Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	law_n	preacher_n	21	3	10.2017	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92138	The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.	Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.	1646 (1646)	Wing R2377; Thomason E326_1; ESTC R200646	722,457	814

The Assumption is false Deut. 17 saith the contrary 3. Though we could not shew a place for the formall institution of an Ordinance yet if we show the thing instituted it is sufficient 4. Erastus much doubteth himselfe if Moses his government was altogether civill especially before the Lord separated Aaron his sons and the Tribe of Levi to teach and governe the people in an Ecclesiasticall way for Erastus said before that Moses prescribed Lawes to Aaron sacrificed and did that which was proper to the Priests though after that God forbad the Kings to usurpe the Priests office and punished Saul and Vzziah for so doing though I never read that Saul usurped the Priests office you may take it upon the word of Erastus and we all know that Moses was a Prophet of God Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren like unto thee Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet in Israel since like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face Heb. 3. 5. Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant Now those that will say Moses his government of the Church was all civill and politicall as a civill judge and King and that he acted not in the governement of the Church as in writing and delivering Laws and in doing many things yea in commanding the will of God as a Prophet to Aaron to his sons and the whole tribe of Levi to me speakes non-sense Erastus That judicature to the which the inferiours appealed as to the supreame is politick Ans It is denied they appealed to it as the supreme Ecclesiastick in point of Law and Conscience Ergo It was not politique all the rest are answered before yea Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. putteth this as a thing peculiar to the Priests v. 12. What cause soever shall come before you of your brethren between blood and blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord that is as Erastus yeeldeth ye shall teach them what is just and agreeable to and what is unjust and repugnant to the Law of God Civill judges lips were not to preserve knowledge as the lips of the Priests Mal. 2. 7. and Deut. 17. 11. According to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee and according to the judgement that they shall tell thou shalt doe Hence it is clear that this judicature in civill things was a teaching a telling a declaring and resolving judicature and that in blood they resolved of causes of blood of stroakes but judged not persons nor bloody men nor violent persons Erastus Moses and Iehoshaphat speake of one and the same judicature Moses doth not give teaching and commanding divisibly to some but joyntly to all the Synedrie Though the Priests were more skilled in the Law for Moses commandeth to teach the sense of the Law by judgeing as he saith himselfe Exod. 18. 16. I judge between one and another and I doe make them know the statutes of God and his lawes Moses putteth them all joyntly together they shall tell thee thou shalt doe what they shevv thee according to the Lavv that they shall teach thee shalt thou doe not declining to the right-hand or to the left-hand Ans 1. That Iehoshaphat speaketh of the same judicature that Moses speaketh of is clear 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 10. The very words of Moses Deut. 17. 8. are the same both the same judges and the same causes compared with v. 5 6 7. But Iehoshaphat maketh two judicatures as I have proved and Iehoshaphat reformed according to Moses his Lavv as Erastus granteth 2. I cannot be induced to beleeve that the judges here teached by judging it is spoken contrary to Theology The end of teaching is to informe the conscience and Teachers as Teachers watch for the soule and the end of civill and politick judging is a quiet and peaceable life 1 Tim. 2. 2. the vveapons of teachers are not carnall but spirituall 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. the weapons of civill Iudges are carnall for the civill Iudge beareth not the svvord in vaine Rom. 13. 4. then these same civill judges did not both teach and judge at once they taught not as civill judges but as Priests they judged not as Priests but as civill Iudges and therefore there is no ground to say that Moses ascribeth these same acts to civill judges and Priests and Levites as if they made one Synedry for in both Texts not one word of teaching which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ier. 2. 8. Hos 4. 6. is ascribed to the civill Iudge and not one word of judging and condemning to death which is proper to the civill Iudge Num. 35. 24. Deut. 22. 18 19 Deut. 17. 2. 3 4 c. and 21. 19 20. 1 King 21. 11. 2 Sam. 14. 15. 1 Kings 2. 28 c. Rom. 13. 4. Luke 12. 13. 14. c. is ascribed to the Priests and Levites but the Priest or the judge are set downe by way of disjunction Deut. 17. 12. which could not be if they made one and the same judicature and therefore Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. clearely distinguisheth them in two judicatures one v. 5 6 7. Another v. 8 9 10. having two sundry presidents and two sundry objects to treat about to wit the matters of Iehovah and the matters of the King 3. The place cited Exod. 18. 16. confirmeth much our opinion for Moses as a Iudge saith vvhen they have a matter they come unto me and I judge between one another This he spake as a civill Iudge and when he saith And I make them knovv the statutes of God and his lavves This he spake as a prophet for Moses was both a Iudge and a Prophet Now if all civill Iudges be such mixt persons as to teach the Stautes and Laws of God they doe this either as civill judges or as Prophets then there was reason why Malachie should have said the civill judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth for if a civill judge as a Iudge teach the people and watch for their souls what marvell then he beare the sword to preserve their bodies as a Prophet and not as a Iudge and if he beare the sword as a Prophet and Teacher all Teachers must beare the sword which is against reason and Scripture and what reason is there if Moses teach as a civill judge but he may as properly be obliged in conscience to teach and so he should sin if he imploy not his talent that way as he is obliged to exercise the sword as a judge and by the contrary a Prophet as a Prophet should be obliged in conscience as kindly and per se to exercise the Sword as to preach the Gospel for nothing agreeth more kindly to the subiect then that which agreeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under that reduplication as it is

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 sati●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 l●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

we be all one body in Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. If he mean Ceremonies as such speciall materialls to wit Surplice c. as ordained of man who may ordain another Ceremony doth not immediatly respect the honour of God 1. This is to beg the question 2. A white garment upon a priest of Jupiter Sacrificing to that Idoll should immediatly respect the honour of Iupiter though the Priest might honour Iupiter with garments of white Roses or some other like device while he officiateth So bowing of the knee in prayer doth immediatly honour God though I may pray sitting or standing 3. It is a dream that the honour of the subject is given to the adjunct yea and properly is the adjunct and agreeth to the adjunct as Surplice hath the very Office and place of Gods word and Sacrament● to teach and signifie and yet they are but adjuncts if a mans Coat or his Hat or Shooes could discourse and reason as only the man can do in reason we should say the Coat is the man 2. They say God forbiddeth efficient and operative means of worship and grace in the second Commandment or means immediate which worketh by vertue in themselves or wrapped in them for so the word and Sacraments are means of grace and worship yea the Sacraments be exhibitive seals and therefore we owe to such means subjection of conscience immediatly both to the things instituted and particular means of admonition and to the duties admonished or called to our remembrance by them for they have vertue residing and inherent in them by divine institution to work upon us But God forbiddeth not in the second Commandment means that teach occasionally as Objectum a quo therefore we owe subjection of conscience to the things admonished but not to the particular means of admonition therefore we are tied in conscience to Ceremonies only collaterally and propter aliud they be only externall objects or occasions For whoever saith he expected that men should be stirred up by Ceremonies as by causes or any otherwayes but as by sensible objects as we are by the sight of the creatures or other memorials therefore saith he they are not means by the which grace is wrought by the power of God wrapped in them but resident in God himself that freely giveth the grace by the right use of them so D. Burges Ans All cometh to this Ceremonies taketh the place of Word and Sacraments but cannot fill the chaire and discharge the office so well as Gods Ordinances doth A Clown taketh on the Crown and usurpeth the Throne and cannot do Regall Acts with such grace of Royall Majesty as the Lawfull King what is he for that no usurping Traitor 2. He will not have Ceremonies to be causes of worship but occasions so do Papists say Images saith Vasquez do only set before us the History and effects of God Bellarmine Suarez as all know do say That Images cannot so represent Iehovah as he is in himself or described in his word nor can the Idoll or Image of God represent God as a cause but onely as an object externall and occasion and yet God forbiddeth it Isa 40. 18. Hab. 2. 19. 20. 2. Gods word to the reprobate is a sealed Book and is as if you would teach letters to a new weaned childe Isa 29. 11. c. 29. 9. It worketh by no inherent vertue wrapped in it self but though it be mighty yet is it mighty through God 2 Cor. 10. 4. Ioshuahs twelve stones the Phylacteries the Manna the Rainbow did only as Aquinas saith well worke upon the senses and memory The word it self doth but work morally or objectively and is not a cause having the power of God wrapped in it If Surplice work only as an occasion the Preachers Napkin the bands of women doth so excite the memory and the affection 3. All our Divines teach that the Sacraments are exhibitive seals but not of themselves or by any vertue inherent in them as Papists say but by the power of God which worketh by the right receiving of the Sacraments and the Sacraments Actu Primo and essentially are only signes which worketh objectively and occasionally as you say your unhallowed Ceremonies do 1. because they are Sacraments essentially whether they be received by Faith or not and they are exhibitive seals only to believers 2. Vnbelievers should not prophane the Sacraments by their unworthy receiving of them if they were not Sacraments to them only signifying and if they were exhibiting seals to them then should they receive them worthily which is against what we suppose 3. The Fathers as Justine Martyr Ireneus Epiphanius Chrysostom Ambrose prove that Circumcision in its nature except to believers did only signifie Grace 5. Here be a most vilde distinction That we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished but not to Surplice or to such means and particular admonishers but only collaterally But ● is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collaterall Mistresse over the conscience who is the other collaterall judge here who but Christ 2. We owe this collaterall subjection of Conscience to the Image of the Trinity for though we owe not subjection of Conscience to the image as such an admonisher or such an exhorting object seeing the Word of God may also admonish us of God yet we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished to wit to the blessed trinity 3. Neither owe we subjection of conscience to the word as written with ink on paper nor to the sound of the word Preached yea nor do we owe subjection of Faith to the Word as the Word but only collaterall when we say I hope in the Word I believe the Word I rejoyce in the Word of God we take the Word for Objetum quo and God for Objectum quod for the word is not the formall object of any subjection of Conscience I owe to the Word not a subjection of Conscience collaterall or coequall with the subjection that I owe to God but only subordinate as to a mean and to the Word for God and because it is instituted by God but I owe subjection of Conscience to God solely independently and onely yea subjection of Conscience is not due to the Word for its manner of working and not due to the Ceremonies because they work not as the Word of God doth as no wonder they being but hay and stubble but subjection of Conscience is due to the Word because God is the Author of it and speaketh in it himself as is clear Ier. 13. 15. Amos 3. 8. Heb. 2. 3. Hear for the Lord hath spoken and it is to be received only and in Conscience yielded unto as it is the Word of God Isa 1. 2. 1 Thess 2. 13. Now because we cannot receive the Surplice Crossing Capping as the Surplice of God and as the Crossing of Christ therefore are we not to submit at all to the Doctrines which these

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 ●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 ●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

he calls David his Prince a bloody murtherer and saith this evill is come on him for rising up against Saul his Master The Magistrate may not punish him with the Sword for railing against the Lords anoynted 2. And if the Magistrate ought not to strike with the sword any Prophet for preaching according to his conscience for that is persecution to this Author how shall the Prophets judge and condemne the Magistrate for those same decrees which he hath given out according to his conscience for this is a persecution with the tongue Mat. 5. 11. Iob 19. 22. and it is one and the same spirituall cause saith this Author 3. The same very Author and the Parliament do reciprocally judge and condemne one another for the Parliament make warre against Papists for drawing the King on their side and causing him make warre against the Lambe and his followers that is against godly Protestants Now suppose Priests and Iesuits preach this to the Queen and other Papists and they according to their conscience make warre against the flock of Christ and the Parliament according to their conscience make warre against them this Author sitteth downe and judgeth and condemneth both sides as bloody persecutors for point of conscience Now though the Author in his Bench with his penne condemneth and judgeth both according to his conscience yet if the Papists or possibly the Parliament had this Author in their fingers might not they reciprocally judge and condemne him I think he cannot deny how justly they should reciprocally judge the Author I cannot say 3. This Author would have a contradiction such as is to make East and West both one that one and the same man both sit in the Bench and stand at the barre that the Church judge the Magistrate and the Magistrate judge the Church But I hope contradictions were no more under the Old Testament to be admitted nor under the New Now in the Old Testament the King might put to death the Prophet who should prophecy blasphemies and again the Prophet might judge the King by denouncing the judgement of the Lord against the King let the Author say how the King both did sit in the Bench and stand at the ba●●e in divers respects I think A●hab might judge and punish Micaiah unjustly for prophecying that he should dye at Ramoth Gilead and Micaiah might in prophecy give out the sentence of death justly against him but here be two contrary sentences the like may fall out in Synodicall constitutions 2. To answer to his reasons 1. It followeth not that in one and the same spirituall respect one and the same person judgeth on the Bench and is judged at the Bar for the Churches judging is in a spirituall respect as the officer ordained may promote the building of Gods House the Magistrates suppressing him is no spirituall respect but as it disturbeth the peace of the State that so unworthy a person is an officer in Gods House and is hurtfull to the Church of God in their edi●icatio● which the Magistrate is to promote not in spirituall but in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 3. That one judge on the Bench and the same stand at the Barre and be judged at divers and sundry times is not so impossible by farre as to reconcile East and West together A●●●b may judge Naboath to be condemned and stoned for his vineyard to day and immediately after Elias the Prophet may arraigne him before the Barre and tribunall of God to be condemned and adjudged to dye in the portion of Iezreel where the dogs may lick his blood It is true Elias is not properly a judge but a declarer in a propheticall and authoritative way of the judgement of God but this is all the judiciall power which we ascribe to Church or Presbytery and Pastors they are meer Ministers or servants to declare the will and sentence of God When the Minister preacheth wrath against the King for his sins he judgeth the King in a Pastorall and Ministeriall way which is all we contend for in many officers united in a Church way and at that same time the King hath power after that to judge him for preaching treason for ●ound Doctrine if it be found to be treason by the Church and this reciprocation of judging we maintaine as consistent and necessary in Ministers of Gospel and Magistrates But such a distance betweene them as between East and West we see not The Author should have shewne it to us by his owne grounds The Church may excommunicate a Magistrate as a persecutor who cutteth off Idolaters for their conscience yet the godly Magistrate may judge and punish them with the sword for abusing the ordinance of Excommunication so as to excommunicate the godly Magistrate because he doth punish evill doing with the Sword Rom. 13. 4. 4. The Author infers that tumults and bloods do arise from these two But that will not prove these two to be inconsistent and contr●dictorious tumults and blood arise from preaching the Gospel what then Ergo the Gospel is a masse of contradictions ●● followeth not The ●umul●s and blood have their rise from mens lusts who are impatient of the yoak of Christ not from these two powers to judge Ecclesiastically in the Church and to be judged civilly by the Magistrates The Author draweth his instance to the actuall judging of the same thing contradictory wayes for example the Church ordaineth one to be a preacher and this they do Ecclesiastically and the Magistrate actually condemneth the same man civilly as unworthy to be a preacher It is one thing to say that the Church hath power to judge righteously in an Ecclesiasticall way any matter and another that the Christian Magistrate hath power in a civill way to judge righteously the same matter and a ●ar other thing it is to say The Church hath a power Ecclesiastically to judge a matter righteously according to the word and the Magistrate hath power to judge the same matter civilly in a wrong and unjust way the former we say God hath given a power to the Church to ordaine Ecclesiastically Epaphroditus to be a preacher of the Gospel because these graces and gifts are in him that are requisite to be in a faithfull preacher and God hath also given a power to the Christian Magistrate to adde his civill sanction to the ordination and calling of the same Epaphroditus But we do not teach that God hath given to the Church a power to call Epaphroditus to the Ministery in an Ecclesiasticall way and that God hath given a power to the Christian Magistrate to anull this lawfull ordination of Epaphroditus Now the Author putteth such a supposition that Church and Magistrate have two lawfull powers toward contrary acts the one of them a power to give out a just sentence the other a power to give out an unjust sentence in one and the same cause which we teach not God gave to none either in Church

humane societies but as offensive to God scandalous to the Church and destructive to the souls of those who commit such offences All the punishment Ecclesiasticall which we plead for though we borrow only the name it being unproperly so called is spiritual rebukes debarring of wicked men from the society of the Saints and the holy things of God that they pollute not such pearls Bullinger is alledged by Erastus as a favourer of this way and some private Epistles of Bullinger written to Erastus cited but nothing of the publike writings of Bullinger It is true he saith he is pleased with Erastus his Theses but 1. That he was not of Erastus his mind wholly is evinced from these Epistles 1. Bullinger strove with the Anabaptists of his time who contended for either a Church of regenerate persons or none Bullinger Diu cum Anabaptistis nostris contendimus hac de re et ostendimus veram Ecclesiam posse esse et dici Ecclesiam quae excommunicatione hâc careat 2. He saith he himself D. Wolphius Lavater Hallerus Zwinglius Gualther never condemned the Church of Geneva Ergo they never condemned Presbyterial Government 3. He saith it will be for the edification of the Churches of the Palatine that this excommunication be Now we know divers there ascribed to the Magistrate plus aequo and said that the tythes belonged jure divino to the Magistrate The truth is these Divines were too obnoxious to the lust of Christian Magistrates Calvin Farel complain much of the Magistrates usurpation in this 4. They thought hard to exulcerate the minds of Princes to excommunicate the Magistrate and longè magis abalienatos reddere inferiores gradus conscendere superiores vero intactos reddere But was it not an abuse to excommunicate the poor people and spare the Magistrate 3. Bullinger would not have the question of excommunication to come in publike why cum hoc tempore aliâs satis afflicta sit Ecclesia 4. He seems to incline that none should be debarred from the Lords Table that acknowledgeth their sins coena sit libera omnibus peccata sua agnoscentibus et veniam a Christo petentibus we say Amen so they be truly penitent to the Church and not such as Paul speak of 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 3 4 5. to whom confession of sins before the Church is a manifest form of godlinesse 5. Bullinger and Gualther writ to the Prince Elector to punish scandalous persons But with all quanquam arbitramur illust Principem admonitionem nostram sibi soli reservaturum qua duntaxat dissidia manefesta in Ecclesia praevenire voluimus Hence this tecum sentimus of Bullinger written to Erastus was 1. His private opinion that he desired not to be known to the Churches therefore Erastus wronged Bullinger who left his secret letters to be printed 2. Many learned men in these Churches beside Anabaptists and the Palatinate Catechisme were against Erastus 6. He saith Zwinglius was the chief man to have excommunication brought in inductam cuperet 7. He desired Beza not to answer Erastus for peaces cause and the same he wrote to Erastus A learned and holy preacher to the Prince Elector wrote thus to Bullinger Queror fr. m. d. dilecte quod approbaris Theseis D. Erasti contra disciplinam Ecclesiasticam scriptas quae non tantum impiae sunt sed viam sternunt ad Atheismum hortor et obsecro ut publicè testeris te novas illas Theseis improbare Quod nisi seceris futurum est ut videaris dissentire non tantum a doctâ illa vetustate sed etiam a Zwinglio et Oecolampadio aliisque adeoque et cum teips● pugnare Bullinger in 1 Cor. 5. Excommunicatio non est exercenda ut Anabaptistae volunt a toto Ecclesiae coetu sed a dilectis ad hoc hominibus Excommunicatio apud veteres est exclusio a communione Sacramentorum Excommunicatio est supplicium temporale disciplina externa ad medendam instituta Bullinger in Mat. 18. esse Ethnicum et publicanum significat esse et haberi inter facinorosos quibus nihil neque officij neque sinceri committas Idem Hortor ut salutare hoc pharmacum excommunicationis e caetu Sanctorum pontificis avarit●a eliminatum reducatur Idem in Mat. 18. finis consilij domini est in negotio disciplinae ut corrigantur scelerati in Ecclesia et auferantur scandala Bullinger in 2 Thes 3. hic habemus abstensionem sen exclusionem qua a tribuum societate et publicorum pascisorum usu-fructu excludimus ●on●●maces et omnes admonitiones contemnentes aliter etiam locus potest interpretari These be contradictory to Erastus his expositions and way which maketh excommunication nothing and putteth all Church-discipline on the point of the Magistrates sword I cannot say but that saying did too little prevail with Bullinger Amicus Socrates Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas for Erastus was his intimate and too dear friend etiam er●ores amicorum et n●●i sunt nobis pergrati Bullinger in Mat. 18. in illa Dic Ecclesiae Excommunicatio est disciplina ●xterna sanctorum in Ecclesia conversantium quâ ex communione abii●iuntur sanctorum aut commodè alioqui corriguntur coercent●●ve qui scandalizant Ecclesiam hae particulares Ecclesiae deligunt sibi quoque veluti Senatum Collegiumve optimorum virorum qui juxta Canonem sacrism disciplinam hanc exerceant What is this but a Presbytery Ceterum qualis fuerit Ethnicorum et publicanorum reputatio facile est colliger● ex Evangelio et Paulo ad Ephe. 2. Certe alieni sunt a gratia nihil Communionis haebentes cum sorte sanctorum Bullinger Ser. 5. decad 10. pag. 384. Sicut autem dominus privatim voluit admoneri et corripi praevaricantes Ecclesiae Ministres ita ejusdem admonitions et correctionis bonum extendit ad universam Ecclesiam Ergo h●buit vetus Ecclesia sanctum Presbyterorum senatum qui delinquentes in Ecclesia diligenter admonebat corripiebat graviter adde et consortio excludebat Ecclesiastico si nihil emendationis expectari posse videretur 1 Cor. 5. decrevi ut is qui hot seelus patravir c. Musculus in locis Commun de Ministris verbi pag. 204. disciplina Ecclesiastica includi● morum correctionem tum privatorum tum publicorum deinde et judicia Ecclesiastica hisce quoque de rebus non constituet Minister suopte arbitratu sed erit ad institutionem earum director et ad●ib●bit suffragia et consensum suae plebis ne quid invitae Ecclesiae imponatur denique curabit ut plebs ipsa viros graves timentes Dei ac boni Testiomnij deligat quorum cur ● et vigilantiâ Ecclesiae disciplina administretur et si quid gravioris momenti accidat ad Ecclesiam ipsam referatur I grant it was the error of that worthy instrument of Reformation that he referreth all to the Christian Magistrate and so he saith haec omnia pertinen● ad