniall Law except that of blood and things strangled and Paul said he that would amongst the Galathians be circumcised was falâ—e from Christ see Col. 2. Gal. 4. Heb. 13. and elsewhere the contrary The Government was now to expire with Christs death and ascension in so farre as it was pedagogicall 3. Christ spake often of his Kingdome to them and they understood nothing but an earthly and temporall Kingdome and that they understood perfectly All this time the Church of Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons beleevers in Christ is denied Let Erastus answer when Christ said Mat. 16. He would build his Church on a rock unpregnable and insuperable to hell If the Apostles understood a Church to be founded after the resurrection and when Christ said Loe I am with you to the end of the world if Christ meant not he would give his presence to the Christian Church not then founded for even after his resurrection they dreamed of an earthly Kingdome Act. 1. and that our divines do rightly expound that place I am with you All the faithfull Pastors Doctors Church-officers and beleevers to the Lords second appearance is clear Erastus Christ bade Tell that Church which hath power to conveene the offender before it examine Witnesses judicially cognosce and give sentence but in Christs time the multitude could not doe this Ans Ergo the Church hath a spirituall judicature This is for uâ— 2. Nor had the Sanedrim the power in all offences as Erastus would make the world beleeve for it was but a shadow at this time void of power and used what power they had against Christ and the Gospel Nor needeth Erastus to prove that by the Church the multitude cannot be understood though he cannot exclude them from their owne part in Church Government both in consenting and in withdrawing from the Excommunicated Erastus But Tell the Church is all one vvith this Appoint some who in the name of the Church may mannage the businesse but how prove they this Then Christ bade Tell the Elders that then were else he did not accommodate himselfe to their understanding to whom he spake when he was to teach hovv our sacrifices pleaseth God be biddeth us first be reconciled to our brother and then sacrifice yet he knevv that sacrifices vvere to be abolished but by Analogie he vvould teach us vvhat he requireth vvhen he saith he vvill have mercy and not sacrifice Ergo by your ovvn confession to tell the Church is to tell the Sanedrim for there vvas then no Church but the multitude Ans 1. Tell the Church cannot in any sense have such a meaning as Appoint Elders and tell them for then Tell the Sanedrim must have this meaning set up a sound Sanedrim according as Moses appointed and tell the Sanedrim The Sanedrim in its right constitution and due power as the Law of Moses required it was not to be had at this time Herod had killed the Sanedrim the Romans made High Priests from yeere to yeere against the institution the power of life and death in the civill Sanedrim was now none at all The Scepter was departed from Iudah those that sate in Moses Chaire corrupted all so the right Sanedrim was no more now to be had then a Christian Church not yet erected Again Tell the Church presupposeth a constituted Church and therefore cannot include a command to erect a new mould 2. Tell the Elders of the Christian Church may as well be meant in these words Tell the Church as the Iewish Church can be understood 3. The word Church and to conveene offenders hear Witnesses give out sentence were all plaine Language to the disciples though they knew not the frame of the Gospell Church as yet Christ being now teaching an ordinance of a Church and the censure of Excommunication that was not to fall under practise while Christ should ascend to heaven and therefore though this Church was not yet it followeth not that the Lord Iesus speaketh of the Sanedrim 4. Say that he meane the Sanedrim Ergo say we he speaketh nothing of the Christian Magistrate 1. Because there was no Magistrate now but Iewish Magistrates as Erastus cannot deny 2. Because this Sanedrim that gained soules of offending brethren was Ecclesiasticall not civill 3. By proportion and Analogie Christ must understand the Church of Christians though the Sanedrim was to be removed shortly Erastus It is a great controversie vvho are to be chosen out of the bodie of the Church to excommunicate judicially Ans The controversie was moved partly by Erastus partly by Morellius not in the reformed Churches Erastus Some say the Magistrate
should chuse the Elders at least at the first even though the Church doe not consent But how can they sit in place of the Church and judge who were against the will and minde of the Church chosen to be Judges for though the Magistrate be a chiefe Member of the Church yet to Tell the Church is not to Tell the Magistrate as you say but to Tell the whole Church and it is no â—xcuse that the Magistrate doth but once chuse the Elders for if hee have no right nor Law from God to doe it he can never doe it and if he have Law from God to doe it he ought alwayes to doe it Ans Here Erastus reasoneth against some Auâ—hor that inclineth to the way of Morellius If there bee no formed Church endued with knowledge and discretion to chuse their owne Elders if there be godly men fit to be chosen they are to convene and chuse from amongst them Elders the godly Magistrate is to joyne his Vote and Power because there is a Church not yet constitute it is now Perturbatus aut corruptus Ecclesiae status and I ever judged it a golden saying of that great Divine Fran. Iunius that when the Magistrate will not concurre the Church in that extraordinary case may doe somewhat which ordinarily they cannot doe and againe when the Church doth not their duty the Magistrate in that case may doe something more then ordinary to cause the Church doe their dutie for its a common Laâ— to ills out of order remedies out of the road way may be applyed So if the Priests and Levites be corrupt Iehoshapaht and Hezekiah and Iosiah may reforme And therefore though the godly Magistrate jure communi by the common Law of Nature imploy his power to appoint Elders all Errors and confusions in the Church are in some measure out of order yet it followeth that jure proprio and ordinarily he should alwayes doe this 2. Elders are not properly Representators of the Church to me while I be better informed for power of feeding and ruling is immediately given by Iesus Christ to the Elders and not by the interveening mediation of the Church but onely by their designation to the office thâ—s power is given by the people 3. The Magistrate as the Magistrate and by vertue of his place is neither a Member farre lesse a chiefe Member of the Church for then all Magistrates should be Members of the Church even Heathen Kings and Rulers which no man can say The Christian Magistrate as a Christian is a Member of the Church But that is nothing to helpe Erastus Erastus Because the multitude can doe nothing in order therefore say they they have power to choose Elders to whom belongeth the power of Excommunication But how prove they this Though a company vvanting a Magistrate have this power shall it follovv that a company to vvhom God hath given a godly Magistrate should have this povver But because confusion vvould follovv therefore Elders are to be chosen Ergo Such Elders as make up your Presbyterie à genere ad speciem affirmativè nulla est consequutio Ans 1. Not only from necessity of eschewing confusion but from the positive Ordinance of God we infer Presbyters we do not own any such consequence Prelaâ—es and Papists argue for a Monarchy in the Church from order we know no creatures of the like frame Erastus is for a Bishop he may so argue not we We finde Christ hath placed such organs in his body as Eph. 4. 11. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 c Act. 6. 1 2 c. and 14. 23. Ergo they ought to be for we think the Church cannot govern it self 2. If the Church wanting a Magistrate as the Apostolick Church did have power to chuse Presbyters and by a Divine Law how dare Erastus say That it followeth not when the Church hath a godly Magistrate she should keep the same power Can the godly Magistrate when he cometh into the Church take any Divine power from the Church Is the Magistrate given to the Church as a Nurse-father to preserve that power that Christ hath given to his Spouse or is he given as a spoiler at noon day to take to himself the power and make the Ambassadors of Christ his Ambassadors and Servants to preach in his Name whereas before when they had no Magistrate Pastors did preach only in the Name of Iesus Christ Erastus Sure the Lord hath concredited to the Magistrate the Command and all power of externall Government so as he hath subjected not only Civill but also Sacred things to his power that he may manage the one according to the Word of God the other according to Iustice and equity which since it is Commanded in the Old Testament and practised by all holy Iudges and Kings and we finde it not changed in the New Testament We justly say that the Church that hath a godly Magistrate cannot by Gods will chuse a new Senate or Presbytery to exercise publikely Iudgement for God hath not armed subjects against their Magistrates Nor hath he Commanded them to take any part of their power from them and give it to others and to subject them to externall Dominion Ans Sure the Lord concredited to the Priest not to King Vzziah to burn incense and to the Priests to rebuke Vzziah and command him to desist and this is no lesse externall Governing of the house of God quoad hoc in this particular then Excommunication for to Excommunication on the Churches part as Excommunication is no more required but that the scandalous and murthering Magistrate should not come to the Table of the Lord or remain in the society and Church-fellowship of the Saints as a Member of the Church Now if the Magistrate obey not the Church as the Church can use no bodily coaction or restraint to hinder the Magistrate to obtrude himself upon the holy things of God though other either fellow-Magistrates or the inferior Magistrates if the party â—xcommunicated be the supream Magistrate or the Parliament may and ought to use their power as Magistrates by the sword to hinder the holy things of God to be prophaned for I think it easie to prove if this were a fit place that inferior Magistrates are essentially Magâ—strates and immediatly subject to the King of Kings for the due use of the sword as the supream Magistrate or King And therefore there is no more externall dominion used in Excommunicating a bloody and scandalous Magistrate then in rebuking and threatning him Now Erastus granteth That Pastors may rebuke and threaten according to the Word of the Lord even Magistrates and Kings 2. If because Iudges in the Old Testament as Eli and Samuel Sacrificed and we finde this not changed in the New and nothing extraordinary in this Ministers in the New Testâ—ment may do the same Then the Iustice of Peace and Mayors of Cities and every constable may by vertue of
saith he But the Magistrate himselfe is the apostate the heretick the idolater 2. He that may debarre from the seals may admit to the seals he that may do both Ex Officio is the formall dispenser of the seals by office that the Magistrate is not He that may put out or take in into the house by supream power is the Lord of the house He who by office may admit some to the Table and debarre other some is the Steward But the Magistrate is neither the lord of the Church nor the steward of the house by office We do not hold this consequence the Lord commanded ill doers to be killed Ergo He ordained in that same commandement that they be Excommunicated Nor do we say all those who were to be Excommunicated were to be killed as Erastus saith Nor that Excommunication in the New Testament succeedeth in place of killing in the Old Testament we see no light of Scripture going before us in these Erastus It is a wonder that you say that the godly Magistrate doth procure the externall Peace of the Common-wealth but not the salvation of the subjects that the Presbyters do only care for Ans The Sword is no intrinsecall mean of the saving of any mans soul It is true the godly Magistrate may procure a godly life but as a cause removens impedimentum removing idolatry heresie wolves and false teachers from the flock and commanding under the paine of the Sword that Pastors do their duty But Christ ascending on high gave Pastors and Teachers to gather a Church but not Magistrates armed with the Sword Erastus The Magistrates Sword is a most efficacious mean to bring men to the knowledge of God nothing more effectuall then affliction and the crosse when right teaching is joyned therewith examples teach us that in danger of death men have seriously turned to God who before could be moved by no exhortations But you say all die not in the Lord nor repent nor say I do they all die in the Lord who are taken away by diseases or are excommunicated yea Excommunication maketh many hypocrites Ans 1. Erastus here extolleth the Sword of the Magistrate as a more effectuall mean to salvation then exhortations or the Gospel But I read that Pastors are the Ministers by whom we beleeve and that they are workers with God and fellow-builders and Fathers to convert edifie to salvation and beget men over again to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 5 9. 1 Cor. 2. 4 15. Ambassadors of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Friends of the Bridgroome 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ioh. 3. 29. Angels Rev. 2. 1. But I never read any such thing of the Magistrate and that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. The arme of the Lord Esay 53. 1. Sharper then a two edged sword lively and mighty in operation Heb. 4. 12. You never read any such thing of the Sword of the Magistrate the rest are before answered Erastus Some may be changed in a moment as the publican Luke 18. Zâ—cheus The repenting woman Luke 7. If therefore they professe repentance they are not to be debarred from the Lords supper Ans Put it in forme thus Those who may be changed and translated from darknesse to light in a moment and say that they repent are to be admitted to the Lords supper I assume But doggs and swine and doggish and furious persecutors who are to be debarred from the Sacraments As Erastus saith pag. 207. may be changed in a moment and say they repent Ergo those are to be admitted to the Sacraments who are not to be admitted to the Sacraments let Erastus prove the Major proposition 2. We finde no such sudden change in the Publican Zacheus or the repenting woman as Erastus seemeth to insinuate 3. Christ who knoweth the heart and can change men in a moment can at first welcome persons suddenly converted Ergo Must the stewards and dispensers of the mysteries upon a may be or a may not be reach the pearls of the Gospel to doggs and swine whom they see to be such It is a wide consequence He that bringeth his gift to the Alter may in a moment be changed Ergo He should not leave his gift at the Altar and go and first be reconciled to his brother He is presently without more adoe to offer his gift his heart is straighted in a moment if we beleeve Erastus But the rather of this that the man is in a moment changed He is to be debarred least his scandalous approaching to use the holy things of God make the work of conversion suspitious to others 4. This argument presupposeth that unvisible conversion giveth a man right in foro Ecclesiâ— in the Churches court to the seals of the Covenant and so there should be no need of externall profession at all which is absurd Erastus Shall not then idolaters and apostates be debarred as wâ— saith he deny an idolater and an apostate to be a Member of thâ— Church of Christ so we thinke the man that defendeth his wickednesse is not to be reckoned amongst the Members of the Church Anâ— as we think the former are to be banished out of the society of Christians so we think the latter are not to be suffered in that society Ans The Idolater that maketh defection and the apostate were once Members of the Church what hath made them now no Members Who should judge them and cast them out the Magistrate I answer there is no Christian Magistrate If the Church must do it here truly is all granted by Erastus that he hath disputed against in six books even this very Excommunication But if there be a Christian Magistrate what Scripture is there to warrant that he should cast out a Member out of Christs body Here is an Excommunication without precept promise or practise in the word we read that the Church of Corinth congregated together hath a command to judge and cast out a scandalous Member 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 11 12 13. out from amongst the midst of them Let Erastus say as much from the New Testament for his Magistraticall casting ouâ— 2. What reason is there by Erastus his way for casting out an idolater and a man that defendeth his owne wickednesse 1. May not God convert those suddenly as he did the thiefe on the crosse and Saul Ergo They should not be cast out 2. The Magistrate cannot more cut off those from being Members of Christs body then he can remove their faith and internall communion with Christ Now for this cause Erastus saith the Church cannot Excommunicate pag. 1. 2 Thess 3. and 4. 3. Christ and the Apostles did neither cast out Iudas nor Scribes Pharisees or Publicans out of the Church though they were worse then idolaters 4. No helps of salvation are to be denied even to idolaters and to men that defend their owne wickednesse but their remaining in the Church amongst the godly is a helpe of their salvation
till we all meet in the Vnity of the Spirit and the knowledge of the son of God unto a perfect man Eph. 4. Now neither in that place nor in any other place did Christ give a Magistrate for the edifying his Body the Church but only those that are but his Delegates Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers iâ— the Magistrate be the only Governour of the Church and he who sendeth into the Vineyard those who edifie the Body the King should have been first in this Role as the only supream gatherer edifier and builder of the Church It cannot be said The Ruling Elder then because he is omitted here should not be the gift of Christ given to Edifiâ— the Church and by this it must be denied that the King the Nurse father of the Church who is to take care that the Children be fed with the sincere milk of the Word is given of God to edfâ—ie the Church because he is not nameâ— here Ans Our Divines as Calvin Beza Marlorate do strongly gather from this place that because the Pope pretended to be the Catholick edifier of the Church is not here in this Text nor in any other scripture that therefore he is not the head of the Church and the King being pretended to be the only eminent gatherer of the Church and Supream Governour in all Causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall he should especially have been set down here he being a mixed person and more then half a Church-officer in the minde of the Adversary And there was no colour of reason why the supream and only Head and principall Governour of the Church should be omitted at least the Magistrate should be in some other Scripture as the only Church Governor seeing the Adversaries make Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons only the Delegates and Servants of the Magistrate 1. As God calleth the King to governe the people by the free election of the people so if the Magistrate be called of God to teach and govern the Church this calling of his should be in the Scripture as his calling to the Throne or Bench is Deut. 17. 14. 15 c. 1. 15 16. Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1 2. But in neither the Old nor the New Testament finde we any Prince or Ruler separated for the holy things of God to be ` Priest Apostle Pastor Prophet Teacher by vertue of his office as if he were a mixed person as the Adversarie say No David is called to Sacrifice no Constantine to preach and Administrate the Sacraments by vertue of the Magistrates place 2. If any Reply that the Christian Magistrate is a means ordained for that spirituall end the gathering and edifying the Church in regard the keepeth not only the second Table of the Law and so promoteth not only the Temporall good of the State in promoting mercy and Justice only but also in procuring spirituall good to the people in preserving the first Table of the Law I Answer That the Christian Magistrate doth both but 1. Not directly by being the intrinsecall means in actibus elicitis in elicite and intrinsecall acts promoting edification in both Tables of the Law of which the Scripture speaketh Eph. 4 11. but a far other way 1. In imperated and commanded acts extrinsecally as he doth command with the sword for Peaces cause in all callingâ— in sailing trading painting c. promoting it by carnall means by the sword which belongeth not to the officers of Christs Kingdom 2. Not necessarily as the Pastors and Elders without which Christ hath no externall visible Kingdom on earth whereas he hath had often hath a compleat flourishing externall visible Kingdom without Magistrates yea where Magistrates have been open enemies to the Gospel 3. Not directly the Magistrate doth this but in so far as he admitteth as Triglandius saith the Church of Christ within his State which he may and often doth refuse to do and yet be a compleat Magistrate and therefore the Magistrate may two wayes procure the spirituall good of the Church 1. By procuring that the Nurses give good and wholesome milk to the Church 2. Permodum removent is prohibens which is also a cause for he may save the flock from great temptations when by his sword he driveth away the Wolves from the flock But not any of these bringeth the Magistrate within the lisâ— of the number of these intrinsecall 2. Necessary 3. Spirituall gifts which Christ ascending on high gave for the Edifying of his Body the Church Two powers so different as spirituall and temporall 2. As powers carnall of this world and spirituall not of this world And 3. Both immediatly subject the one to God the creator the other to Christ the Redeemer and Head of the Church and so co-ordinate and supream both of them in their own kinde cannot be so subordinate as the temporall should be the supream in the same kinde the spirituall the inferiour and subordinate But these two powers are so different as spirituall and temporall carnall of this world spirituall not of this world the one subject as supream immediatly to God creator the other supream immediately subject to God the redeemer Ergo Those powers of Governing are not so subordinate as the Temporall should be supream the spirituall subordinate to it The Major is undeniable for it involveth a contradiction that two supreame co-ordinate powers should be two not Supreame but subornidate powers The same way I prove the Assumption 1. The Magistrates power is supreame from God Rom. 13. 1. The Powers that are be of God Prov. 8. By me Kings reigne for no Ecclesiasticall power nor any power on earth interveenes between God the Creator and the power of the civill Magistrates But God who giveth being to a society of men hoc ipso because they are a society of reasonable men hath given to them a power immediately from himselfe to designe such and such to be their Rulers Shew us any higher power above the Magistrates but God the creator making the civill power Never man dreamt that the Spirituall power of the Church doth interveen as an instrumentall cause of the politick power 2. By order of nature a politick power is first men are first men in naturall and politick society ere they be in a supernaturall pollicy or a Church and Christ did not make a spirituall power by the intervention of a civill power 2. The power of the two Kingdoms are distinguished by Christ Iohn 18. 36. Iesus answered my Kingdome is not of this World then the power thereof is not of this World if my Kingdome were of this World then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iewes The one power is coactive by the Sword the other free voluntary by the Word Erastus had no reason to infer thence that Christs Kingdome is onely internall and invisible not externall and visible because Christ opposeth his Kingdom to a fighting Kingdom using the sword to defend him from
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian
the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are â—què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should â—ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we
sinfully separate the one from the other and sin is no ordinance of God 4. What word of Christ hath Mr. Pryn for extraordinary conversion of men by Miracles without the Word He must conceive with Arminians and Socinians that many are converted that never heard of that precious name of Iesus without which there is no salvation Act. 4. 11. or of a faith in Christ as Moses Amyraldus dreameth without the knowledge of Christ and may write books de salute Ethnicorum for this externall conversion doth lead of its owne nature to internall conversion and salvation This may make us fancie somewhat of the salvation of Aristotle Seneca Cicero Aristides Scipio Regulus without the Law or Gospell this way of extraordinarily saving men by Miracles without the Gospell is the doctrine of Arminians and Socinians so say the Arminians at the Synod of Dort pag. 334 335. Those whom God hath deprived of the Gospell he hath not precisely rejected them from a communion of the benefits of the Gospell Adolphus Venator adver Dracenos p. 84. saith The heathen are saved without the Gospell if they â—â—n but pray Ens Entium miserere mei Socinus praelec Thelo c. 3. telleth us of an inspired word that saveth us called verbum interius You may please Schoolmen thus such as Granadus Contr. 8. de grat tract 6. disp 1. numb 43. did Ruiz de Predesti se 8. numb 7. Alexand. Alens 8. p. q. 69. memb 5. art 3. De bonis Philosophis sic credo c. Roa lib. 1. De Provident quest 7. n. 50. Vega lib. 13. in Trident. cap. 12. Enriquez Tom. 2. De ultimo fine c. 14. num 6. quod lib. 8. quest 5. Vasquez 1. par disp 97. and c. 5. Soto lib. 1. de nat grat c. 18. ad 2. Francis Sonnius in demonstrat Tract 12. de consiliis c. 8. Camerarius lib. 1. de grat c. 8. lib. 7. c. 8. who doe all of them send all the good Philosophers and white Morallists to heaven by Miracles inspirations extraordinary workes of providence and that without any rumour of Christ and the Gospell famous Papists to their owne shame yeeld that Divine faith cannot be produced by Miracles Andradius saith often they may be false Maldonatus saith That no necessary argument of faith can be drawn from Miracles Gregorius de Valen. saith Miracles give us no infallible certainty of Doctrine Bellarmine saith Miracles cannot convince the minde Durandus giveth a sure reason why miracles cannot produce faith Because saith he suppose it were known of it self that this miracle of the raising e. g. of Lazarus were true yet it is not known by it self that it testifieth that this is a true Doctrine which he preacheth who worketh the miracle Mr. Prynne then hath put the salvation of those who never heard the Gospel upon extraordinary Pillars when he bottometh them on miracles without the word which are extraordinary rotten Pillars 5. The Lords Supper of which we now dispute is not the mean of our first conversion from formall profession to inward embracing the Gospel For the word must go before and not simply the externall letter of the word but the word first believed and received by the efficacions working of the holy Ghost And so the word is indeed the first converting Ordinance and so the Lords Supper is given to one who already believes and the Sacrament concurreth as a mean to make good corroborate and increase the conversion which was before Mr. Prynne might have spared his pains in proving That the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance because it applieth Christ â—o uâ— we grant it to be a converting and quickning and lively applicatory Ordinance But how He may know that what ever Ordinance addeth a new degree of Faith of conversion of saving application of Christ and the Promises must be a converting Ordinance But it is so converting that it is a confirming Ordinance and necessarily it presupposeth Faith and conversion already wrought by the word it is not a first-converting Ordinance such as is the word but as nourishing or accretion is a sort of vitall generation in the body of a growing childe so as Physicians make nutrition in children to be Aggeneration or Congeneration or a vitall generation with or in the body and it presupposeth the first generation by which life is given to the childe now nourishing doth not give life things void of life are not capable of nourishing therefore nourishing is the continuing of life and as it were prorogated and continued generation so here Sacramentall eating by faith is a spirituall feeding and nourishing of the soul on the crucified Lords body broken his blood shed it is not the act of our first conversion Regeneration is sealed in Baptisme and Christ given as sealing and confirming Regeneration but the Lords Supper is that which exhibiteth Christ to us as food and sealeth our spirituall growing and coalition in Christ I say not this as if the Church could give the Supper of the Lord to none but such as are inwardly and really Regenerated but to shew that the Church taketh such as are externally called to be internally called when they dispense this Supper to them that they are nearer Christ then those that hear the Gospel which Heathen may do ere they can be admitted to the Supper And this Erast every where and Mr. Pryn in terminis teach when they say That those that are recte instituti rightly instructed who earnestly desire the Lords Supper professe sincere Repentance and promise amendment are only to be admitted to the Sacrament and those only excluded who are convicted to be grosse and scandalous and obstinate offenders Whence it is clear they professe Repentance and to the Church they are converts who are to be admitted to the Supper before they come to the Lords Supper Now this must be done by the word Preached and received by faith in profession Ergo this Supper in the Church-way cannot be dreamt to be a mean of their first conversion far lesse in foro Dei in Gods court can men first receive the Lords Supper having never heard the word and then be converted in foro Dei really and inwardly by receiving the Lords Supper then might the Sacrament before and without the word be given if it be a converting Ordinance belonging to all to whom the word belongeth For Mr. Prynne saith It can be denyed to none within the visible Church And what reason if it be no lesse the first converting Ordinance but that it may be administred to those that never heard the word and are Members of the visible Church And by this Mr. Prynne cannot deny but the Lords Supper should be dispensed to infants and children who cannot try themselves nor yet discern the Lords Body Yea those that are convicted of obstinacy in scandalous sins are Members of the Church for how could they be judged convicted and sentenced if they be not within
not subordinate to the Ministers of the Gospel as Ministers far lesse to the Magistrate as the Magistrate because it dependeth upon none on earth Minister or Magistrate but the only good pleasure of him who when he ascended to heaven gave gifts unto men that there is such an office as Minister Pastor or teacher And the Church cannot create a new office of a Prelate because of its nature it tendeth to a supernaturall end the governing of Christs body in a way to life eternall purchased by Christ Now the question in this sense whether the power of the Ministery be subordinate to the Magistrate in its constitution it is alike in its subordination to Magistrate and Minister certain it is subordinate to neither Other lawfull and profitable offices and Arts are from God mediately possibly by the intervening acts of rationall nature though Magistracy be from God Rom. 13. 1. yet it would seeme God by the naturall reason of men might devise and constitute the very office of Magistracy in abstracto and the Art of sayling painting c. yet is there no subjection of power to power here by way of dominion Hence the question must be of the subordination of the power quoad exercitium whether Ministers in the exercising of their Ministeriall calling be subordinate to the Magistrate as the Magistrate 5. Dist A judge is one thing and a just judge another thing so here are we to distinguish between a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate As 1. a husband is one thing and a Christian husband another thing a Captaine is one thing and a Christian and a beleeving Centurion or Captain such as Cornelius Acts 10. is another a Physitian is one thing and a gracious Physitian is another thing sure a heathen Husband hath the same jus Maritale the same Husband power in regard of Marriage union that a Christian and beleeving Husband hath 2. A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate may be one and the same Magistrate with one and the same Magistraticall power as being first heathen Magistrate as Sergius Paulus Act. 13. 7 12. and there after converted to the faith Paulus was no lesse a civill Deputie when Heathen then when Christian and not more a Deputy as touching the essence of a Magistrate when a Christian beleever then he was before when a Heathen yet to be a Magistrate and to be a beleeving Magistrate are two different things even as Christianity is a noble ornament and a gracious accident and to be a Magistrate is as it were the Subject even as a man and the accidents of the man are two different things 6. There be two things here considerable in the Magistrates office 1. There is his jus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistraticall power or the authority officiall the power of office to beare the sword 2. There is aptitudo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speciall heavenly grace of well governing this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift or grace of God to use that power for Christ These two make one Christian husband one Christian captain Physitian Master in relation to to the wife souldiers sick servants Now the Magistrate heathen as Magistrate even Nero when the Church of God is in his court and dominions hath the same jus the same Authority and Officiall power to be a keeper of both Tables of the Law and to defend the Gospell and to command the Preachers and Synods to fulfill their charge and to see that the officers doe their dutie and to punish dumbe dogs Idolaters excommunicated persons to drive away with the sword false Teachers from the flock he hath I say the same Magistraticall power while he is a Heatheâ— and when he is converted to the Christian faith and he is equally head of men that professe Christ when Heathenish as when Christian but in neither States is he the Head of the body the Church and you give not to Cesar the things that are Cesars if you make converted Nero because a Magistrate now the head of the Church and deny non-converted and heathenish Nero to be the Head of the Church for he is a Magistrate with compleat power of the Sword in the one case as in the other that he neither doth nor can use the sword for the Church it is from Nero his state of infidelity that he is in as a man and not the fault of his office for when Paul saith the Husband is the head of the Wife doth hee meane a Christian husband onely and exclude all heathen Husbands No for then the wife were not to be subject to the Husband if a Heathen and an unbeleever which is against Pauls mind 1 Cor. 7. and the Law of Nature But the converted Magistrate who was before a heathen Magistrate hath a new aptitude faculâ—y and grace to keep both Tables of the Law and to govern in a civill way and indirectly the affaires of Christs Kingdome Hence the adversaries clearly contradict themselves by confounding those two a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate one while they give supream power over the Church to the Magistrate as the Magistrate sometime to the Magistrate as Christian So Vtenbogard in his book De officio authoritate supremi Magistratus Christiani in rebus Ecclesiasticis p. 7. and p. 8. hoc addo ut intelligatur Magistratum cum religioneÌ„ Christianam amplectitur non acquirere novam authoritatem sed quod eam authoritatem quam ante etiam in rebus religiâ—nis â—ultus divini habebat authoritateÌ„ rectè utitur If the Magistrate when he becommeth a Christian acquireth no new authority as a Magistrate but onely useth well his old Authority in matters of Religion and of Gods worship which he had before while he was Heathen as he saith then the Heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate hath a supreame power in Church matters and yet in the same place he draweth the state of the question to a Christian Magistrate De solo Christiano Magistratu acturus The Arminians in their Apologie fol. 297. as saith their Declaration speake onely of the Christian Magistrate and yet page 298. potestati enim supremae sive Architectonicae qua potestas suprema est jus hoc ut competat ratio ordinis sive boni Regiminis natura sua postulat si Magistratui qua tali jus hoo competit â—rgo multo magis competit Magistratui Christiano Sure if the Magistrate in generall and as the Magistrate have a supream Authority in the Government of the Church such as the Adversaries contend for then the Christian Magistrate farre more must be Head of the Church and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be supreame Governour and judge in all Ecclesiasticall causes and in these same causes he must not be Iudge as a Magistrate but as a Christian Nor can they make a Christian Magistrate à medium per participationem utriusque extremi a middle betweene a Magistrate and a Christian 1. For where is there such an
skill'd Physitian forbiddeth him to drink wine the King is to obey him as a Physitian by vertue of the sixth command as the King would not kill himselfe And yet by vertue of the fifth command the Physitian being the Kings subject is subject to the Laws of the King The Queen of Scotland as a wife was to be subject to her Husband in the Lord as the Word of God commandeth Ephes 5. 22. and her owne Husband not being King but a subject was to obey his Wife the Princes and supream Magistrate according to the Word of God Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Tit. 3. 1. Yea all Arts have a sort of collaterall and co-equall dignity and we are to believe a skilled Artist in his owne Art though this Artist be a servant a vassal a slave to those who do yeild to him in his owne Art CHAP. XXV Quest 21. Objections touching the subordinations of Magistrate and Church removed THere is nothing more hated by the Adversaries then the pretended emulation of those two superlatives and highest powers Some Object 1. Are not all powers on earth subject to the Magistrate Ministers of the Gospel not excepted doth not the Magistrate command the Pastors to preach the Word Ans All power deviating offensively and to the disturbance of societies in Morals is subject to the Civill power and the Sword and every power failing against the Law and Gospel within the bosome of the Church is subject to the Word of God in the mouth of the Ministers who are nothing but Servants and Heralds so that the subjection is to God not to the Church and in a spirituall and Ecclesiasticall way See P. Martyr Lo. Com. l. 4. c. 13. seq It s but a poor evasion of Vedelius to say That the Magistrate is subject to the Church Catachrestice abusive unproperly and abusively 1. Because the Ministers as the Ambassadors of Christ do properly and not abusively preach the Gospel to Magistrates 2. Magistrates are not unproperly the sheepe of Christ yea they are to the adversaries chief Members of the Church Ergo they are that way subject as other Members as Pareus saith Com. Rom. 13. Nor 3. Will that prove any thing that the Pastors are Ministers not Lords for to people and Prince as they have souls to be saved they are Ministers and by this people should abusively be subiect as well as Magistrates But Vedelius freeth Magistrates from subjection to Pastors because they are subject to the Word of God not to Pastors but so are the people subject also the same way Obj. 2. Then may the Church censure all sinnes even those that are most proper to the civill judge such as sorcery parricide sodomie for the which the Magistrate is to draw the sword and for which the Lord made the land to cast out seven great Nations Ans The case is one within the Church and another without the Church 2. It is one in the case of a confused or backsâ—â—ding Church another in the Church rightly constitute and pure without the Church God intendeth nothing either in the intention of the worker or the work but the externall peace of humane society Then I grant the Magistrate is at the first without any previous labours of religious men to save the soul of the offender to take care of peace and the conservation of humane society But within the visible Church where the Gospel is preached it is presumed that God intendeth salvation in regard of the intention of the work the Gospel being preached to all within the visible Church if therefore any within the visible Church fall in horrible scandals and such as are capitall in the intention of Gods dispensation without the Church God intendeth nothing but peace But in regard of the intention of Gods dispensation within the Church where the Gospel is preached he intendeth both peace by the godly Magistrates care and eternall life by the preaching of the Gospel Because therefore life eternall is more necessary then externall peace it is necessary that the Church first labour to try cognosce of and cure the mans soul by rebukes threats conviction and if need be by excommunication that the souls of many may be saved from the contagion of scandal before the Magistrate punish either to death if the scandal so deserve or by any coactive way by the sword the genuine fruit whereof is not repentance and gaining of the mans soul except by accident and through the co-operation of a higher hand above nature even of free grace but the externall peace of the common-wealth hence in a constitute Church the Magistrate is not to proceed with the sword against the body of any Member of the Church while the Church first try and attempt how to save his soul therefore the Magistrate is to sentence none as punishable by the sword while first he be laboured on by the Church and upon a previous sentence of the Church then must the Magistrates judging of a scandalous Church-member be subsequent and the Churches judging antecedent But 2. If the Church be remisse this is a defect and somewhat extraordinary if the Magistrate command the Church to do their duty and they neglect to do it the Magistrates cognizance then may be antecedent and not consequent and the case of a Church erring in a fact is as if in that fact there were no Church Obj. 3. Those are subordinate to the Church whose judgement and sentences are subjected to the Church to be tryed or condemned by the Church but the judgement and sentences of the Magistrate are subjected to the Church Ergo and by the like they prove Pastors to be subjected to the Civill Magistrate because their preaching their dispensing of the seals their sentences in their Presbytery are subjected to the Magistrate so as he may absolve or condemne Ans Vedelius shall never prove the Major as touching the subjection or subordination in question he is subject to the Magistrate whose sentence or judgement is subject in an antecedent cognizance and in a coactive corporall way it is true But now the assumption is false in a constitute Church the sentence or thing sentenced or judged by the Church is subject to the Magistrate in a subsequent cognizance and in a corporall coactive way only But not in an antecedent cognizance and by a way of Ecclesiasticall censuring we acknowledge a subordination of the Churches sentence to the Magistrate in regard of the Magistrates externall care to punish iniquity in any not in regard of intrinsecall judging and dealing with the conscience the Church is to give a reason of their sentence from the Word of God to the Magistrate when he demandeth it Obj. 4. Ministers as Ministers are subjects of the King Ergo the King judgeth them as Ministers Ans I deny the antecedent The Ministery as such is an Ordinance of God and cannot be judged nor are Ministers nor Painters as Painters nor Musitians as Musitians nor Saylors
as Saylors subjects these reduplications be consening and deceiving notions painters as painters are regulated by Art subject to be judged by painters but as men they are subjects so are Ministers as men subject to Cesar as Ministers they are the servants of Christ not subjects Ob. As Ministers they are either Magistrates or subjects but Ministers as Ministers are not Magistrates He that is not with Christ is against him M. Coleman in his Brotherly examination p. 21. saith He that doth not manage his office under Christ and for Christ must manage it under the Devil and for the Devil if therefore the Christian Magistrate do not manage his office under and for Christ he must manage it under or for the Devil which were blasphemous Ans I deny the Major proposition Ministers as Ministers are neither Magistrates nor subjects but formally the separated servants of Christ set a part for the work of gathering the Saints Now to be subjects is to be judged by the Magistrate in those things in which they are subjects that is in all Civill businesse they are and false teaching discerned by the Church to be false teaching or in case the Church corrupt themselves then are Ministers obnoxions to bodily punishment to be inflicted by the Magistrate But this is properly to be a subject of the Magistrate to be lyable to the civill cognizance trying and bodily punishment inflicted by the Magistrate and to be a subject and a member of the other Kingdome is to be subject to the Ecclesiasticall cognizance tryall and censure of the Church as a matter that concerneth the soul hence the former concerneth the body and outward man the latter the inner man and the soul 2. The former concerneth peace with men and edification to be procured by a mean extrinsecall to edification to wit by the sword the latter concerneth peace with God by a spirituall sword the Word of God 3. The former is carnall and of the Kingdome of this world the latter spirituall and of Christs other Kingdome that is not of this world Ioh. 18. 36. 4. The former worketh by coaction and bodily violence the latter by removing unwillingnesse and making a rebellious soul obedient 5. The former is an act of justice not terminated on repentance or the mans turning to God as an end for whether this end be obtained or no the Magistrate is to use the sword the other is terminated on repentance as its end He that is not with Christ is against Christ and with the Devil It s true in all professors of the Gospel as professors no man but he must be either on the one side or on the other either for or with Christ or against him But it is not true with every reduplication thus Ministers as Ministers are subjects of or to the King and to obey him in the Lord and so with Christ hath this sense Ministers essentially and formally are subjects of or to the King to obey him in the Lord so as Ministers do lose the essence and formality of the office of the Ministery if they be not the Kings subjects and with Christ this is most false for Iudas should not be a Minister of Christ then in that he was not subject to the Law of Cesar that is that the servant and disciple should be for and under his master and Lord it only followeth Ergo Iudas was not a godly Minister but under the Devil not under Christ Magistrates do neither essentially as Magistrates cleave to Christ nor â—ight against Christ but as holy men they cleave to Christ as sinfull men they fight against Christ 2. Master Coleman knoweth that we speak of the office of a Magistrate as a Magistrate not under the accidents of Christian or heathenish there was no reason he should apply his Argument to the Parliament except to make us odious as if we did not as much honour or pray for the Parliament and King as himselfe But it concludeth equally against all Magistrates and let him see it in a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth either manage his office under Christ and for Christ or under the Devil and for the Devil This I and Master Coleman also shall deny for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth not manage his office under or for Christ as mediator because he is utterly ignorant of Christ for he hath no more but what God as creator and nature gave him saith Master Coleman pag. 20. and the other horne of the Argument is as weak for this The heathen Magistrate as such manageth his office under or for the Devil is blasphemous for so Magistracy and the office should be intrinsecally unlawfull and for the Devil But it is intrinsecally the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. and apply this to God as creator it shall appear of force The Magistrate as the Magistrate doth either manage his office under and for God creator or under and for the Devil The former part is true because God creator and nature made the office of Magistracy apply it to a heathenish husband Father Master Musitian Painter under these reduplications and it shall make the relation of Husband Devilish or this proposition a Husband a Father as a Father and a Husband manage their office under and for Christ the mediator or under or for the Devil is most false and blasphemous the former part is false for there should have been and was Father and Husband which did manage the duties of these relations for God creator not for Christ mediator though Christ had never taken on our nature never been mediator never been King and Priest of his redeemed Church The latter part is blasphemous for then Adam had managed the part of Husband and Father under the Devil and for the Devil even before he fell in sinne and in the state of Innocency 3. Mr. Colemans meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate and by office is under Christ mediator as his supream and immediate vicegerent as mediator now in this sense Christs saying he that is not against us is with us shall not prove the truth of the proposition which must be this and is most false to wit that The Magistrate as the Magistrate by office is either under Christ mediator as the supream and immediate vicegerent of him as mediator or he is by office under the Devil This we deny for one might argue thus of the Apostle Paul who was either as an Apostle for Christ or against Christ Paul as an Apostle is either under Christ the mediator and his supream and immediate vicegerent having power of both Swords or he is under the Devil The proposition is most false for Paul is neither of them so say we here the Magistrate doth neither manage his office as a Magistrate under Christ mediator as his Vicar and a little head of the Church nor yet doth the Magistrate manage his office under or for the
to the Iewes if it were a matter of wrong and wicked lewdnes O yee Iewes reason were that I should bear with you 15. But if it be a question of words and names and of your Law looke yee to it for I will be no judge of such matters Ergo to the Romans all the blasphemies of the Iewish law was not a matter of wicked lewdnesse nor of death Now the story is clear they were seeking Pauls life and for names and words the Iewes should not reach Paul nor move the Romans to put to death a Roman except they could prove sedition or treason against him and Acts 25. Festus saith to Agrippa That the Priests and Elders desired to have judgement against Paul 18. But against him they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed 19. But had certain questions against him of their owne Superstition and of one Iesus who was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive Here it is clear all are but words nothing worthy of death which the Iewes chiefly intended therefore they accuse him of treason as we may collect from Pauls Apologie Acts 25. 8. Neither against the Law of the Iewes neither against the Temple nor yet against Cesar have I offended any thing at all Therefore Act. 24. Tertullus a witty man burdeneth Paul with that which might cost him his head v. 5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition amongst all the Iewes throughout all the world see Acts 21. 38. of all which though blasphemy according to the Iewish Law was something yet sedition to the Romans who only now had power of Pauls life was all and some and when the Deputies counted so little of Religion the Iews knew sedition and treason against Cesar behooved to do the turn and Paul seeing they pursued him for his life appealed to Cesar to be judged in that Now except the adversaries prove that Paul referred the resurrection of Iesus and of the dead and his preaching Christ and the abolishing of sacrifices the Temple the Ceremoniall Law to be judicially determined by Nero as by the head of the Church they prove nothing against us Hence their chiefe argument is soone answered in what cause Paul was accused of the Iews in that he appealed to Cesar But he was accused not for his sedition but for his Doctrine Act. 26. 18. Ergo Paul appealed to Cesar in the cause of Doctrine not of sedition For 1. The Major is dubious for in what cause he was accused of his head which was the intent of the Iews in that he appealed true but in what cause he was accused in all and every Article of the points of his accusation and challenge I deny that for as touching doctrinals and his being judged by a lawfull Church and rightly constituted he appealed neither from the Sanedrim nor from Festus but declined Festus nor in these did he appeal to Cesar he only appealed in all cases which might concern his head and blood 2. The assumption is false for he was accused of sedition as is evident from Act. 25. 8. and 24. 5. 3. Though the Priests and Elders were most corrupt men yet that they believed that Cesar or bloody Nero his lips should preserve knowledge and that the Law should be sought from the mouth of Nero as the head of the Church can never be proved which must be proved to justifie Pauls appeal in the tearms of the adversary Obj. But may not Nero accuse Paul that he dare preach his Iesus Christ in the Emperours dominions Ans If his dominions be the Christian Churches conquered by his sword he may accuse as he conquered that is he may oppresse the consciences of men in accusing as he oppressed them in their bodies and liberties in the conquering of them But he may not as a conquerour accuse them for their conscience he may if he conquer those that worship Sathan cause instruct them in all meeknesse and lenity But this he doth by the sword as a Christian ruler to inlarge the dominions of Christ for when â—â— conquereth their bodies it is not to be thought that he conquereth their souls or acquireth any new dominion over their consâ—iâ—nces But though he do as a Magistrate command them to be instructed I doubt if he have a negative voice in imposing any Religion that he will though they be heathens though some learned Divines say be have a definitive voice in setting up what Religion he will or tollerating it I conceive though he have a definitive voyce in erecting the only true Religion in his heathenish dominions when there be no Ministers of the Gospel there yet not for any false Religions that being of perpetuall truth God never gave authority or power of the sword to do ill ad malum non est potestas what other things Videlius and Vtenbogard have on the contrary are answered Hence we ask 1. If the intrinsecall end of judging and censuring Ecclesiastically be not the inlightning of the mind the gaining of souls and if Nero or Christian or Heathen Magistrates be appointed for that spirituall end 2. If Paul aymed to refer the judging of the Gospel to Nero 3. If Paul knowing the Sanedrim sought his blood not the gaining of his soul might not appeal to the Magistrate to save his life 4. If it was not the Law of natures dictate in Paul so to do and not any positive constitution of the Magistrates Headship over the Church and Gospel 5. If the Ecclesiasticall judicature will swell without its sphere of activity to dispose of the life and blood of the Saints if then the state of the question be not changed and if then it be not lawfull to appeal and decline and provoke to the civill Magistrate 4. Moreover Paul appealed not to Cesar in ordine ad censuram auâ— penâ—m Ecclesiasticam in order to a Church censure as if he thought Cesar should principally excommunicate and cast him out of the â—ynagogue or judge him in an Ecclesiasticall way whether he had done or preached against the Temple and Law of Moses or not which must be proved if the adversaries will prove a proper appeal from the Church to the Prince which is now our question All this which is our mind is well explained by our Countryman Ioh. Camero prelectio in Mat. 18. 15. p. 151. Christiani principes sunt precipui in Ecclesia in sensu diviso sunt precipui et sunt in Ecclesia non in sensu conjuncto non sunt precâ—pui Ecclesiastici Non enim obtinent principes directe authoritatem Ecclesiasticam sed indirectè non quod velimus ulla in causa ullum eximi jurisdictione principis sed quia ejus jurisdictio non nisi per media Ecclesiastica pertinet ad conscientiam nempe princeps non predicat Evangelium non ligat et solvit peceatores at de officio principis est dare operam ut sint qui predicent Evangelium ut sint qui ligent
give but doe not grant that they are not unlawfull but indifferent 2. Though to take wages be lawfull yet it followeth not that it is not in Pauls caâ—e at Corinth of it selfe scandalous for to eat all meates is lawfull Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 10. 23. All things are lawfull v. 26. The earth is the Lords yet to eat before the weake was in it selfe scandalous Rom. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 10. 28. 29. 3. It is a most weake reason to prove that to take wages was not scandalous because forâ—ooth the Corinthians should not have been scandalized for to be scandalized is to sinne and there is no reason in sinning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be good adulterie and murther in David is not of it selfe scandalous for as no man hath reason to sinne so no man hath reason to be scandalized at Davids sinne Pauls taking wages at Corinth should have been a sinfull hindering of the Gospels progresse and therefore of it self sinfull and so of it selfe scandalous But I return to the Doctors Duplyers pag 67. 68. n. 46 47. As for that which yee say that when Scandall may be taken at the doing of the thing commanded then the thing commanded becommeth inexpedient and so ought not to be obeyed that yee be not more deceived with this errour we pray you marke that a thing commanded by our Superiours in Church or Policie mâ—y be two wayes inexpedient to wit either in respect of some particular Persons who thâ—ough weaknesse or maliâ—e doe stumble at it or else in respect of the body in generall because it is contrary to Order Decencie and Edification If the thing commanded be inexpedient the former way we may indeed in such a case for eschewing the Scandall of the weake forbeare the practice of the thing commanded Hic nunc in some particular places and times provyding alwayes we doe this without offence of our Superiours and without the scandall of others but we cannot totally forbeare practice for we are to looke more to the utilitie which the body of the Church may receive by the thing commanded and by our obedience to our Superiours then to some particular persons 47. But if the thing commanded be in our private judgement inexpedient the other way we ought not for that to deny Obedience to the lawes of the Church for when the inexpediencie of a thing is questionable and probable arguments may be brought pro and contra concerning the expediencie of it wee have sufficient warrant to practise it if the Church inact it as expedient Otherwayes your way is so dangerous that there shall never be peace nor unitie in the Church for men ordinarily are divided in judgement concerneing the expediencie of things Suppose a Synode consisting of one hundred Pastours threescore shall think this particular Ceremonie expedient for the good of the Church and in respect of pluralitie of voyces make an act to be concluded for the establishing of it shall the remnant fourty who are of the contrary judgement deny obedience to the acts of the Synode Answer 1. This distinction of inexpedient in the matter of indifferent Ceremonies is Popish and vaine for if the Ceremonie be indifferent and may be wanted in the worship of God as these Ceremonies be if one soule for whom Christ died shall be murthered thereby it is hoc ipso to be judged inexpedient and scandalous in it selfe and so cannot fall under the object of a Church Canon as 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my brother to stumb'le he saith not the whole Church I will not eat Ergo he cannot command others to eat 1 Cor. 10. 28. But if any man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say to you this is offered in sacrifice to Idols eat not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his sake that shewed it Ergo if it seem expedient and so be scandalous to one let alone to a whole Church we are totally to forbeare it and Paul would while the world standeth 1 Cor. 8. 13. forbeare it 2. You will not have us to forbeare a thing indifferent that actively for the passive scandall I hope you regard not as a scandall doth scandalize but with a provision that we doe it without offence of Superiours and without the scandall of others But I aske Doctors what you meane by Offence of Superiours if you meane without displeasing and inciting our Superiours to anger 1. You ignorantly confound displeasing and Scandalizing When a Pastor rebuketh Superiours as Jeremiah Elias and John Baptist in the good old world did they did displease Superiours but not scandalize them yea they did edifie their Superiours while as they did offend them It is wicked Divinitie to mean that we are not to eschew the murthering of a weake brother for whom Christ died providing we offend not that is displease not our Superiours Will you to please men displease the God of heaven and commit spiritual homicide This is worse then Poperie But if you meane that wee are to forbeare the thing commanded for eschewing the scandall of the weake providing we doe it without the offence of Superiours that is without the active scandalizing of Superiours then 1. your distinction is vaine for if we scandalize culpably our superiours by our forbearance though it be inexpedient to all private persons we are not to forbeare because in no case can we breake the sixt Commandement and scandalize our Superiours 2. You shall be forced to giveâ— case wherein we are necessitated by Gods providence and that by way of contradiction whether we forbeare or forbeare not to murther either the soules of some weake ones or the soules of Superiours by our forbearance of the practice of things judged expedient by Superiours you make us to murther the soules of Superiours by the non-forbearance or you will have us to murther the soules of weake breathren if we practise This is a wronging of Providence and a Maâ—ichean tenent that we can be under such a necessitie of sinning Yea there must be two centraâ—y revealed wills in God commanding by forbearing the Ceremonies not to murther Superiours and commanding by not forbearing not to murther weak brethren and so God commandeth both to forbeare and also not to forbeare If you say the weake may be informed and then it is a passive scandall onely and practising is lawfull at the commandement of Superiours I answer 1. Then your distinction hath no use here 2. I answer Let the Superiours who have more knowledge be informed that to abstaine from a practice that may murther any one redeemed by Christ is Christs commandement Thou shalt doe no murther then it is but a passive scandall and not an active or culpably given scandall Ergo we are to forbeare the thing commanded for eschewing of the scandall hic nunc of the weake even though with the offence that is the passive scandall of Superiours and others which is contradictorie to the Doctours 3. If we may forbeare obedience to Gods
15. And to wait on them with all patience if God peradventure may give them repentance 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spirits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former reasons by delivering to Satan cannot be meant a miraculous tormenting of the body by Sathan with the saving of the life Such as we read was the case of Iob for the delivering to Sathan is to cast out of the Church and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world of which Sathan is Prince Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert as the essentials of excommunication are 1. Here is a member of the Church one vvho is within 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall and had his fathers wife ver 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ v. 4. was delivered to Sathan that his soule may be saved for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication and to be purged out of the Church lest he should infect the Sheepe ver 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him nor to eate with him ver 9. 10 and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican ver 12. 13. and that by a convened court having the name and authority of him who is King of the Church ver 4. and more wee doe not crave Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan is no mean of salvation Answ A morall delivering to the efficacy of error and a reprobate minde is not a mean of salvation nor is excommunication such a mean nor in the power of the Church but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable communion of the Saints and of the prayers of the Church and meanes of grace such is a means and mighty through God to humble CAP. V. Quest 1. Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments beside the Pastorall rebukes inflicted by one VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel to debar the unclean from the society of Gods people and from communion with them in the holy things of God Numb 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast or the carcase of unclean cattell or the carcase of unclean creeping things and if it be hidden from him he also shall be unclean and guilty 6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord having his uncleannesse upon him even that soul shall be cut off from the people 21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing as the uncleannesse of man or any unclean beast or any abominable unclean thing and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which pertain unto the Lord even that soul shall be cut off from his people In the which observe that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excommunication not by death also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make a Covenant to cut off either by death or any other way as by banishment by which a thing leaveth off to be in use though it be not destroyed as when a branch is cut off a tree 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea we have Isa 50. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is that Bill of cutting off or divorce Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced but putting her from her husband as our Saviour saith It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage yet the word is Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrews have another more ordinary word to signifie death as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath in dying he shall die And it is expounded he shall be cut off from the midst of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Lev. 7. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is four times used without any such expression ver 20 21 25 27. To which may be added that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared According to the purification of the Sanctuary though they had celebrated the Passeover the King did not only not kil them but prayed God might be mercifull to them and the Lord killed them not saith the spirit of God but healed them Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread that soul shall be cut off from Israel but it is expounded ver 19. That soul shall be cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church of Israel Certainly he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church and from the company of all mortall men on earth Isa 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel as the holy Ghost expoundeth it Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance and so if he touch any unclean thing or eat unleavened bread forbidden of God he is excluded from the holy things of God while the Priest offer for him according to the Law Now if he was presently to be killed either by the Magistrate or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand as Aarons sons were there was not a journey to be made to the place the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there which might have been three dayes journey from his house who was unclean yea when the man that gathered sticks was stoned and the false Prophet stoned Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed and I hope there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead Hence learn we 1. That to cut off from the Congregation was not to kill but it was the Iewish Excommunication greater or lesse 2. That Moral sins under the Old Testament debarred men from the holy things of God while the Priests sacrificed for them and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy
29. Deut. 10. 8 18. Numb 1. 50. and 3. 9 12 41. and 8. 10. Psal 122. 5. In Jerusalem there were set thrones of judgement the thrones of the house of David Mat. 22. 21. Christ commanded to give to Cesar the things that are Cesars and he in his own person refused to usurpe Cesars place Luke 12. 14. Man who made me a Iudge and interdicted his Apostles thereof Luke 22 24 25 26. and yet appointed for them a Judicature of another kinde Mat. 18. 15. Mat. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 5. and if any should deny that the Civill Magistrate had another Court in which he judged the Scriptures will refute him 3. It is evident that Iehoshaphat did not institute but restore those two courts 2 Chron. 19. 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters never any Erastian could satisfie either themselves or others to shew us what were those two courts so distinguished by their two sundry Rulers Amariah and Zebadiah the one a Priest the other a Magistrate 2. By the different formall objects the matters of the Lord the matters of the King and confounded they must be if the King and Ruler be a judge in the matters of God except God make him both a civill judge and a Prophet as were Moses and Samuel which yet were differenced when the God of order established his Church in Canaan The Church convenes for a Church businesse Iosh 18. 1. to set up the Tabernacle but for a civill businesse to make war the State conveneth Iosh 22. 12. 15. 16. Iudg. 21. 12. and Ier. 26. 8. there is the Church judicature discerning that Ieremiah was a false Teacher and they first judge the cause and v. 16. The Civill Iudicature discerneth the contrary and under Zorababel Ezra and Nehemiah they indured different judicatures Iesus Christ was arraigned before Caiphas the High Priest for pretended blasphemie before Pilate the civill judge for treason but Caiphas was to determine onely by Law in questione juris whether it was blasphemie which Christ had spoken but he had no power by Gods Law to lead Witnesses or condemn Christ Nor is it true that the Priests had their government onely about Ceremonialls for they were to judge of Morall uncleannes also which even then debarred men from the holy things of God as is cleare Hag. 2. 12. Ezek. 44. 9. 10 23 24. and if any say that the Magistrate amongst the Iewes did judge of Ecclesiasticall things and reformed Religion We answer extraordinarily the Magistrate might prophecie and did prophecy as did Samuel David Solomon Why do not Erastians bring those examples to prove that Kings Provasts Iustices may now preach the Word and administer the Sacraments which yet is unlawfull to them by grant of Adversaries for the examples of the Kings amongst the Iewes is as strong for preaching as for governing and because Prophets did judge the people of old yet no Protestant Divine will say that now Pastors may also usurpe the civill Sword Now least any should object the case is not alike in the Jewish and Christian Church surely the King of the Church hath no lesse separated such men as Paul and Barnabas for the Ministery now then at that time Rom. 1. 1 2. Act. 2. And sent labourers to his vineyard Luk. 10. 2. Matth. 20. 2. 9. 37 38. And Ambassadors to Preach in his Name 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ministers of Christ and Stewarts of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. Men sent of God whose feet are pleasant for their good News as were the Prophets of old who were not only gifted to preach but instructed with Divine Authority as is clear Rom. 10. 14. 15. Isa 52. 7. 40. 9. Nahum 1. 15. Yea and men that feeds the flock not only by Preaching but also Govern the Church so that they must take heed that Ravening Wolves creep not into the Church who shall not spare the flock Act. 20. 28. 29. Men who must be obeyed because they watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. And can govern the Church as well as they are apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 5. 2. Men that labour amongst us and are over us in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. And men who are to call to the work other faithfull men that are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Such as are separated from the affairs of this life such as Magistrates are not 1 Cor. 6. 3. such as Rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. and are not to receive accusations but under witnesses and are to lay hands suddenly on no man not to call them to the holy Ministery till they be sufficiently tryed 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 22. all which import teaching and governing Now if all these directions be given to Timothy and other Pastors till the end of the world then must all these directions be principally written to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and these Epistles to Timothy agree principally to the Christian Magistrate and to Pastors and Doctors at the by as they be delegates and substitutes of the Magistrates and that by office the Emperour of Rome was to lay hands suddenly on no man and commit the Gospel to faithfull men who could teach others and was not to receive an accusation against an Elder and certainly if the Magistrate call to office those that are over us in the Lord and if those who watch for our soules especially be but the curates and delegates of the King and Parliament then the King and Parliament behoved in a more eminent manner to watch for our souls for directions and commandments of God in this kinde are more principally given to the Master Lord and chief Governour of the house of God if the Magistrate be such then to the servants delegates But where is there any such directions given to the Emperour King or Christian Magistrate by any shadow of ground in the Word It is not much to say The Magistrate was an heathen an enemy at this time and therefore those could not be written to him For 1. No force can strain these two Epistles to Timothy and the other to Titus which contain a form of Church-policy to any Christian Magistrate for then the qualification of the King if he be the supream Governour of the Church should far rather have been expressed then the qualification of a Bishop and a Deacon which is no where hinted at 2. All these directions notwithstanding this do and must actu primo agree to the Magâ—strate for his office who is chief governour what he should be is described in the Word 3. When Christ ascended on high he gave as a fruit of his ascension sufficient means for his intended end The perfecting of the Saints the gathering of his Body the Church and the edifying thereof even