doctrine of scandals warning us not to offend so much as one of his little ones which he presseth by divers arguments 5. The Erastians and we doe both agree in this that Christ here hath a respect to the Jewish Government Now the trespasses for which men were excommunicate by the Jewish Sanhedrin were scandalous trespasses such as the despising of any of the precepts of the law of Moses or Statutes of the Scribes The doing of servile worke upon Easter Eve The mentioning of the Name of God rashly or by a vaine oath The inducing of others to prophane the Name of God or to eate holy things without the holy place and the like More of this elsewhere in the 24 causes of the Jewish Excommunication 6. M r Prynne expoundeth this Text in Matthew by 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11 12. but there the Apostle intends the purging of the Church from scandals whether those scandals have any private injury in them or not Instance in Idolatry and drunkennesse there mentioned 7. I can also without yeelding the least advantage to the Erastian cause admit and suppose that which is so much pressed both by Erastus M r Prynne and others viz. that these words If thy brother trespasse against thee are spoken of a personall injury between man and man Though I doe not grant the thing yet I am content even upon their own supposition to argue from this Text. And first it may be answered with Aegi dius de Coninck de actib supernat Disp. 28. Dub. 8. that Christ doth not speake of the case of personall injuries as if he meant to restrict unto such cases the order of proceeding for gaining of the offenders soule from sinne but onely for examples sake he brought such kind of sinne of which it might have been most doubted whether in the reproofe thereof this order be to be kept and in which it can be most hardly observed in respect of the innate desire of revenge in many 2. Let our opposites themselves say whether we ought not in conscience and duty endeavour the gaining of an offending brothers soule when we see him commit a trespasse against God which is no personall injury to our selves as well as when the trespasse is a personall injury 3. As this order of proceeding here prescribed by Christ is in the case of a personall injury the greatest triall of Christian love in the person offended so it may by Gods blessing be the stronger and more efficacious upon the person offending to conquer and overcome his spirit while he that might prosecute him in a legall and criminall way commeth in meeknesse and love to admonish him and to endeavour the gaining of him from sin by repentance Which is the observation of Chrysostome upon the place for if he that might demand punishment upon him even that man be seen to be taking care of his salvation this most of all other things is able to make him ashamed and to yeeld 4. If it be a civill and personall injury matterially yet it comes not in here under that formall consideration but partly as a scandall to him that hath received the injury so that Chrysostome doth rightly make this Text to hang together with that which was said before in the same Chapter concerning scandals partly as a soul-destroying sinne upon him that doth the wrong which doth endanger his salvation And if under such a notion private injuries be here spoken of then what have our opposites gained 5. The scope also is not civill but wholly spirituall which Chrysostome doth very well explaine Hom. 60. in Matth. What is it if he shall heare thee if he shall be perswaded to condemne himselfe of sinne Thou hast gained thy brother he saith not thou bast a sufficient punishment or satisfaction but thou hast gained thy brother And after He saith not accuse nor censure nor demand punishments but convince saith he The Context confirmeth it for these words are added immediately after the parable of bringing home the lost sheep Which parable we have also Luke 15. where it is not applied to the reducing of such as have done private injuries but of Publicans and sinners who were publiquely scandalous this I thought good to note by the way Ammonius Alexandrinus de Quatuor Evang. consonantia cap. 96 97. doth together with the parable of the lost sheep adde also the other two of the lost penny and the lost sonne immediately before these words If thy brother trespasse against thee c. 6. And suppose that the businesse hath its rise and beginning from a personall injury verse 15. yet the trespasse for which the man is to be held as a Heathen and Publican is a publique scandalous sinne against the Church or Congregation namely his neglecting to heare the Church vers 17. for it is not his first trespasse but his contumacy against the Church which by this Text is to make him esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican Before I leave this point I will answer the chief Argument by which Erà stus would prove that this Text is meant only of private civill injuries because saith he the trespasse here spoken of is no other then what one brother may forgive to another I answer both he and Master Prynne doe suppose this Text Mat. 15 16 17. to be parallell to that in Luk. 17. 3. 4. which they take for granted without proof or reason Certainly there is a great difference between the purpose and scope of the one place and of the other It will be replyed that even in this very Chapter Matth. 18. the next thing which follows vers 21. is concerning personall injuries which one brother can and ought to forgive to another Then came Peter to him and said Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me and I forgive him c. To that I answer 1. We cannot gather from the Text that Peter did propound this question immediately after or upon occasion of that which went before vers 15 16 17 c. where nothing is spoken of one Brothers forgiving another We read Luk. 8. 19. Then came to him his Mother and his Brethren c. yet the meaning is not that his Mother and his Brethren came to him immediately after his speaking of the words before mentioned by Luke in that place for that it was not after these but after other words is plain from the Harmony of the other Evangelists Matthew and Mark. So here these words Then came Peter may very well relate to a new businesse and to another time 2. Or if it was the same time it might be said Then came Peter that is Peter being absent and not having heard that which Christ had been before speaking he came immediatly after did propound a new Question 3. Suppose also that Peter was present and heard all which had been before spoken yet it is much doubted among Interpreters whence Peter had the rise and occasion of that Question Some think it was upon
life His second exception is that they fall not bâ—…th under the self-same precept If this be a just exception against our argument then one cannot argue thus It s a sinne to steale a mans private goods how much more to steale that which is holy It s a sinne to reproach a mans name how much more to reproach Gods Name These doe not fall under the selfe-same precept shall such arguments be therefore inconcludent Whence comes all this new logick which the world never knew before His third condition let it be remembred he saith if either of these three conditions faile the argument is inconseqent is that it must be within the compasse of the same power If it be so how shall that hold universally true Hâ—…w much better is it to get wisdome then Gold and to get understanding rather to be chosen then Silver By M r Prynnes rule it must onely hold true in this case when it fals within the compasse of the same power to get both Wisdome and Gold However if he had apprehended out argument aright he had perceived that the Iesser thing and the greater thing are both within the compasse of the same power The Church of Corinth ought not to eate with such a one at common Tables therefore not at the Lords Table For this refusing to eate with such a one at common Tables was by vertue of a judiciall Ecclesiasticall sentence passed against the scandalous person So that when M r Prynne saith We have free power not to eate Bread with those at our own Tables with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Christ to refuse to eate with them at the Lords Table and thereupon supposeth that our argumentation from that Text is one principall cause and prop of Independency yea of separation not onely from Sacraments but from Churches he doth altogether misapprehend the businesse For 1. Separation from Churches is properly a renouncing of membership as unlawfull our argument concerneth the unlawfulnesse of a particular act not of a membership in such a Church 2. The causes and motives of separation suppose either an unlawfull constitution of Churches or an unlawfull government of Churches or both so farre that they who separate hold it unlawfnll to continue their membership in Churches so constituted and governed or so much as to communicate and partake in the Sacrament with such Churches though they know no scandalous person admitted to the Sacrament 3. The great mistake lieth in this that our present controversie is apprehended to be whether every particular Christian hath power or liberty from Christ to withdraw from the Sacrament because of the admission of a scandalous person Whereas our Question is onely of the Churches power to suspend a scandalous person from the Sacrament and when the Apostle vers 9. 10 11. forbiddeth to be mixed or so much as to eate with such and such scandalous members of the Church he meaneth of Church-discipline and Excommunication which he had begun to speak of and so he comes to shew them what kinde of persons he would have to be excommunicated and used like that incestuous man So Beza Bullinger Hunnius Gualther Martyr Tossanus and others upon the place And long before all these Augustine and Beda plainly expound the Apostles words of a publique Ecclesiasticall Judgement past upon one who hath either confessed his offence or is formally accused and convict thereof and as they conceive that Text doth not at all justifie but doth rather condemne private Christians their separating from the Church because of a mixture of scandalons persons I know we ought prudently and cautiously to endeavour the avoyding of the company and fellowship of scandalous brethren though not yet censured in the Church which may be proved from other Scriptures but that is not the point the Apostle is here upon he meanes by no not to eate synecdochically the whole casting off of an excommunicate person and all that separation or withdrawing which is commanded to be made from him or if you will by a metonimy of the effect for the cause he meanes excommunication it selfe and however the words immediately following prove that a publique judiciall act is intended as hath been said before These things considered I shall not need to be led out of my way by M r Prynnes descanting upon the meaning of 1 Cor. 5. 11. how farre it prohibits civill communion and eating with a scandalous Christian being a railer or fornicator or Idolater c. I confesse some of his limitations as namely that we may eate with such aâ—one in cases of expediency or when we can not avoyd it in civility nor without offence are very lubricke unsafe and ensnaring and at best it s but like that in Martials Epigramme Difficilis facilis jucundus acerbus es idem Nec tecum possum vivere nec sine te But to treat of that case of conscience in generall is not hujus loci for this Text speaks of not eating with an excommunicate person Neither yet shall I need here to examine M r Prynnes six considerations p. 12 13 14. which he wisheth to be pondered by Separatists and Independents misled as he thinks by our fallacious argument I hope he doth not mistake our Question so farre as to comprehend the sinfulnesse of any private Christian his receiving of the Sacrament when and where some scandalous sinners are admitted to the Sacrament that private Christian not being accessary to the sinne of the Minister and Eldership in admitting those scandalous sinners Wherefore I will adde eight counterballancing considerations to prove from 1 Cor. 5. the first twelve verses thereof all which M r Prynne conceiveth can not prove Excommunication compared with 2 Cor. 2. an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or power of censures and particularly of Excommunication 1. There was a censure inflicted upon the incestuous man by the Eldership of the Church of Corinth being assembled together 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. Where read we that ever the Church was intentionally gathered together to cooperate with an Apostle in the exercise of his miraculous apostolicall power But we doe read that this mans punishment or censure was inflicted upon him not by the Apostle alone but by Many 2 Cor. 2. 6. Erastus pag. 214 thinks that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our bookes rendered punishment and in the margent censure was not excommunication but onely sharpe objurgation or reproofe To this I have abundantly answered Book 2. chap. 9. and in Male audis pag. 12 13 14. And if it should be granted that the man was not then excommunicate but sharply and publiquely rebuked which indeed is the opinion of some yet the Church of Corinth had proceeded to excommunication had not written to disswade them if the Apostle and take them off with a Sufficit which he neither needed nor would have done if they had power to doe no more â—o the offender then to rebuke him sharply To conclude this point M Prynne granteth
of Kings and Lord of Lords How all power in Heaven and in Earth is said to be given to him That the Governments set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not civill Magistrates fully proved Ephes. 1. 21 22 23. and Colos. 2. 10. vindicated CHAP. VII Arguments for the negative of that Question formerly propounded THe lawfull authority of the Heathen Magistrates vindicated It can not be shewed from Scripture that Christ as Mediator hath given any Commission of Vice-gerentship to the Christian Magistrate That the worke of the Ministery is done in the name and authority of Jesus Christ the worke of Magistracy not so The power of Magistracy or civill Government was not given to Christ as Mediator shewed from Luke 12. 14. Iohn â—8 36. Luke 17. 20 21. Magistracy founded in the Law of nature and Nations The Scripture holds forth the same origination of Heathen Magistracy and of Christian Magistracy CHAP. VIII Of the power and priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not and what it is THat no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall and namely the dispencing of Church censures doth belong unto the Magistrate nor may according to the Word of God be assumed and exercised by him proved by six Arguments That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church to receive appeales from all Ecclesiasticall Assembles There are other sufficient remedies against abuses or Mal-administration in Church-Government Reasons against such appeales to the Magistrate The Arguments to the contrary from the Examples of Ierenâ—…y and of Paul discussed Of the collaterality and coordination of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers What is the power and right of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall cleared first generally next more particularly by five distinctions 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong to the civill power but non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Magistrate may imperare that which he may not elicere 3. Distinguish the directive power from the coercive power 4. The Magistrates power is cumulative not privative 5. He may doe in extraordinary cases that which he ought not to doe ordinarily A caution concerning the Arbitrary power of Magistrates in things Ecclesiasticall CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government besides Magistracy or civill Government namely an Ecclesiasticall Government properly so called in the hands of Church-officers THe Question stated and the Affirmative proved by one and twenty Scripturall Arguments Who meant by the Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 names of government The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 13. 7 17. examined Of receiving an accusation against an Elder Of rejecting an Hereticke Of the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian and the sence of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the subjection of the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets The Angels of the Churches why reproved for having false Teachers in the Church Note that man 2 Thess. 3. 14. proved to be Church-censure Of the Ruler Rom. 12. 8. and Governments 1 Cor. 12. 28. A patterne in the Jewish Church for a distinct Ecclesiasticall government What meant by cutting off Gal. 5. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly what Of the Ministeriall power to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 8. what Of the visible administration of the Kingdome of Christ by his Laws Courts Censures The Arguments for Excommunication from Matth. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. briefly vindicated That Elders are rulers of the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of Government Ministers why called Sâ—…ewards of the Mysteries of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of government Church-Government exercised by the Synod of the Apostles and Elders Acts 15. CHAP. X. Some objections made against Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline answered Mr Husseys objection doth stricke as much against Paul as against us The fallacy of comparing Government with the word preached in point of efficacy Foure ends or uses of Church-government That two coordinate Governments are not inconsistent The objection that Ministers have other worke to doe answered The feare of an ambitious ensnarement in the Ministery so much objected is no good Argument against Church-government M. Husseys motion concerning Schooles of Divinity examined Church Government is no immunity to Church-officers from Censure Though the Erastian principles are sufficiently overthrown by asserting from Scripture the may be of Church-government yet our Arguments prove a must be or an Institution Six Arguments added which conclude this point CHAP. XI The necessity of a distinct Church-government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates THis acknowledged by Christian Emperours of old Grotius for us in this particular Christian Magistracy hath never yet punished all such offences as are Ecclesiastically censurable Presbyteries in the primitive times did not exercise any power which did belong of right to the Magistrate No warrant from the word that the Ordinance of a distinct Church government was onely for Churches under persecution but contrariwise the Churches are charged to keep till the comming of Christ the commandement then delivered No just ground for the feare of the interfeering of the civill and of the Ecclesiasticall power The Churches liberties enlarged not diminished under Christian Magistrats The Covenant against this exception of the Erastians The Christian Magistrate if he should take upon him the whole burthen of the corrective part of Church-government could not give an account to God of it The Erastian principles doe involve the Magistrate into the Prelaticall guiltinesse The reasons and grounds mentioned in Scripture upon which Church-censures were dispenced in the Primiâ—ive Churches are no other then concerne the Churches under Christian Magistrâ—tes The end of Church-censures neither intended nor attained by the administration of Christian Magistracy The power of binding and loosing not temporary They who restrict a distinct Church-government to Churches under Heathen or persecuting Magistrats give a mighty advantage to Socinians and Anabaptists Gualther and Master Prynne for us in this Question APPENDIX A Collection of some testimonies out of a Declaration of King Iames the Helvetian Bohemian Augustane French and Dutch confessions the Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches in France Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum the Irish Articles a Book of Melanchton and another of L. Humfredus The third Booke Of Excommunication from the Church AND Of Suspension from the Lords Table CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles A Transition from Church-government in generall to Excommunication and Suspension in particular The present controversie ten waies mis-stated by M. Prynne That which was publiquely depending between the Parliament and Assembly did rather concerne the practicall conclusion it selfe then the Mediums to prove it The strength of the Assemblies proofes
M r Prynne also doth vindic page 4 5. yet he speaketh dubiously of their power of capitall punishments But this is confuted by the reasons which I have given Whereunto I further adde these few animadversions 1. The strongest proofe which Erastus brings out of Iosephus antiq lib. 20. cap. 8. which as he alledgeth puts the thing out of all controversie is a very weake and insufficient proof Iosephus tels us in the close of that Chapter that after the death of Herod and A chelaus this was the Jewish Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This he citeth page 177. and page 178. to prove that the Sanhedrin in Christs time was a civill Magistracy having power of the Sword But I may with a great deale more probability argue contrariwise from these words Iosephus tels us the Constitution and forme of the Jewish policy or Government was at that time Aristocraticall but it was an Ecclesiasticall Aristocracy the government was in the hands of the chiefe Priests Or thus if you will the Jewes at that time had a bare name of an aristocracy they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Optimates Primates or Rulers but it was titulo tenus all power of civill government being taken from them by the Romans and the government that was was Ecclesiasticall That very Chapter gives us a better argument to prove that the Romans did not permit to the Jewes capitall Judgements for Iosephus there records that Ananus the high Priest taking the opportunity after the death of Festus while Albinus the Successour of Festus was but yet on his journey toward Iudea did call a Councell of Judges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before whom he presented Iames the brother of Christ and some others who were as guilty of impiety condemned to be stoned Which mightily displeased all such as did observe the Laws Albinus at that time comming from Alexandria being enformed of the thing and that it was not lawfull for Ananus to doe any such thing without the Roman Governour wrote a chiding and threatning letter to Ananus And further the thing being secretly signified by some to King Agrippa who did also beseech the King to command Ananus to doe no such thing againe he having trespassed in this Whereupon Agrippa was so highly offended that he tooke away from Ananus the high Priests place and gaue it to Iesus the sonne of Damneus 2. Whereas Erastus argueth from the imprisoning beating or scourging yea taking counsell to kill the Apostles Acts 4 5. the stoning of Steven Acts 7. Pauls letters from the high Priest for biuding and bringing to Ierusalem the Disciples of the Lord Acts 9. 1 2. also the imprisoning and condemning to death the Saints Acts 26. 10. Unto all this I answer out of Iosephus that in that degenerate age the high Priests and such as adhered to them did use a great deale of violence whereby they did many things for which they had no just nor lawfull power So that the Letters and Warrants given out to Saul and the execution of the same by a cruell and bloody persecuting of the Saints can not prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power and authority which was allowed to the Sanhedrin but onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the present prevalent power of the high Priest and his faction in that confusion of affaires and their extreame malice against the Saints to have been such as made them to doe things for which they had no legall power nor warrant And this one Animadversion breakes all the strength of M r Prynnes argument vindic page 5. that the Councell of the Jewes had power which no meere Ecclesiasticall consistory can doe to scourge imprison torture and out-law offenders if not to câ—…ndemne put to death Where he citeth divers Texts none of which proveth either torturing or out-lawing and the most of which prove not so much as that the Councell of the Jewes at that time had authority to scourge or imprison as Matth. 5. 22. 10. 17. Mark 13. 9. Acts 6. 12 13 14. 24. 20. 25. 15. The imprisonment of the Apostles was not without the authority of the Captaine of the Temple Acts 4. 1 3. This captaine of the Temple is thought by the best interpreters to have been the Captaine of the Garrison which the Romans placed in the caâ—tle Antonia hard by the Temple and that to prevent tumults and uproares when the people came to the Temple especially at the solemne feasts in great multitudes But that the Captaine of the Temple was a civill Magistrate of the Jewes or one d puted with authority and power from the Sanhedrin will never be proved When the Councell thought of slaying the Apostles Acts 5. 33. it was in a sudden passion being cut to the heart at that which they heard But Gamaliel tels them Verse 35. Ye men of Israel take heed to your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 warning them as Interpreters take it of their own danger from the Romans if they should put any one to death The putting of Steven to death was upon pretence of Iudicium zeli or Ius zelotarum as Grotius thinks dâ—… Jure belli aâ—… pacis lib. 2. cap 20. sect 9. If so it was an extraordinary act I am sure it was done most tumultuously disorderly and furiously before either himselfe was heard speake out or any sentence was given against him as is manifest Acts 7. 54 57 58. 3. Erastus his glosse upon Iohn 18. 31. It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death meaning saith he for making himselfe a King against Caesar the cause for which they did chiefly accuse him to Pilate So likewise Bishop Bilson a great follower of Erastus of the perpetuall government of Christs Church cap. 4. But marke the words Then said Pilate unto them Take ye him and judge him according to your Law The Jewes therefore said unto him It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death Pilate durst not have refused to judge a man who made himselfe a King against Caesar nor durst he have put it over upon the Jewes to have judged one in that which concerned Caesars crowne Nay as soone as the Jewes objected If thou let this man goe thou art not Caesars friend for whosoever maketh himselfe a King speaketh against Caesar. Pilate when he heard that went in againe and sate down on the Judgement seat Iohn 19. 12. 13. Therefore when Pilate said to the Jewes take ye him and judge him according to your law he spake it of matters of their Law The Councell of the chiefe Priests Elders and Scribes had given sentence against Christ de juâ—…e that he was guilty of blasphemy and thereupon not having power to put any man to death they led him to Pilate Matth. 26. 65 66. with Matth. 27. 1 2. Marke 14. 63 64. with Marke 15. 1. Luke 22. 71. with Luke 23. 1. Pilate unwilling to meddle against Christ waves the businesse in the
3. 14. Not eat with them 1 Cor. 5. 11. Nor bid them God speed 2 Epist. John vers 10. 11. 6. That since there must be a withdrawing from a brother that walketh disorderly and scandalously it s more agreeable to the glory of God and to the Churches peace that this be done by a publick authoritative Ecclesiastical judgement and sentence than wholly and solely to trust it to the piety and prudence of each particular Christian to esteem as heathens and publicans whom and when and for what he shall think good and accordingly to withdraw and separate from them 7. That there is a distinction between Magistracy and Ministery even Iure Divino That the civil Magistrate hath not power to abolish or continue the Ministery in abstracto at his pleasure nor yet to make or unmake Ministers in concreto that is to ordain or depose Ministers as he thinks fit 8. As the Offices are distinct so is the power Magistrates may do what Ministers may not doe and Ministers may doe what Magistrates may not do 9. It is Iuris Communis a principle of common equity and naturall reason that the directive Judgement in any matter doth chiefly belong to such as by their profession and vocation are devoted and set apart to the study and knowledge of such matters and in that respect supposed to be ablest and fittest to give Judgement thereof A consultation of Physitians is called for when the Magistrate desires to know the nature symptomes or cure of some dangerous disease A consultation of Lawyers in Legal questions A Councell of War in military expeditions If the Magistrate be in a ship at Sea he takes not on him the directive part of Navigation which belongs to the master with the mates and pilot Neither doth the master of the ship if it come to a Sea-fight take on him the directive part in the fighting which belongs to the Captain And so in all other cases Artifici in sua arte credendum Wherefore though the Judgement of Christian prudence and discretion belongs to every Christian and to the Magistrate in his Station and though the Magistrate may be and sometime is learned in the Scriptures and well acquainted with the principles of true Divinity yet ut plurimum and ordinarily especially in a rightly Reformed and well constituted Church Ministers are to be supposed to be fittest and ablest to give a directive Judgement in things and causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical with whom also other ruling Church Officers do assist and joyne who are more experimentally and practically they ought also and diverse times are more Theoretically acquainted with the right way and rules of Church-government and censures then the civil Magistrate when he is no ruling Elder in the Church which is but accidentall can be rationally or ordinarily supposed to be 10. There is some power of Governement in the Church given to the Ministery by Christ else why are they said to be set over us in the Lord and called Rulers and Governours as we shall see afterwards CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto Vs and what We yeeld unto them FOr better stating of the controversie We shall first of all take notice of such particulars as are the Opposites concessions to us or our concessions to them Their concessions are these 1. That the Christian Magistrate in ordering and disposing of Ecclesiastical causes and matters of Religion is tyed to keep close to the Rule of the Word of God and that as he may not assume an Arbitrary Government of the State so far lesse of the Church 2. That Church-Officers may exercise Church-government and authority in matters of Religion where the Magistrate doth not professe and defend the true Religion In such a case two Governments are allowed to stand together one civil another Ecclesiastical This Erastus granteth as it were by constraint and it seems by way of compliance with the Divines of Zurik who hold excommunication by Church-Officers under an infidel Magistrate and that Iure Divino to move them to comply the more with him in other particulars 3. That the abuse of Church-governement is no good argument against the thing it self There being no authority so good so necessary in Church or State but by reason of their corruptions who manage it may be abused to tyranny and opression These are Mr. Prinnes words Vindic. of the 4. Questions pag. 2. 4. That some Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyteries by Divine Right Mr. Prynne in his Epistle Dedicatory before the vindication of his four questions saith that his scope is not to take from our new Presbyteries all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction due by Divine Right to them but to confine it within certain definite limits to prevent all exorbitant abuses of it 5. That the Christian Magistrate ought not may not preach the Word nor minister the Sacraments Mr. Coleman in his Brotherly examination re-examined pag. 14. I never had it in my thoughts that the Parliament had power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments Then so far there is a distinction of Magistracy and Ministery Iure Divino Yet in this he did not so well agree with Erastus 6. That the ministery is Iure Divino and Ministers have their power and authority of preaching the Word derived to them from Christ not from the Magistrate So Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to my self We preach the Word with all authority from Christ derived to us by those of our Brethren that were in Commission before us Magistrates may drive away false Teachers but not the Preachers of the Gospel but at their utmost peril 7. They admit and allow of Presbyteries so that they doe not exercise Government and Jurisdiction Erast. lib. 4. cap. 1. Our Concessions to our Opposites are these 1. That all are not to be admitted promiscuously either to be governours or members in the Ecclesiastical Republick that is in a visible political Church None are to governe nor to be abmitted members of Presbyteries or Synods except such as both for abilities and conversation are qualified according to that which the Apostle Paul requireth a Bishop or Elder to be Scandalous or prophane Church-Officers are the worst of dogs and swine and to be first cast out And as all are not to governe so all are not to be governed Ecclesiastically but onely Church-Members 1 Cor. 5. 12. Therefore what hath been objected concerning many both Pastors and People in England who are still branches of the old stock doth not strike against what we hold All are not sit for a Church-government Therefore those that are fit shall not have a Church-Government So they must argue Or thus a Popish people are not fit to be governed Presbyterially and Episcopal Ministers are not fit to governe therefore the rest of the Nation shall want a Government 2. Presbyteriall Government is not despotical but ministerial it is not a Dominion but a Service We are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.
by the Word of God and by the Confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches doth belong to the Christian Magistrate in matters of Religion Which I do but now touch by the way so far as is necessary to wipe off the aspersion cast upon Presbyterial Government The particulars I refer to Chapter 8. Our sixth Concession is That in extraordinary cases when Church-government doth degenerate into tyranny ambition and avarice and they who have the managing of the Ecclesiastical power make defection and fall into manifest Heresy Impiety or Injustice as under Popery and Prelacy it was for the most part then and in such cases which we pray and hope we shall never see again the Christian Magistrate may and ought to do diverse things in and for Religion and interpose his Authority diverse wayes so as doth not properly belong to his cognizance decision and administration ordinarily and in a Reformed and well constituted Church For extraordinary diseases must have extraordinary remedies More of this before A seventh Concession is this The Civil Sanction added to Church-government and Discipline is a free and voluntary Act of the Magistrate That is Church-government doth not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessitate the Magistrate to aid assist or corroborate the same by adding the strength of a Law But the Magistrate is free in this to do or not to do to do more or to do lesse as he will answer to God and his conscience it is a cumulative Act of favour done by the Magistrate My meaning is not that it is free to the Magistrate in genere moris but in genere entis The Magistrate ought to adde the Civil Sanction hic nunc or he ought not to do it It is either a duty or a sin it is not indifferent But my meaning is The Magistrate is free herein from all coaction yea from all necessity and obligation other then ariseth from the Word of God binding his conscience There is no power on Earth Civil or Spiritual to constrain him The Magistrate himself is his own Judge on Earth how far he is to do any cumulative Act of favour to the Church Which takes off that calumny that Presbyterial Government doth force or compel the conscience of the Magistrate I pray God we may never have cause to state the Question otherwise I mean concerning the Magistrate his forbidding what Christ hath commanded or commanding what Christ hath forbidden in which case we must serve Christ and our consciences rather then obey Laws contrary to the Word of God and our Covenant whereas in the other case of the Magistrate his not adding of the Civil Sanction we may both serve Christ and do it without the least appearance of disobedience to the Magistrate Eighthly We grant that Pastors and Elders whether they be considered distributively or collectively in Presbyteries and Synods being Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth ought to be subject and obedient in the Lord to the Magistrate and to the Law of the Land and as in all other duties so in Civil subjection and obedience they ought to be ensamples to the Flock and their trespasses against Law are punishable as much yea more then the trespasses of other Subjects Of this also before Ninthly If the Magistrate be offended at the sentence given or censure inflicted by a Presbytery or a Synod they ought to be ready in all humility and respect to give him an account and reason of such their proceedings and by all means to endeavour the satisfaction of the Magistrate his conscience or otherwise to be warned and rectified if themselves have erred CHAP. IV. Of the agreements and differences between the nature of the Civil and of the Ecclesiastical Powers or Governments HAving now observed what our opposites yeeld to us or we to them I shall for further unfolding of what I plead for or against adde here the chief agreements and differences between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers so far as I apprehend them They both agree in these things 1. They are both from God both the Magistrate and the Minister is authorized from God both are the Ministers of God and shall give account of their administrations to God 2. Both are tyed to observe the Law and Commandments of God and both have certain directions from the Word of God to guide them in their administration 3. Both Civil Magistrates and Church Officers are Fathers and ought to be honoured and obeyed according to the fifth Commandment Utrumque scilicet dominium saith Luther Tom. 1. fol. 139. both Governments the Civil and the Ecclesiastical do pertain to that Commandment 4 Both Magistracy and Ministery are appointed for the glory of God as Supreme and for the good of men as the subordinate end 5. They are both of them mutually aiding and auxiliary each to other Magistracy strengthens the Ministery and the Ministery strengthens Magistracy 6. They agree in their general kinde they are both Powers and Governments 7. Both of them require singular qualifications eminent gifts and endowments and of both it holds true Quis ad haec idoneus 8. Both of them have degrees of censures and correction according to the degrees of offences 9. Neither the one nor the other may give out sentence against one who is not convict or whose offence is not proved 10. Both of them have a certain kind of Jurisdiction in foro exteriori For though the Ecclesiastical power be spiritual and exercised about such things as belong to the inward man onely yet as Dr. Rivet upon the Decalogue pag. 260. 261. saith truly there is a two-fold power of external jurisdiction which is exercised in foro exteriori one by Church-Censures Excommunication lesser and greater which is not committed to the Magistrate but to Church-Officers Another which is Civil and coercive and that is the Magistrates But Mr. Coleman told us he was perswaded it will trouble the whole World to bound Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction the one from the other Maledicis pag. 7. Well I have given ten agreements I will now give ten differences The difference between them is great they differ in their causes effects objects adjuncts correlations executions and ultimate terminations 1. In the efficient cause The King of Nations hath instituted the Civil power The King of Saints hath instituted the Ecclesiastical power I mean the most high God possessor of Heaven and Earth who exerciseth Soverainty over the workmanship of his own hands and so over all mankind hath instituted Magistrates to be in his stead as gods upon Earth But Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church whom his Father hath set upon his holy Hill of Zion Psal. 2. 6. to reigne over the House of Jacob for ever Luke 1. 33. who hath the key of the House of David laid upon his shoulder Isa. 22. 22. hath instituted an Ecclesiastical power and goverment in the hands of Church-Officers whom in his name he sendeth forth 2. In the matter Magistracy or Civil
doctrine life and sufferings which are not mentioned by Matthew yet they are mentioned by Iohn or some of the other Evangelists So if we take the primitive platform right we must set the whole before us that which is not in one place is in another place The Apostle Eph. 4. intendeth onely to speak of preaching officers who are appointed for this work of the Ministery to bring us to unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God that we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrine v 12 13 14. And if the Apostle had intended to enumerate all Church-officers in that place which were then in the Church how comes it he doth not mention Deacons which he distinguisheth from Bishops or Elders 1 Tim. 3. His last Argument is that in this very place 1 Cor. 12. the Apostle when he doth again enumerate the particulars vers 29. 30. he leaveth out helps Governments for which he saith he knows no reason but because there were none such at that time and the Apostle in that induction was to deal with their experience This as many other things which he hath was before answered to Mr. Coleman I give this plain reason for the omission of these two The Apostle speaketh to those who were not well satisfied nor contented with their owne station in the Church but were aspiring to more eminent gifts and administrations are all Apostles saith he are all Prophets c. and so he reckoneth out onely those rare and singular gifts which men did most covet and for that cause it was neither necessary nor had it been agreeable to the scope of the Apostle to have added are all helps are all Governments But now he purposely leaveth out these thereby intimating to the ruling Elders and Deacons of the Church of Corinth that they ought to be contented with their owne station though they be neither Apostles nor Prophets c. It remaineth therefore that the Governments in the Church mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. were such Governments as were in the Church at that time and therefore not to be understood of Christian Magistracy but of Church Government distinct from the civil The ninth Argument brought to prove that all Government is given to Christ as Mediator and that the Christian Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ as the head of Magistracy and Principality is from Eph. 1. 21 22 23. This Argument first propounded by Mr. Coleman is prosecuted by Mr. Hussey pag. 32 33. c. He demurres upon that which I said that this place maketh more against him then for him the meaning whereof was no more then this that this place doth rather afford us an Argument against him then him against us Come we to the particulars My first Reply was The Apostle saith not that Christ is given to the Church as the head of all Principalities and Powers The Brother saith so and in saying so he makes Christ a head to those that are not of his body This exception Mr. Hussey quarrelleth but when he hath endeavoured to prove from that Text that Christ is the head of Principalities because he that is head of all things is also head of Principalities though he will never be able to make it out from that Text that Christ as Mediator is head of all things but onely that he who is the Churches head is over all things and gave him to be the head over not of all things to the Church saith the Text which as I told before the Syriack readeth more plainly thus and him who is over all he gave to be the head to the Church At last he fairly gives over the proof It is true saith he disputations do require men to keep close to termes but in Col. 2. 10. ye have the very words head of all Principality and Power In Col. 2. 10. Christ as he is the eternall Son of God is called head of all Principality and power as we shall see anon but Ephes. 1. where the Apostle speaketh of Christs headship in reference to the Church and as Mediator he is not called the head of all Principality and Power So that I had reason to except against Mr. Colemans argument which made that Text Ephes. 1. to say what it saith not Now what saith he to the reason I added can Christ be a head to them that are not of his body He tells me the visible Church is not the body of Christ but onely the faithfull He might have observed the visible Church consisting of visible Saints plainly spoken of as the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 1 Cor. 12 12. 14 27. I know the visible Church is not all one with the invisible and mystical body of Christ but he who denyeth the visible Church to â—e the visible political ministerial body of Christ must also deny the visible Church to be the visible Church for if a Church then certainly the body of Christ at least visibly The next thing which I did replie was in explanation of the Text which was to this sence He that is the Churches head is over all both as he is the Sonne of God or as the Apostle saith Rom. 9. 5. God over all blessed for ever yea even as man he is over or above all creatures being exalted to a higher degree of glory majesty and dignity then man or Angel ever was or shall be but neither his divine omnipotency nor the height of glory and honour which as man he is exalted to nor both these together in the Mediator and Head of the Church omnipotency and exaltation to glory can prove that as Mediator he exerciseth his Kingly office over all Principalities and Powers and that they hold of and under him as Mediator Mr. Hussey replieth that the Text makes Christ over or above Principalities and Powers not onely in dignity and honour but as King or Head of them and that thus we must understand the comparison that he is above Principality in Principality Power in Power Might in Might Dominion in Dominion This is nothing but a begging of what is in Question That the Power and Dominion of the civil Magistrate is eminently in Christ as Mediator and from him so considered derived to the Magistrate is that which I deny can be proved from that Text and lo when he comes to the point of probation he supposeth what he had to prove My exposition of the Text made good sence For as an earthly King is exalted to have more power and more glory then those not onely of his Subjects but of another State or Kingdom to whom he is not King so the Mediator and King of the Church is exalted to power and glory far above all Principality and Power but is not therefore Head or King or Governor to all Principality and Power as Mediator And as me exposition makes good sence of the Text his makes very bad sence of it For if Christ as Mediator be head and
office to bear rule It was their sin to support themselves in their ruling by the false Prophets 1 Chron. 9 11. Azariah the Ruler of the House of God 2 Chron. 31. 13. And Azariah the Ruler of the House of God 〈◊〉 11. 11. Serajah the Ruler of the House of God All the chief Priâ—sts or heads of the several Classes or Orders of Priests were called Principes Sanctuarii saith Matthias Martinius Lexic Philol. pag. 3268. So 2. Chron. 35. 8. Hilkiah and Zachariah and Jehiel Rulers of the House of God Act. 23. 5. Then said Paul I wist not brethren that he was the high Priest for it is written thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Finally Deut. 31. 28. where we find schoterim that is Officers Rulers or such as were set over the charge the 70. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome Doctores More plainly 2 Kings 11. 18. the Priest appointed Officers over the House of the Lord. Thirteenthly A corrective Ecclesiastical government in the Churches of Galatia seemeth to be intimated Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which trouble you Which many understand of Excommunication See Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Sect. 6. 7. Also Salmeron Menochius Vasquez Novarinus and of ours Bâ—…za Diodati Gomarus all upon the place beside diverse others Musculus upon the place doth paralell this cutting off with delivering to Sathan 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. and explaineth excindantur by abalienentur which best suteth to excommunication Certainly the words will easily admit this sence or rather invite to it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not properly perdo destruo consumo but amputo abscindo also minuo because that from which any thing is cut off is diminished and made lesse also repello abjungo separo ahstraho And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abscindor excindor separor abstraâ—…or Hunters and such as trace the Vestigies but cannot find them are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be cut off or abstracted Hâ—…sych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abscissus is not he who is cut off by death or destruction but he that hath his members cut off Which seems to have been the ground of Augustine his mistake of this Text conceiving the Apostles wish to be that those men should be made Eunuchs The Septuagints have sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circumcido and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demitto as synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now from the phrase to the purpose of the Text. That it is meant of Excommunication I have these reasons which confirme me 1. Because vers 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump are the very same words which he useth 1 Cor. 5. 6. where he presseth the excommunication of the incesâ—uous man as there one unclean person in life so here some few seducers especially that one who is singularly pointed at vers 10. is meant by the little leaven which was to be purged out lest it should leaven the whole Church 2. Interpreters do generally agree that the Apostle here alludeth to Circumcision which those Judaizing teachers pressed upon the Galatians as necessary wishing that they who would so fain have the Galatians circumcised were themselves cut off and cast out of the Church as rotten members or as a Gangren out of the body This allusion suteth best with excommunication 3. The words so understood will more fitly answer and be paralel unto the cutting off in the Law that soul shall be cut off from among his people which I have before proved to be meant of excommunication as likewise to that 1 Cor. 5. 14. Put away that wicked person from among you 4. Other Interpretations do not so well agree to the Text. This cutting off could not be expected nor any hopes had of it by the hand of Justice or of the Magistrate for the Magistrates of that time were themselves troublers of the Christians so far they were from cutting of those that troubled them Those that understand the words of an imprecation of eternal cutting off from God and being accursed from Christ draw themselves into thorny questions wherein they can hardly satisfie themselves or others To understand it of cutting off by death doth not well answer that allusion to Circumcision generally observed as hath been said by Interpreters which allusion doth intimate that it is not a cutting off out of the World but a cutting off from the body of the Church I would that they themselves were cut off as the praeputium from the Church that is cut off à consortio Ecclesiae saith Guâ—…lther If it be said why then doth the Apostle onely wish it Why doth he not prescribe or command to excommunicate them To this we may either answer as Bâ—…za The Apostle Pauls authority at that time was extreamly blasted and weakned in the Churches of Galatia Or thus the Apostle knew that as the Churches of Galatia then stood affected being bewitched with the Judaizing Zealots and in a manner moved away to another Gospel both Churches and Ministery were unwilling to excommunicate those that he means of for which cause he would not peremptorily command their excommunication renitente Ecclesiâ but forbeareth for that season wishing for better times Some think that the Apostle speaketh positively of excommunication vers 10. He shall bear his Judgement But others are of opinion the Apostle there speaks of the judgement of God which he certainly and positively denounces and that vers 12. he addeth this as a distinct purpose that he could wish them also cut off from the Church by excommunication It will be an Argument of more weight against Erastus his Interpretation of that Text if we object against him thus This cutting off which the Apostle wisheth to those that troubled the Galatians cannot be meant of a divine or miraculous judgement upon them such as he thinks to be meant 1 Cor. 5. which place he parallels with Gal. 5. 12. as to the punishment intended for if so why doth not the Apostle adjudge them positively to be cut off or destroyed as he did constitute and decree by his Apostolical power of miracles so thinks Erastus the incestuous Corinthian to be delivered to Satan To this Erastus replieth lib. 3. cap. 9 Because the Apostles had not power to work miracles quoties vellent as often as they would nor to afflictor stay any but when it seemed good in Gods eyes sed quando Deo visum fuit utile necessarium salutare But I ask Was it right and agreeable to the will of God that the Apostle should wish their cutting off Was it not profitable and necessary for the Churches good that they should be cut off Where shall we finde that the working of a miracle was profitable and necessary for the Churches good and that an Apostle did desire and thirst after the working of that miracle and yet had not power from God to work
have suffered in his person or estate all the punishment which he ought to suffer so that he hath now made a civil atonement as I may call it for his offence and the Christian Magistrate hath no further to charge him with Suppose also that he is by such corporal or civil punishments as by a bit and bridle over-awed and restrained from committing again the like extâ—rnal acts Notwithstanding he hath not the least signe of true repentance and godly sorrow for his former foul and scandalous sins and he is known to be not an accuser but an excuser of himself for those faults and scandals Such a one comes and desires to receive the Sacrament Must his poenal satisfaction to the Christian Magistrate be a sufficient poenitential satisfaction to the Church Here is a rock which the Erâ—…stians dash upon unlesse they admit of a distinct Ecclesiastical Judgement concerning the signes of repentance in a scandalous sinner according to which as these signes shall appear or not appear he is to be admitted or not admitted to the Sacrament Twelfthly the power of binding and loosing is not a temporary but a perpetual power that is appointed by Christ to continue in his Church alwaies unto the end Now this power is given onely to Church-officers and Christ hath not given the keyes of discipline and the power of binding and loosing of which else-where to the Magistrate nay not to the Christian Magistrate more then to the Infidel Magistrate Let the least hint be found in Scripture where Christ hath given any such power to the Christian Magistrate and I yeeld the cause Thirteenthly The new Testament holdeth out as little of the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments under a ChriÌ„stian Magistrate as it doth of a Church-government under a Christian Magistrate Shall this therefore strengthen the Socinian Tenent That Baptisme is not a perpetual Ordinance in the Church and that we are not obliged by that commission which the Apostles had to baptize God forbid Fourteenthly The German Anabaptists required an expresse warrant or example in the New Testament of a Christian Magistrate or of the sword and wars in a Christian State yet this hath been thought no good Argument against Magistracy and wars among Christians I cannot pretermit a passage of Gualther who may seem to be opposite to me in this present Question Even he in his Homily upon Iohn 9. 22. after he hath spoken of Excommunication in the Jewish Church and in the Apostolick Churches he addeth And this day also there is need of Ecclesiastical discipline which being instituted in the Reformed Churches ought to be diligently kept lest the indulgence of Magistrates which reignes almost every where should render the Doctrine of the Gospel suspected among those that are without and that themselves also may be contained in their office and may not think that any thing they will is lawful to them in the Church But after all this let me put Mr. Hussey and other Erastians in mind that if they do acknowledge that Jesus Christ hath instituted or commanded that there be a Church Government and power of censures distinct from the Civil Government when the Magistrate is Heathenish or Idolatrous let them speak it out and let us agree so far Otherwise if they do not agree in this it is but a blind for them to make use of this distinction that where the Magistrate is Christian there is no necessity of a distinct Church-Government I conclude with a passage of Mr. Prynne in his twelve considerable serious Questions touching Church-Government The ninth of those Questions runs thus Whether the Independents challenge of the Presbyterians to shew them any National Church professing Christ in our Saviours or the Apostles daies before any one Nation totally converted to the Christian Faith or any general open profession made of it by the Princes Magistrates and major part of any Nation Kingdom Republick who were then all generally Pagans and Persecutors of the Gospel not then universally imbraced be not a most irrational unjust demand Sure if this hold against the Independents it will hold as strongly yea more strongly against the Erastians to prove their demand to be most irrational and unjust while they challenge us to shew them in the New-Testament a distinct Church-Government under a Christian Magistrate or where the State was Christian though themselves know Magistrates and States were then generally Pagan and not Christian Yea there was in those daies much more of a national Church then of a Christian Magistrate An Appendix to the second Book containing a Collection of some Testimonies not cited before And first a Testimony of King Iames in a Declaration of his penned with his own hand signed and delivered to the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland at Linlithgow December 7. Anno 1585. I For my part shall never neither my posterity ought ever cite summon or apprehend any Pastor or preacher for matters of Doctrine in Religion Salvation Heresies or true Interpretation of the Scripture but according to my first act which confirmeth the liberty of preaching the Word ministration of the Sacraments I avouch the same to be a matter meer Ecclesiastical and altogether impertinent to my calling Therefore never shall I nor ever ought they I mean my posterity acclaim any power or Iurisdiction in the foresaids His Majesties meaning was that he ought not to do this in prima instantiâ that is before the person be accused convict or judged in any Ecclesiastical Court. which was the Question at that time occasioned by Mr. Andrew Melvill his Case Afterward in the same Declaration it followeth thus Christ saying Dic Ecclesiae and one onely man stealing that dint in a quiet hole the Act of Parliament reduceth the sentence for informality and nullity of processe not as Iudges whether the Excommunication was grounded on good and just causes or not but as witnesses that it was unformally proceeded against the warrant of Gods Word example of all Reformed Kiâ—ks and your owne particular custome in this Countrey A little after I mind not to cut off any liberty granted by God to his Kirk I acclaim not to my self to be judge of Doctrine in Religion salvation heresies or true Interpretation of Scripture And after My Intention is not to meddle with Excommunication neither acclaim I to my self or my Heires power in any thing that is meer Ecclesiastical and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor with any thing that Gods Word hath simply devolved in the hands of his Kirk And to conclude I confesse and acknowledge Christ Iesus to be Head and Law-giver to the same And what soever persons do attribute to themselves as Head of the Kirk and not as Member to suspend or alter any thing that the Word of God hath onely remitted to them that man I say committeth manifest Idolatry and sinneth against the Father in not trusting the Words of his Son against the Son in not obeying him and taking
capitall causes 2. mulcts 3. leprosie and the judgement of clean or unclean Now this third belonged to the cognizance and judgement of the Priests Yea the Text it self holdeth forth two sorts of causes and controversies some forensicall between blood and blood some ceremoniall between stroke and stroke not onely Hierome but the Chaldee and Greek readeth between leprosie and leprosie Grotius noteth the Hebrew word is used for leprosie many times in one chapter Lev. 13. Plea and plea seemeth common to both there being difference of judgement concerning the one and the other 3. Here are two Iudicatories distinguished by the disjunctive Or V. 12. which we have both in the Hebrew Chaldee Greek and in our English Translation so that vers 9. and is put for or as Grotius noteth expounding that verse by vers 12. And as the Priests and Levites are put in the plurall V. 9. the like must be understood of the Iudge whereby we must understand Iudges and so the Chaldee readeth V. 9. even as saith Ainsworth many Captains are in the Hebrew called an head 1 Chron. 4. 42. And so you have there references of difficult cases from inferior Courts to the Priests or to the Judges at Ierusalem 4. There is also some intimation of a twofold sentence one concerning the meaning of the Law according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee V. 11. and this belonged to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. for the Priests it s not said the Judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth Another concerning matter of fact and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt do Grotius upon the place acknowledgeth a udgement of the Priests distinct from that of the Judges and he addâ—th a simile from the Roman Synod consisting of seventy Bishops which was consulted in weighty controversies But he is of opinion that the Priests and Levites did onely end avour to satisfie and reconcile the dissenting parties which if they did well if not that then they referred the reasons of both parties to the Sanhedrin who gave forth their decree upon the whole matter The first part of that which he saith helpeth me But this last hath no ground in the Text but is manifeâ—ly inconsistent therewith V. 12. The man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge even that man shall die Which proves that the judgement of both was supreme in suo genere that is if it was a controverâ—e ceremoniall between leprosie and leprosie or between clean and unclean Lev. 10. 9 10 11. Ezech. 22. 26. or dogmaticall and doctrinall concerning the sence of the Law and answering de Jure when the sence of the Law was controverted by the Iudges of the Cities then he that would not stand to the sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin whereof the high Priest was preâ—dent was to die the death But if the cause was criminall as between blood and blood wherein the nature or proofe of the fact could not be agreed upon by the Judges of the Cities then he that would not submit to the decree of the civill Sanhedrin at Iâ—…rusalem should die the death And thus the English Divines in their late annotations give the sence according to the disjunction V. 12. While the Priest bringeth warrant from God for the sentenee which he passeth in the cause of man Ezech. 44. 23 24. he that contumaciously disobeyeth him disobeyeth God Luke 10. 16. Matth. 10. 14. The cause is alike if the just sentence of a competent Judge be contemned in secular effaires In the third place we read that David did thus divide the Levites at that time eight and thirty thousand foure and twenty thousand of them were to set forward the work of the house of the Lord foure thousand were porters and foure thousand praised the Lord with instruments and six thousand of them were made some schoterim Officers and some schâ—…phtim Judges 1 Chro. 23. 4. Some understand by Schoterim Rulers or those who were over the charge To speak properly schophtim were those that gave sentence schoterim those that lookt to the execution of the sentence and to the keeping of the law like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Craecians for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another So 1 Chro. 26. 29. Chenaniah and his sonnes were for the outward businesse over Israel foâ—… Officers or Rulers or over the charge and Judges that is they were not tied to attendance and service in the Temple as the Porters and singers and those that did service about the Sacrifices Lights Washings and such like things in the Temple but they were to judge and give sentence concerning the law and the meaning thereof when any such controversie should be brought before them from any of the Cities in the Land They were not appointed to be Officers and Judges over the rest of the Levites to keepe them in order for which course was taken in another way but to be Rulers and Judges over Israel saith the Text in the outward businesse which came from without to Ierusalem in judging of which peradventure they were to attend by course or as they should be called If any say that all those Levites who were Judges did not sit in judgement at Ierusalem but some of them in severall Cities of the Land that there might be the easier accesse to them I can easily grant it and I verily believe it was so and it maketh the more for a Church government in particular Cities which was subordinate to the Ecclesiasticall Sanh dâ—in at Ierusalem However the Levites had a ruling power and Deut. 31. 28. those who are schoterim in the originall the Septuagints call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome Doctores because their Teachers were Officers over the charge and had a share in Government Now no man can imagine that there were no other Officers over the charge not Judges in Israel except the Levites onely for it followeth in that same Story â— Chro. 28. 1. And David assembled all the Princes of Israel the Princes of the Tribes and the Captains of the Companies that ministred to the King by course the Captains over the thousands c. Nor yet wil any man say that the Levites were Officers over the charge and Judges of the same kind in the same manner or for the same ends with the civill Rulers and Judges or the military Commanders or that there was no distinction between the ruling power of the Princes and the ruling power of the Levites Where then shall the difference lie if not in this that there was an Ecclesiasticall Government besides the Civill and Military I grant those Levites did rule and judge not onely in all the businesse of the Lord but also in the service of the King 1 Chro. 26. 30 32. But the reason was because the Jewes had no other civill
us out of vindiciae contra Tyrannos with an approbatory and encomiastick close of his citation Ieremy being sent by God to denounce the overthrow of the City Jerusalem is for this first condemned citing in the Margin Ierem. 26. by the Priests and Prophets that is by the Ecclesiasticall Judgement or Senate after this by all the people that is by the ordinary Judges of the City to wit by the Captains of thousands and hundreds at last by the Princes of Judah that is by 71 men sitting in the new porch of the Temple his cause being made known he is acquitted The sixth place which intimateth an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin is Ierem. 18. 18. where the adversaries of Ieremiah say among themselves Come and let us dâ—…vise devices against Jeremiah for the Law shall not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise nor the word from the Prophet Come and let us smite him with the tongue The force of their argument as not onely our Interpreters but Maldonat also and Sanctius following Aquinas and Lyra tell us stands in this those who are of greatest authority in the Church the Priests Prophets and Elders with whom are the Oracles of truth doe contradict Ieremiah therefore he is a false Prophet But what was the ground of this consequence surely the ground was that which Bullinger and the late English Annotations doe observe namely the Popish error was also their error the Church cannot erre But let us yet follow the argument to the bottome How came they to thinke the Church cannot erre or what was that Church which they thought infallible No doubt they had respect to the Law of the Sanhedrin Deut. 17. 10 11 12. And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall â—…hoose shall shew thee and thou shalt observe to doe according to all that they enforme thee According to the senâ—…ence of the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt 〈◊〉 thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand or to the left And the man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Judge even that man shall die From this Scripture misapplyed they drew an argument against Ieremiah Wherein their meaning could not be this that the doctrine of every individuall Priest or of every individuall Scribe is infallible for as the Law now cited did speak of the Sanhedrin not of individuall Priests so neither the Jewes of old nor the Papists after them have drawn the conceited infallibility so low as to every particular Priest But they mean collectively and point at an assembly or councell of Priests Wise-men and Prophets which as they apprehended could not erre and whose determination they preferred to the word of the Lord by Ieremiah for the Law that is saith Menochius the interpretation of the Law can not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise Now this was an Ecclesiasticall not a civill Sanhedrin which may appeare thus First they doe not make mention of the Judge mentioned Deut. 17. where the Priest the Judge are distinguished onely they mention the Priest the Prophet for which the Chaldee hath Scribe which is all one as to the 〈◊〉 argument for we finde both Prophets and Scribes in Ecclesiasticall assemblies as was said before and the wise By the wise are meant those that were chiefe or did excell among the Scribes or Doctors of the Law So Grotius annot in Matth. â—3 34. and it may be collected from Ierem. 8. 8 9. This is certâ—ine that these wise men were Church-officers for as they are 〈◊〉 from the Judges Esay 3. 2. so Jesus Christ speaking of 〈◊〉 and other Ministers of the Gospel whom he was to send forth expresseth himselfe by way of allusion to the Ecclesiasticall Ministers of the Jewes Matth 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets and Wise men and Scribes which Luke ch 11. V. 49. hath thus I will send them Prophets and Apostles Secondly the civill Sanhedrin at this time did so far as we can finde contradict Ieremiah but when his cause came afterward before them Ierem. 26. they shew much favour and friendship to him Thirdly that which is added come and let us him smite with the tongue may be three waies read and every way it sutâ—th to the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin whether themselves be the speakers in the Text or whether the people be the speakers of it as of that which they would deâ—ire and move the Sanhedrin to doe in the name of them all either thus Let us smite him for the tongue that is for an Ecclesiasticall cause for false Doctrine Or thus Let us smite him in the tongue so the Septuagint and Arias Montanus that is Let us smite him with an Ecclesiasticall censure and silence him and discharge him to preach any more to the people Or thus Let us smite him with the tongue that is with an Ecclesiasticall sentence or declaration smite him not with the Sword which belonged onely to the civill Magistrate but with the tongue by declaring him to be a false Prophet and by determining the case de jure what ought to be done with him according to the Law Seventhly consider another place Ezech. 7. 26. Then shall they seek a vision of the Prophet but the Law shall perish from the Priest and counsell from the ancients Here againe these are to be lookt upon collectively and conjunctly not diâ—tributively and severally and this I prove from the Text it selfe not onely because the counsell here sought for was not to be given by one ancient but by the ancients yea iâ— was a principall part of the curse or judgement that counsell could not be had from an assembly of ancients or Elders suppose it might be had from some individuall Elders here or there but also because the Antithesis in the Text intimateth a disappointment in that thing which was sought after They shall seeke a vision from the Prophet or as the Chaldee hath it discipline from the Scribe This they shall not finde and why because the Law shall perish from the Priest and counsell from the Ancients It was therefore Consistoriall or Synedricall counsell Judgement or Disscipline which should be sought but should not be found So that though a Prophet of the Lord shall peradventure be found who can reveale the councell of the Lord in a time of generall defection like Micaiah contradicting the 400 Prophets yet an Ecclesiasticall counsell of Prophets Scribes Priests and Elders sometime Israels glory shall turn to be Israels shame and that assembly which did sometime respondere dâ—… jure and pronounce righteous judgement and give light in difficult cases shall doe so no more the very light of Israel shall be darknesse the law and counsell shall perish from them that is they
Diodati citing Ier. 26. 7. Secondly they shall not so much as come into the computation or numbring of the people as members of the Church of Israel 3. Nay they shall not be permitted to dwell in the holy Land or to returne thither from their captivity they shall not have so much favour as strangers had who might come into the holy Land and sojourne there In the first branch the word translated assembly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sod which properly signifieth a secret and is used for counsell because counsell ought to be secret or for the place of counsell or assembly of Counsellers Pagnin in his Thesaurus p. 1761. readeth this place with Hierome in consilio or otherwise saith he in concilio Vatablus in concilio populi mei non erunt The Septuagints read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is those Prophets shall have no hand in the Discipline of my people The same word they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea by both these put together Prov. 20. 19. where for the Hebrew sod the Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that revealeth the secret counsels in the Sanhedrin and it cohereth well with the preceding Verse where they mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governments Sometime they expound the word by an Episcopall I mean not Prelaticall inspection Iob 29. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was an overseer of my house So that so far as the Septuagints authority can weigh that place Ezek. 13. 9. must be understood of the secluding of those Prophets from the Sanhedrin not from the Civill in which the Prophets were not members but from the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin In the twelfth and last place the new Testament holds out to us an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin Whether the civill Sanhedrin was wholy taken away by Herod and another civill Sanhedrin not substitute in the place of that which he took away but the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin onely remaining as some hold or whether both did then continue though not so clearely distinct as others hold This we finde that there was an Ecclesiasticall government in the hands of Church-officers for 1. there was a councell of the Priests and Elders and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. 16. 21. 21. 23. 26. 57 59. 27. 1. 12. Marke 14. 43. Luke 22. 66. Acts 4. 5. The Centurists say that those Elders were joyned with the Priests in the government of the Church with Ecclesiasticall persons in Ecclesiasticall affaires Which hath been rightly taken for a president of our ruling Elders 2. That Councell is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22. 66. Acts 22. 5. the Presbytery or Eldership the very name which Paul gives to that assembly of Church-officers who ordained Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 14. is it credible that the Apostle would transfer the name of a civill Court to signifie an Assembly which was meerely Ecclesiasticall and not Civill The very use of the word in this sence by the Apostle tels us that in his age the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was taken in an Ecclesiasticall notion onely 3. This Councell did examine Iesus concerning his Disciples and his doctrine and received witnesses against him and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy Matth. 27. 57. Marke 14. 53 55. Ioh. 18. 19. Hence Protestant writers draw an argument against Papists to overthrow their infallibility of Councels unto which argument Bellarmine deviseth foure answers But it came not once into his thoughts to reply that this councell was civill not Ecclesiasticall which had been his best answer if any probability for it It hath been supposed both by Protestant and Popish Writers that it was an Ecclesiasticall Councell such as the controversie is about otherwise our Argument had been as impertinent as their answer was insufficient 4. Our opposites have no evasion here but that which Bilson Saravia and others of the Prelaticall party did answer in opposition to ruling Elders namely that the Jewish Elders were Judges or Magistrates But the reply which served then will serve now the Elders are plainly distinguished from Judges Rulers and Princes Ios. 8. 33. 23. 2. Deut. 5. 23. Iud. 8. 14. 2 Kings 10. 1 5. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. Tâ—…status on Deut. 21. 2. 22. 15 16. observeth the same distinction of Judges and Elders Pelargus on Deuâ—… 21. 2 3 4. observeth the like That which I say concerning the distinction of Judges and Elders may be confirmed by Halichoth Olam Tract 1. cap 3. The Judges of Soura M. Houna and D. Isaac The Iudges of Phoumbeditha M. Papa the sonne of Samuel c. The Elders of Soura M. Houna and M. Hisda The Elders of Phoumbeditha Ena and Abimi the sonne of Rahba And thus we are taught how to under and thâ—se Gemarick phrases of the Judges of such a place and the Eldâ—rs of such a place that we may not mistake them as if they were one 5. Some have also drawne a patterne for the constitution of Synods from that Councell Acts 4. 5 6. where we finde assembled together Rulers 〈◊〉 Elders Scriâ—es according to which patterne we have in our Synods 1. the civill 〈◊〉 to preside in the order of proceedings for preventing tumults injuries disorders and to assist and protect the Synod 2. Pastors of Churches 3. Doctors from universities answering to the Scribes or Doctors of the Law 4. Ruling Elders who assist in the Government of the Church 6. After that Iudaea was redacted into a Province and the Romans having keptin their owne hands not only the power of life and death Iohn 18. 31. but all judgement in whatsovever civill or criminall offences falling out among the Jews meant by matters of wrong or wicked leudness Acts 18. 14. And having left to the Jewes no government nor any power of judgement except in things pertaining to their religion onely Ib. verse 15. These six things considered it is very unprobable if not unpossible that the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes mentioned so often in the New Testament should be no Ecclesiasticall Court but a temporall and civill Magistracy The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. reckon that Councell for an Ecclesiasticall Court distinct from civill Magistracy and they propose these two to be distinctly treated of Acta coram Pontificibus seu Magistratu Ecclesiastico and here they bring in the councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes And Actio coram Pilato seu magistratu politico I know Erastus lib. 3. cap. 2. aud lib. 4. cap. 4. though he confesse plainly that the Jewish Sanhedrin mentioned in the Gosspell and in the Acts of the Apostles had onely power of judging causes belonging to Religion and that the Romans did leave them no power to judge of civill injuries yet he holdeth that in these causes of Religion the Sanhedrin had power not onely of imprisoning and scourging but even of death it selfe And so endeavours to make it a temporall or civil Magistracy which
civill Court of Justice had then removed from Hierusalem and had lost its authority in executing Justice I. Coch annot in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 1. sâ—…ct 13. beareth witnesse to the same story above mentioned that forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin did remove from its proper seat where he also mentions the ten stations or degrees of their removing and Iam tum cessarunt judicia capitalia saith he Now at that time the capitall judgements did cease Thus we have three witnesses singularly learned in the Jewish Antiquities Unto these adde Casauâ—…on exerc 16. anno 34. num 76. He holds that though the Councell of the Jewes had cognizance of the offence for otherwise how could they give a reason or cause when they demanded justice in which respect the Councell did judge Christ to be guilty of death Marke 14. 64. yet their Councell had then no more power of capitall punishments which saith he the more learned moderne writers doe demonstrate è Iuchasin and from other Talmudicall writings he addeth that this power of putting any man to death was taken from the Jewes some space before this time when they said to Pilate It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death for this power was taken from them saith he forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple as the Rabbinicall writers doe record I have thus largely prosecuted my last argument drawn from the New Testament mentioning the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes And I trust the twelve arguments which have been brought may give good satisfaction toward the proofe of an Ecclesiasticall Jewish Sanhedrin The chiefe objection which ever I heard or read against this distinction of a Civill Sanhedrin and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes is this That neither the Talmud nor the Talmudicall writers mention any such distinction but speake onely of one supreme Sanhedrin of 71 and of other two Courts which sate the one at the doore of the Court before the Temple the other at the gate which entereth to the mountaine of the Temple There were also Courts in the Cities where capitall cases were judged by three and twenty pecuniall mults by three Answ. It must be remembred that not onely the Talmudicall Commentators but the Talmud it selfe is much later than the time of the Sanhedrin and the integrity of the Jewish government Yea later by some Centuries than the destruction of the Temple and City of Ierusalem So that the Objection which is made is no stronger than as if one should argue thus There is no mention of Elderships constituted of Pastors and Ruling Elders without any Bishop having preeminence over the rest neither in the Canon Law nor decretals of Popes nor in the Booke of the Canons of the Roman Church Therefore when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church of Rome there was no such Eldership in that Church constituted as hath been said But if the Ecclesiasticall Government either of the Church of Rome or of the Church of the Jewes can be proved from Scripture as both may it ought to be no prejudice against those truths that they are not fouâ—d in the Writers of afâ—ertimes and declining ages Howbeit there may be seen some footsteps of a Civill and Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin even in the Talmudicall writers in the opinion of Constantinus L'Empereur and in that other passage cited by D. Buxtorf out of Elias Of which before And so much concerning an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes If after all this any man shall be unsatisfied in this particular yet in the issue such as are not convinced that there was an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes distinct from their civill Sanhedrin may neverthelesse be convinced not by the former arguments but by other Mediums that there was an Ecclesiasticall government among the Jewes distinct from their civill government For it belonged to the Priests not to the Magistrates or Judges to put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and cleane And the Priests not the Magistrates are challenged for not putting difference between the holy and prophane Ezech. 22. 26. And this power of the Priests was not meerly doctrinall or declarative but decisive binding and juridicall so farre as that according to their sentence men were to be admitted as cleane or excluded as uncleane Yea in other cases as namely in trying and judging the scandall of a secret and unknown murther observe what is said of the Priests Deut. 21. 5. by their word shall every controversie and every stroke be tried Yea themselves were Judges of controversies Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgements Where the Ministers of the Gospell are principally intended but not without an allusion unto and parallel with the Priests of the old Testament in this point of jurisdiction Suppose now it were appointed by Law that Ministers shall separate or put difference between the holy and prophane that by their word every controversie concerning the causes of suspension or sequestration of men from the Sacrament shall be tried that in controversie they shall stand in judgement and judge according to the word of God Would not every one looke upon this as a power of government put into the hands of Ministers And none readier to aggravate such government then the Erastians Yet all this amounts to no more then by the plaine and undeniable Scriptures above cited was committed to the Priests Suppose also that men were kept backe from the Temple and from the Passeover not for any morall uncleannesse but for ceremoniall uncleannesse onely which is to be afterwards discussed yet the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies concerning mens legall uncleannesse according to which judgement and decision men were to be admitted to or kept backe from the Temple and Passover yea sometime their owne houses as in the case of leprosie could not choose but entitle them to a power of government which power was peculiar to them and is not in all the old Testament ascribed to Magistrates or Judges And as the exercise of this power did not agree to the Magistrate so the commission charge and power given to those who did keepe backe the uncleane was not derived from the Magistrate for it did belong to the intrinsecall sacerdotall authority 2 Kings 11. 18. The Priest Iehojada appointed Officers over the house of the Lord. The 70 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Officers or overseers over the Temple were appointed by Iehojada for keeping backe the uncleane as Grotius upon the place following Iosephus hath observed Compare 2 Chro. 23. 19. And he Iehojada set the Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in For the same end did he appoint these overseers over the Temple 2 Kings 11. It was also appointed by the Law that the man who should doe any thing
whole Diocesse consisting it may be of some hundreds of Congregations holding that the Ministers of particular Congregations did preach the Word and minister the Sacraments in his name by vertue of authority and order from him and because he could not act by himself in every Congregation The Presbyteriall Government acknowledgeth no Pastorall charge of preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments to more Congregations then one and doth acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches being lawfully called to have power and authority for preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments in the name of Christ and not in the name of the Presbyterie 5. The Prelates as they denyed the power and authority of Pastors so they utterly denyed the very offices of ruling Elders and Deacons for taking more especiall care of the poor in particular Congregations 6. They did not acknowledge Congregationall Elderships nor any power of discipline in particular Congregations which the Presbyteriall Government doth 7. They intruded Pastors oft times against the consent of the Congregation and reclamante Ecclesiâ which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 8. They ordained Ministers without any particular charge which the Presbyterial Government doth not 9 In Synods they did not allow any but the Clergie alone as they kept up the name to have decisive suffrage The Presbyterial Government gives decisive voices to ruling Elders as well as to Pastors 10. The Prelates declined to be accountable to and censurable by either Chapters Diocesan or Nationall Synods In Presbyteriall Government all in whatsoever Ecclesiasticall administration are called to an account in Presbyteries Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies respectively and none are exempted from Synodicall censures in case of scandall and obstinacy 11. The Prelates power was not meerly Ecclesiasticall they were Lords of Parliament they held Civil places in the State which the Presbyterial Government condemneth 12. The Prelats were not chosen by the Church Presbyters are 13. The Prelates did presume to make Lawes binding the Conscience even in things indifferent and did persecute imprison fine depose excommunicate men for certain Rites and Ceremonies acknowledged by themselves to be indifferent setting aside the will and authority of the Law makers This the Presbyteriall Government abhorreth 14. They did excommunicate for money matters for trifles Which the Presbyteriall Government condemneth 15. The Prelates did not allow men to examine by the Judgement of Christian and private discretion their Decrees and Canons so as to search the Scriptures and look at the Warrants but would needs have men think it enough to know the things to be commanded by them that are in place and power Presbyteriall Government doth not lord it over mens consciences but admitteth yea commendeth the searching of the Scriptures whether these things which it holds forth be not so and doth not presse mens Consciences with Sic volo sic jubeo but desireth they may doe in faith what they do 16. The Prelates held up pluralities non-residencies c. Which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 17. As many of the Prelates did themselves neglect to preach the Gospel so they kept up in diverse places a reading non-preaching Ministery Which the Presbyteriall Goverment suffereth not 18. They opened the door of the Ministery to diverse scandalous Arminianized and popishly affected men and locked the door upon many worthy to be admitted The Presbyteriall Government herein is as contrary to theirs as theirs was to the right 19. Their Official Courts Commissaries c. did serve themselves Hâ—ires to the sons of Eli Nay but thou shalt give it me now and if not I will take it by force The Presbyterial Government 〈◊〉 such proceedings 20. The Prelates and their High-Commission Court did assume potâ—…statem utriusque gladij the power both of the Temporall and Civil Sword The Presbyteriall Government medleth with no Civil nor Temporall punishments I do not intend to enumerate all the differences between the Papal and Prelatical Government on the one side and the Presbyterial Government on the other side in this point of unlimitednesse or arbitrarynesse These differences which I have given may serve for a consciencious caution to intelligent and moderate men to beware of such odiouâ— and unjust comparisons as have been used by some and among others by Mr. Salâ—…marsh in his Parallel between the Prelacy and Presbyterie Which as it cannot strike against us nor any of the Reformed Churches who acknowledge no such Presbyterie as he describeth and in some particulars striketh at the Ordinance of Parliament as namely in point of the Directory so he that hath a mind to a Recrimination might with more truth lay diverse of those imputations upon those whom I beleeve he is most unwilling they should be laid upon In the third place The Presbyterian Government is more limited and lesse arbitrary than the Independent Government of single Congregations which exempting themselves from the Presbyterial subordination and from being accountable to and censurable by Classes or Synods must needs be supposed to exercise a much more unlimited or arbitrary power than the Presbyterial Churches do especially when this shall be compared and laid together with one of their three grand Principles which disclaimeth the binding of themselves for the future unto their present judgement and practice and avoucheth the keeping of this reserve to alter and retract See their Apologetical narration pag. 10 11. By which it appeareth that their way will not suffer them to be so far moulded into an Uniformity or bounded within certain particular rules I say not with others but even among themselves as the Presbyterian way will adâ—it of Finally The Presbyterial Government hath no such liberty nor arbitrarinesse as Civil or Military Government hath there being in all civil or temporal affairs a great deal of latitude 〈◊〉 to those who manage the same so that they command nor act nothing against the Word of God But Presbyterial Government is tyed up to the rules of Scripture in all such particulars as are properly spiritual and proper to the Church Though in other particular occasional circumstances of times places accommodations and the like the same light of nature and reason guideth both Church and State yet in things properly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical there is not near somuch latitude left to the Presbytery as there is in civil affairs to the Magistrate And thus I have made good what I said That Presbyterial Government is the most limited and least arbitrary Government of any other All which Vindication and clearing of the Presbyterial Government doth overthrow as to this Point Master Hussey's Observation pag. 9. of the irregularity and arbitrarinesse of Church-government And so much of my fourth Concâ—ssion The fifth shall be this 'T is far from our meaning that the Christian Magistrate should not meddle with matters of Religion or things and causes Ecclesiastical and that he is to take care of the Common-wealth but not of the Church Certainly there is much power and Authority which
commonly say of the Magistrate that he is Custos utriusque Tabulae He is to take speciall care that all his Subjects be made to observe the Law of God and live not onely in moral honesty but in Godlinesse and that so living they may also enjoy peace and quietnesse More particularly the end of Church censures is that men may be ashamed humbled reduced to repentance that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. The end of civil punishments inflicted by the Magistrate is That justice may be done according to Law and that peace and good order may be maintained in the Common-wealth as hath been said The end of delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan was that they may learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20. Erastus yeelds to Beza pag. 239. that the Apostle doth not say Ut non possint blasphemare that henceforth they may not be able to sin as they did before which yet he acknowledgeth to be the end of civil punishments but that they may learn not to blaspheme Wherefore when he expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to no other sence but this That the Apostle had delivered those two to be killed by Satan Ut non possint that they may not be able to blaspheme so any more just as a Mastgirate delivers a theef from the gallows that he may not be able to steal any more and as he tels us some speak that he may learn to steal no more He is herein confuted not onely out of the Text but out of himself So then the end of Church-censures is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the offenders may learn or be instructed to do so no more which belongeth to the inward man or soul. The end of civil punishments is Ut non possint as Erastus tels us that the offenders may not be able or at least being alive and some way free may not dare to do the like the sword being appointed for a terrour to them who do evil to restrain them from publike and punishable offences not to work upon the spirit of their mindes nor to effect the destroying of the flesh by mortification that the spirit may be safe in the day of the Lord. The fifth difference between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers is in respect of the effects The effects of the Civil power are Civil Laws Civil punishments Civil rewards The effects of the Ecclesiastical power are Determinations of Controversies of Faith Canons concerning Order and Decency in the Church Ordination or Deposition of Church-Officers Suspension from the Sacrament and Excommunication The powers being distinct in their nature and causes the effects must needs be distinct which flow from the actuating and putting in execution of the powers I do not here speak of the effects of the Ecclesiastical power of Order the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments but of the effects of the power of Jurisdiction or Government of which onely the Controversic is Sixthly The Civil power hath for the object of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things of this life matters of Peace War Justice the Kings matters and the Countrey-matters those things that belong to the external man But the Ecclesiastical power hath for the object of it things pertaining to God the Lords matters as they are distinct from Civil matters and things belonging to the inward man distinct from the things belonging to the outward man This difference Protestant Writers do put between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers Fr. Junius Ecclesiast lib. 3. cap. 4. saith thus We have put into our definition humane things to be the subject of Civil administration but the subject of Ecclesiastical administration we have taught to be things Divine and Sacred Things Divine and Sacred we call both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our minde and conscience as things necessary and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary For example Prayers the administration of the Word and Sacraments Ecclsiastical censure are things necessary and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saints but set dayes set hours set places fasts and the like belong to the decency and order of the Church c. But humane things we call such as touch the life the body goods and good name as they are expounded in the second Table of the Decalogue for these are the things in which the whole Civil administration standeth Tilen Synt. part 2. disp 32. tels us to the same purpose That Civil Government or Magistracy versatur circa res terrenas hominem externum Magistratus saith Danaui Pol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 1. instituti sunt à Deo rerum humanarum quae hominum societati necessariae sunt respectu ad earum curam If it be objected How can these things agree with that which hath been before by us acknowledged that the Civil Magistrate ought to take special care of Religion of the conservation and purgation thereof of the abolishing idolatry and superstition and ought to be Custos utriusque Tabulae of the first as well as second Table I answer That Magistrates are appointed not onely for Civil Policy but for the conservation and purgation of Religion as is expressed in the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland before cited we firmly beleeve as a most undoubted truth But when Divines make the object of Magistracy to be onely such things as belong to this life and to humane society they do not mean the object of the Magistrates Care as if he were not to take care of Religion but the object of his Operation The Magistrate himself may not assume the administration of the keys nor the dispensing of Church-censures he can but punish the external man with external punishments Of which more afterwards The seventh difference stands in the Adjuncts For 1. the Ecclesiastical power in Presbyterial or Synodical Assemblies ought not to be exercised without prayer and calling upon the Name of the Lord Matth. 18. 19. There is no such obligation upon the Civil power as that there may be no Civil Court of Justice without prayer 2. In divers cases Civil Jurisdiction hath been and is in the person of one man But no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is committed to one man but to an Assembly in which two at least must agree in the thing as is gathered from the Text last cited 3. No private or secret offence ought to be brought before an Ecclesiastical Court except in the case of contumacy and impenitency after previous admonitions This is the ordinary rule not to dispute now extraordinary exceptions from that rule But the Civil power is not bound up by any such ordinary rule For I suppose our opposites will hardly say at least hardly make it good that no Civil injury or breach of Law and Justice being privately committed may be brought before a Civil Court except first there
the Magistrate may command Church-officers to suspend or excommunicate all obstinate and scandalous persons he may command the Classis to ordain able and godly ministers and no other he may command a Synod to meet to debate and determine such or such a controversie Consequently also when the thing is examined judged resolved or done by the Ecclesiasticall power the Magistrate hath power and authority to adde his civil sanction confirmation ot ratification to make the Ecclesiasticall sentence to be obeyed and submitted unto by all whom it concerneth In all which the Christian Magistrate doth exceeding much for the conservation and purgation of Religion not eliciâ—…ndo actus doing or exercising by himself or by his owne authority acts of Church Government or discipline but taking care that such and such things be done by those to whom they do belong 3. Distinguish the directive part and the coercive part The directive part in the conservation or purgation of Religion doth belong to the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church assembled together In administring therefore that which concerneth Religion and peoples spirituall good the Magistrate not onely juvatur but dirigitur is not onely helped but directed by the Ecclesiastical directive power Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 6. Magistracy may say to Ministery as Moses said to Hobab Thou mayest be to us in stead of eyes Ad sacrae Religionis informationem fidâ—…lis Magistratus verbi divini administris veluti oculis uti debet and for that end he is to make use of consistoriall and Synodicall Assemblies say the Professors of Lâ—…yden Synopspur 〈◊〉 Disp. 50. Thes. 44. But the coercive part in compelling the obstinate and unruly to submit to the Presbyteriall or Synodicall sentence belongs to the Magistrate Not as if the Magistrate had nothing to do but to be an executioner of the pleasure of Church-officers or as if he were by a blind and implicite faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination God forbid The Magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compell men to do to judge of it not onely judicio apprehâ—…nsivo by understanding and apprehending â—right what it is but judicio discretivo by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion examining by the Word of God the grounds reasons and warrants of the thing that he may in Faith and not doubtingly adde his authority thereto In which judging he doth Iudicare but not Iudicem agere that is he is Iudex suarum actionum he judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to Church-officers and doth not concur therewith except he be satisfied in his Conscience that he may do so yet this makes him not supreme Judge or Governour in all Ecclesiastical causes which is the Prerogative of Jesus Christ revealing his will in his word nor yet doth it invest the Magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forensicall directive judgement in Ecclesiastical things or causes which belongeth to Ecclesiasticall not to civil Courts 4. Distinguish between a Cumulative and a Privativâ—… authority The Magâ—strate hath indeed an authoritative influence into matters of Religion and Church-Government but it is cumulative that is the Magistrate takes care that Church-officers as well as other Subjects may do those things which ex officio they are bound to do and when they do so he aideth assisteth strengtheneth ratifieth and in his way maketh effectuall what they do But that which belongs to the Magistrate is not privative in reference to the Ecclesiastical Government It is understood salvo jure Ecclesiastico for the Magistrate is a nursing Father not a step Father to the Church and the Magistrate as well as other men is under that tye 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth This Proviso therefore is justly made that whatever power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion it is not to hinder the free exercise of Church discipline and censures against scandalous and obstinate sinners As the Casuists in other cases distinguish Lucrum cessans and damnum emergens so must we distinguish between the Magistrate his doing no good to the Church and his doing evil to the Church between his not assisting and his opposing between his not allowing or authorizing and his forbidding or restraining It doth properly and of right belong to the Magistrate to adde a civil sanction and strength of a law for strengthning and aiding the exercise of Church discipline or not to add it And himself is Judge whether to add any such cumulative act of favour or not But the Magistrate hath no power nor authority to lay bands and restraints upon Church-officers to hinder any of Christs ordinances or to forbid them to do what Christ hath given them a commission to do And if any such restraints of prohibitions or lawes should be laid on us we ought to obey God rather than men 5. Distingue tempora Whatever belongs to the Magistrate in matters of Religion more then falls under the former distinctions is extraordinary and doth not belong to ordinary Government In extraordinary reformations the Magistrate may do much by his owne immediate authority when Synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine or from holinesse and godlinesse yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly Divines as can be had either in his owne or from other Dominions Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 5. And so much be spoken of the Magistrate his power and duty in things and causes Ecclesiasticall As we do not deny to the Magistrate any thing which the Word of God doth allow him so we dare not approve his going beyond the bounds and limits which God hath set him And I pray God that this be not found to be the bottome of the controversie Whether Magistracy shall be an arbitrary Government if not in civil yet in Ecclesiastical things Whether the Magistrate may do or appoint to be done in the matter of Church-Government admission to or exclusion from the Ordinances of Christ what ever shall seem good in his eyes And whether in purging of the Church he is obliged to follow the rules of Scripture and to consult with learned and godly Ministers although Erastus himself as is before observed and Sutlivius a great follower of him de Presbyt cap. 8. are ashamed of and do disclaim such assertions CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy â—r Civil Goveramâ—nt â—amely an Ecclesiastical Government properly so callâ—d in the hands of Church-officâ—rs THis Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament excluding all Government of Church-officers Ministers and Elders that is as he expounds himself all corrective government leaving them no power except what is meerly doctrinal and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate onely Mr. Hussey following him
Amici vitia si feras faeias tua And whereas the Erastian take much hold of the words against thee If thy Brother trespasse against thee I have before answered that any sinne against God which is committed in my sight hearing or knowledge and so becommeth a scandall or stumbling Block to me is a trespasse committed against me because he that ought to edifie me doth scandalize me So that the words against thee are added to signifie not a civill injury bnt rather a spirituall injury or scandall Augustine regul 3. in fine Tom. 1. applieth the rule and method of proceeding mentioned Mat. 18. to lascivious or adulterous behaviour which one Brother observing in another ought to admonish him first secretly then to take witnesses then to tell the Church and if he be contumacious de vestra societate projiciatur let him be cast out of your society saith he and the context carrieth it to any scandall whereby one Brother scandalizeth another whereof much was spoken in the preceding part of the Chapter Erastus pag. 154. Scopus Christi est in hoc capite docere quantum malum sit scandalum The scope of Christ is in this Chapter to teach how great an evill scandall is Wherefore I adhere to the resolution of Tostatus in Math. 18. quaest 84 sive sit peccatum directè contra deum sive contra proximum si fit nobis scientibus fit contra nos cum nos scandalizet Both Chrysostome and Theophilact upon Math. 18. 15. observe this cohesion that Christ having before spoken against those that give scandall now he gives a rule to the person scandalized Thirdly that exposition which now I argue against tendeth to make one Scripture contradict another and to make that lawfull by one Scripture which another Scripture makes unlawfull even some of themselves being Judges They so expound Matth. 1 S. that they make it lawfull and as such allowed by Christ himself for a Christian to pursue his Brother for a civill injury before Infidell or Heathnish Judges even as he would pursue an Heathen or Infidell if such an one had done him the in ury Erast saith freely yet foully that if a Congregation of the faithfull be under the Turke or the Pope one of them may pursue another for an injury when the offender will not hearken to his own Assembly before those Judges who are aliens and Enemies to the true Religion His exposition of Matth. 18. doth plainly lead hereunto So saith Bishop Bilson a great follower of Erastus in this debate upon Matth. 18. in the place before cited let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a publican that is pursue him in those courts where thou wouldest a Pagan and Publican that should do thee wrong But how doth this agree with 1 Cor. 6. the place which Erastus thes 41. conceiveth to be a Commentary upon Matth. 18. doth not the Apostle expressely condemne it as being utterly a fault that one brother went to Law with another for the things of this life or civill causes before the unjust and unbeleevers Nay let us heare Bishop Bilson himself in that very place Paul saith he by no means permitted them to pursue their Brethren at the Tribunals of Infidels What then will they set Paul against Christ or will they make 1 Cor. 6. contrary to Matth. 18. As for that whereby Erastus would reconcile this difference it is as good as nothing He saith pag. 183. that Paul requireth them to referre to arbitrators within the Church it self only the smallest matters and things pertaining to this life but not crimes or weighty matters which he would reserve to the Magistrates otherwise he had detracted much from those to whom he every where commandeth to give obedience And so saith he that which Paul saith is nothing but what Christ saith Tell the Church Besides Paul himself appealed to Cesar. let all men judge saith he whether the Apostle would make it unlawfull to other wronged persons which he thought lawfull for himself I answer 1. If it was a shame and foule scandall for Christians to pursue one another for smaller matters pertaining to this life how much more for crimes and weightier matters for then the unbeleevers might cast the heavier load of reproaches upon the Christian religion 2. This might have opened a door to elude that which the Apostle so earnestly presseth for one would be ready to say this cause of mine is a weighty one it is an injury and crime that can not be born therefore I am free to pursue it before unbelievers Whereas the Apostle saith Why do ye not rather take wrong why doe ye not rather suffer your selves to be defrauded 3. The judging of the smallest matters and of the things pertaining to this life is by the Apostle opposed not to weighty civill injuries but to the judging of the world and of Angells as is manifest by the Antithesis in the Text. But he maketh no intimation of the least distinction of civill injuries as if some might be pursued before unbeleiving Judges some not he speaketh generally vers 1. Dare any of you having a matter against another vers 4. If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life vers 7. Why doe ye not rather take wrong 4. If that which Paul saith be the same with that which Christ saith Tell the Church and if it was Pauls mind that he who would not hearken to chosen arbitrators among the Saints might be pursued before the unbeleiving Judges as Erastus tells us both here and Thes. 47. then Tell the Church cannot be meant of telling the Magistrate of the same religion for Paul sends them to no Christian Magistrate because there was none such then and there but to arbitrators chosen among the Saints T is most strange to me that so acute a disputant could expound the Telling of the Church Matth. 18. by the reference to arbitrators 1. Cor. 6. and yet understand the Church Matth. 18. to be the civill Magistate 5. There might be subjection and obedience to the Heathen Magistrates although the Saints should not go to Law one against another before them 6. Paul did but appeal from Caesars Deputy to Caesar himself He was drawne by the Jewes before the Tribunall of Festus wherein Paul was a sufferer and finding Festus unjust and partiall and that he endeavoured to deliver him to the Jewes who had a mind to have him put to death thereupon he appealeth from Festus to Caesar. So that if Erastus had made the paralell right all that he could conclude from Pauls example had been this that when a Christian is drawne and compelled by his accusers and Enemies not being Christians before the Tribunall of an inferiour Heathen Judge if he there find himself in danger of his life he may appeale in his just defence to an higher Heathen Judge Wherefore I yet conclude that by the Erastian principles Christ and Paul cannot be reconciled These three Arguments doe
In the old Testament the originall giveth the name Kahal Church which is the word used in the Hebrew Evangel of Matthew published by Munsterus chap. 18. vers 17. and the Septuagints the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Elders and Rulers of Israel as 1 Chro. 13. 2. 4. 29. 1. 2 Chro. 1. 3. and in other places And that which is said of the Elders Deut. 19. 12. Iâ—…sh 20. â— is said of the Congregation or Church Num. 35. 24. Ios. 20. 6. So Exod. 12. 3. compared with vers 21. The Septuagints also render Kahal by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 26. 26. It was not therefore to any assembly but to an assembly of rulers that causes were brought in the old Testament If we turne to the Heathen Grecians among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had a power of jurisdiction to judge and determine causes as is manifest from Acts 19. 38. 39. There 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was of two sorts as Suidas Budaeus Stephanus and others have observed 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lawfull set fixed assembly which met at ordinary diets which is meant in that place of the Acts last cited It was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the jurisdiction and ruling power which was seated in it Wherein I am confirmed by this passage of Aristotle polit lib. 3. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the assembly saith he hath the government or arbitrement of all such things He is speaking of the choosing of Magistrates and of craving an account of their administration 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was indicted and called pro re nata upon some urgent extraordinary cause and it was concio magnatum sâ—…ve optimatum in which the people were not present as in the other It was therefore rightly noted by Passor that Demosthenes useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro concione magnatum Afterward the Roman Senate was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an adjection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore among the Heathen Grecians from whom the word came was not any assembly but an assembly which had a jurisdiction or ruling power It shall not be in vaine to adde that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appeale to a superiour Ruler commeth from the same originall verbe from which commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. The Church mentioned Matth. 18. 17. hath a forensicall or juridicall power as appeareth by that of the two or three witnesses vers 16. which relateth to a Juridicall proceeding in the trying and punishing of offences as M. Prynne hath observed Peradventure some man will say that the two or three witnesses here are brought in onely to be witnesses to the admonition or to make the admonition the more effectuall and the more to be regarded but not as if any use were to be made of these witnesses to prove the fact or offence it selfe before the Church if there be occasion I answer either it must be supposed here that the trespasse was seen or knowne onely by him that gives the first rebuke privately or that it was also seen or known by those two or three witnesses If the former it is much disputed among Schoolmen whether he that rebukes his offending brother be to proceed any further than a private rebuke for a private offence or whether he is to stop at private rebukes and not to take witnesses with him which divers thinke to be unfit and disallowed as being an officious and unnecessary irritation of the offending brother by the spreading of his shame a making of a private sinne to become scandalous to others as likewise an engaging of witnesses to assist in the admonition and rebuke by a blinde and implicite faith for my part I shall not need here to dispute this point for what ever ought to be done or ought not to be done in this case when the trespasse is known to one onely yet in the other case when besides him that rebukes there are two or three more which can be witnesses of the fact or trespasse committed the trespasse being yet not publiquely divulged it can not be denied that these witnesses of the fact are to be brought unto and confronted with the offender when he cannot be gained by private rebuke and if need be prove it afterward before the Church Which I have before noted out of Durand And Aegidius de Coninck tels us in whatsoever other case witnesses are to be taken or are not to be taken in this case all doe consent that witnesses are to be taken Concerning the taking of witnesses when the trespasse is known to me alone there are three different opinions 1. That when I have rebuked the offender privately and cannot gaine him I am to proceed no further but have done my duty and must leave the event to God 2. That when a secret admonition is not effectuall witnesses are to be taken in case the offender so admonished continue in his sinne or in case his relapse be feared and expected that the witnesses may observe such continuing or relapse in sinne and then assist and joyne in rebuking him and if need be that is in case of his contumacy to prove the fact before the Church 3. That even when his continuance or relapse in sinne can not be observed and so can not be afterward proved by witnesses yet the second admonition is to be given before witnâ—sses when the first admonition given privately hath not gained the offender Of these let the Reader judge T is enough for the point now in hand that when witnesses can be had to prove the trespasse committed they ought to be brought first before the offender and then if he continue obstinate before the Church to prove the fact and they must be three or two at the least which I doe not see how it can be thought necessary if we suppose that the sinne is not known to any but to me alone who give tho first rebuke for if there must be a witnesse of my second admonition why may not one witnesse joyn with me as well as two when I can not have two but one onely willing and ready to â—oyn with me But now a necessity of precept lies on me that I must have two witnesses at least which cannot be otherwise understood but in reference to a forensicall proceeding afterwards if need be 5. That interpretation which now I speak against while it goeth about to avoyd a power of Jurisdiction and Censure in this Text it doth subject him that is reproved by another to a heavier yoke and brings him into a greater servitude For though a man be not disobedient nor contumacious unto any Court Civill or Ecclesiasticall yet if he doth not hearken to such a number as the party offended shall declare the case unto being a greater number then two or three he must be by and by esteemed and avoyded as
able to examine themselves 3. Are men of corrupt minds and erroneous yea prophane principles who call evill good and pervert Scripture to the defending of some grosse sinnes are these able to examine themselves 4. Are those who are known that they had never any worke of the law upon their consciences to convince or humble them for by the Law is the knowledge of sinne able to examine themselves If the answers be affirmative then surely this selfe-examination is not riâ—htly apprehended what it is If the answers be negative then those who in their addressâ—s to the Lords Table are found ignorant or drunke or defenders of sinne or presumptuous and unconvinced and doe manifestly appeare such though they be not excommunicated and being professed Christians and desiring the Sacrament yet ought not to be admitted I proceed to his second conclusion the strength whereof so farre as I am able to gather from his discourse may be drawn together into this Argument Such as in all ages yea by the very Apostles themselves have been deemed fit to receive and could not be denied the Sacrament of Baptisme ought to be being baptised and unexcommunicated and willing to communicate admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper But in all Churches from Christs time till this present all externall professors of Christ even carnall persons onely upon a bare externall profession of faith and repentance were deemed fit to receive and were never denied the Sacrament of Baptisme yea saith he we read in the very Apostles times that a meere externall sleight confession of sinne and profession of the Christian faith was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptized Ergo all externall professors of Christ c. ought to be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Answ. 1. I retort the Argument thus Such as have been deemed by the Apostles and by all well constituted Churches unworthy to be admitted to Baptisme ought also to be deemed unworthy though baptised to be admitted to the Lords Supper But all known wicked and prophane livers how able and willing so ever to make confession of the true Christian faith have been by the Apostles and all wâ—ll conâ—ituted Churches deemed unworthy to be admitted to Baptisme Ergo all known wicked c. More of this afterward Chap 13. and Chap 15. Secondly I answer directly I distinguish the Major I deny the Minor I distinguish the Major Those who have been admitted to Baptisme ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper caeteris paribus if the proportion hold in the particulars and if they be as free of scandalous sines now when they desire to receive the Lords Supper as they were when they desired to receive Baptisme He needed not make so great a matter of our suspending from the Sacrament a person formerly deemed fit to receive Baptisme For why the person is a scandalous person now which he was not thâ—n My limitation of caeteris paribus he himselfe must admit otherwise how will he defend his owne Principle that the flagicious abominable and obstinate sinners who cannot be reduced by Admonitions may and ought to be excommunicated and so to be cut off from the Lords Supper and all other publike Ordinances although formerly deemed sit to receive baptisme The Minor I utterly deny as most false and as a reproach caâ— upon the Apostles themselves M r Prynnes Rule is so large that Turkes or Pagans who practically live in Idolatry common swearing adultery drunkennesse murthering stealing or the like and are known to live in those abominable scandalous sinnes ought neverthelesse upâ—…n a meere externall sleight confession of sinne and profession of the Christian faith be baptised When I expected his proofe from the Apostles times he onely tels us that Philip baptized Simon Magus though he were in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity Acts 8. Yea saith he many other who turned Wolves Apostates Hereticks were baptised by the very Apostles Acts 20. 2. Tim. 3. If he had proved that Simon Magus was known to be in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity when Philip did baptize him or that the Apostles did baptise any upon a sleight externall profession who were then known to be Wolves Apostates and Hereticks he had said more for his cause then all his booke saith beside But to tell us that some persons baptized he might as well have said that some persons who received the Lords Supper did appeare afterward to be in the gall of bitternesse Wolves Apostates Heretickes is as much as to travell and to bring forth nothing For how shall ever this reach the admission of known prophane persons to the Lords Supper That which he had to prove was the admission not of hypocrites but of knowne scandalous profane persons to Baptisme His third conclusion that it is the Ministers bounden duty to administer the Sacraments to their people as well as to preach and pray no man will deny it so that the Ministers doe it debito modo and according to the rule of Christ they are stewards of the mysteries of God moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithfull 1 Cor. 4 1 2. It is the bounden duty of Stewards to give the childrens bread to children and not to dogges and swine It is not the duty of Ministers to preach peace to the wicked and much lesse to seale it to them who are knowne to be such The fourth conclusion that the Word and Sacraments are set accidentally for the fall and ruine as wel as for the salvation of men maketh nothing to the purpose in hand Whatever the secret intention of God be and his unsearchable judgement upon the soule of this or that man it is no rule of duty to the Minister or Eldership To the Law and to the Testimony Secret things belong to God The fifth that God onely infallibly knows the hearts and present state of all men is no whit neerer the point The Eldership â—udggeth of words and works professions and practises By their fruits ye shall know them The sixth that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to or suspending them from the Sacrament is also wide from the controversie in hand which is concerning the Elderships not the Ministers power Of the Ministers personall duty I have spoken before These six conclusions premised M r Prynne proceeds to prove that a Minister in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person who after admonition of the danger doth earnestly desire to receive it c. becomes no way guilty of his sinne or punishâ—…ent in case be eate or drinke judgement by his unworthy receiving of it His first reason because this receiver hath a true right to this Sacrament as a visible member of the visible Church is the same thing which I have already answered His second reason because â—…e the Minister hath no Commission from Christ to keep back such a person doth not conclude
mayest Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we Now if Baptisme it self which is the Sacrament of our initiation supposeth according to the tenor and meaning of Christs institution that the party baptized if of age doth actually convert and beleeve and if an infant supposeth an interest in Jesus Christ and in the Covenant of grace for if he be a child of an Heathen or an Infidel although taken into a Christian Family yet the Synod of Dort Sess. 19. adviseth not to baptize such a child till it come to such age as to be instructed in the principles of Christian Religion How much more doth the Lords Supper necessarily by Christs institution suppose that the receivers are not unconverted and unbeleeving persons The previous qualifications which are supposed in Baptisme must be much more supposed in the Lords Supper Thirdly That which gives us the new food supposeth that we have the new birth and spiritual life and that we are not still dead in sins and trespasses But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us the new food Ergo it supposeth we have the new birth The proposition I prove thus A man must first be born by the new birth before he can be fed with the new food and how can a man eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ and yet be supposed not to have a spiritual life before that act but to get a spiritual life in that very act Doth a man get life because he eats and drinks or doth he not rather eat and drink because he lives The Assumption is a received and uncontroverted truth And hence do Divines give this reason why we are but once baptized but do many times receive the Lordâ— Supper because it is enough to be once born but not enough to be once nourished or strengthened See the Belgick confession Art 34. and D. Parei Miscellanea Catechetica pag. 79. I shall strengthen my Argument by the Confession of Bohemia Cap. 11. The Sacraments cannot give to any such which before was not inwardly quickened by the holy Ghost either grace or justifying and quickening faith and therefore they cannot justifie any man nor inwardly quicken or regenerate any mans Spirit for faith must go before And after For if a dead man or one that is unworthy do come to the Sacraments certainly they do not give him life and worthinesse c. See the Harmony of Confessions printed at London 1643. pag. 280. 281. To what end then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted For that see the Confession of Belgia Ibid. pag. 320. We beleeve and confesse that Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour hath instituted the holy Sacrament of his Supper that in it he might nourish and sustain those whom he hath regenerated and ingrafted into his Family which is the Church Both these Chapters did Mr. Prynn cite in the Question of Iudas which yet prove not what he affirmeth in that point as I have noted before but it seems he did not observe these passages which make directly against him in this Question of conversion or conferring of grace by the Sacrament I add also Mr. Pemble in his Christian disections for receiving the Sacrament The Sacrament saith he is appointed for our nourishment in grace where we grow not by it it is a signe this food was not digested but vomited up again Where faith repentance thankfulnesse and obedience are not increased there Christ crucified was not remembred But how can there be any nourishment in grace or any increase of grace in those who come to the Sacrament without the first grace or in the state of unregeneration Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons is no converting but sealing Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons Ergo. The Proposition hath light enough in it self for converting Ordinances do belong even to unjustified and unconverted persons Therefore that which is instituted onely for beleevers is no converting Ordinance All the Question will be of the Assumption which I shall the rather confirm because it is the very principle from which Polanus and others argue for the suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Table Now I prove the Assumption thus Every Sacrament even a Sacrament of initiation is a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith If Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. 11. then Baptisme which hath succeeded to Circumcision is also a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and that more fully and clearly then Circâ—mcision was and if Baptisme be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith much more is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith which is also proved by Mat. 26. 28. For this is my blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins Chrysostome on Rom. 4. considering those words vers 11. a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith hath this meditation upon it that a Sacrament is no signe no seal except where the thing is which is signified and sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For of what shall it be a signe or of what shall it be a seal when there is none to be sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For faith he if it be a signe of righteousnesse and thou hast not righteousnesse neither hast thou the signe If therefore a Sacrament be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith then it is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons because to such onely it can seal the righteousnesse of faith Upon this ground saith Ursinus that the Sacraments are to the wicked and unbeleevers no Sacraments which agreeth with that Rom. 2. 25. If thou be a breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made uncircumcisâ—…on Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the father of the faithfull and whose justification is as it were a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision or as Aquinas confesseth upon the place that Circumcision was not the cause but the signe of Justification Rom. 4. 9. 10. 11. We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse How was it then reckoned When he was in Circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in uncircumcision And he received the signe of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised If Abraham the father of the faithful got not so much as the Sacrament of initiation till after he was justified and sanctified how shall we think of receiving not onely the Sacrament of initiation but the Sacrament of spiritual nourishment while unjustified and unsanctified And if God did by his Word make a Covenant with Abraham before he received Circumcision the seal of that Covenant must it not much more be supposed that they are within the Covenant of grace
the people were inclined to hearken to doctrine by miracles which moveth natural men to flock together to see strange things saith Mr. Hussey Plea for Christian Magistracy pag. 30. which he is pleased to clear by peoples flocking to a Mountebank Other Texts which he citeth speak of miracles but not a syllable of conversion or regeneration wrought by miracles as Act. 15. 12. Act. 19. 11. 12. Among the rest of the Texts he citeth Iohn 6. 26. Ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled And hence forsooth he will prove that miracles did convert and regenerate men I had not touched these particulars were it not that I desire Mr. Prynn himself in the fear of God may be convinced of his making too bold with the Scripture in citing and applying it very far amisse and that for the future his Reader may be wary and not take from him upon trust a heap of Scriptural quotations such as often he bringeth In the fourth place he tells us That the things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts then the things we hear He means I think do more effectually convert for so he makes the Application that the very beholding of Christs Person passion without the Word were the most effectual means of working contrition conversion c. Well What is his proof He citeth Christs words to his Disciples Blessed are your eyes for they see without adding the rest and your ears for they hear and Simeons words Mine eyes have seen thy salvation as if forsooth either Simeon or the Apostles had been converted and regenerated by the seeing of Christs person He cites also Luk. 23. 46 47 48. as if all who beholding Christs passion and death smote upon their breasts had been by that sight converted and regenerated That the things we behold with our eyes if they be great or strange things work deep impressions there can be no doubt of it But that the hearing of great things may not work as deep impressions or that seeing without hearing doth convert and regenerate hath been strongly affirmed by Mr. Prynn but not yet proved I proceed to his seventh Argument which is this The most melting soul-changing meditation is the serious contemplation of Christs death and Passion No meditation comparable to this to regenerate and convert a carnal heart And is not this effectually represented to our eyes hearts in this very Sacrament in a more powerful prevailing manner then in the Word alone Answ. That which he had to subsume and prove is that this Sacrament worketh in a unregenerate carnal heart such soul changing meditations of the death and passion of Christ as it never had before the soul having never before been regenerate Which being the point to be proved why did he not prove it if he could No doubt the Sacrament is a most powerful mean to beget in the hearts of beleevers and regenerate persons most humbling and melting meditations concerning the death of Christ. But that it begetteth any soul changing or regenerating meditations in those in whom the Word hath never yet begun the work of regeneration and conversion I do as much disagree in this as I agree in the other The eighth Argument which he brings is from comparing the Sacrament with afflictions Our own corporal external afflictions are many times without the Word the means of our repentance and conversion unto God c. Then much more the Sacrament wherein the afflictions of Christ himself are so visibly set forth before our eyes Answ. 1. It is a very bad consequence for the strength resolves into this principle an unregenerate carnal man will be more affected and moved with the representation of Christs afflictions than with the feeling of his own corporal afflictions 2. Affliction doth not convert without the Word either going before or accompanying it unlesse we say that Pagans or Turks may be converted savingly by affliction before ever they hear the Word Psal. 94. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest and teachest him out of thy Law Job 36. 9. 10. 11. And if they be bound in fetters and holden in cords of affliction Then he sheweth them their work and their transgression that they have exceeded He openeth also their ear to Discipline and commandeth that they return from iniquity Behold conversion by afflictions but not without the Word While Mr. Prynn goeth about to prove that afflictions convert without the Word the first Text he citeth is Psal. 119. 67. 71. where expresse mention is made of the Word 3 As for Manasseh his conversion 2 Chron. 33. 11. 12. it was wrought by the means of affliction setting home upon his Conscience that Word of God mentioned in the verse imediatly preceding which saith and the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people but they would not hearken Let him shew the like instance of the conversion by the Sacrament of such as would not hearken to the Word and I shall yeeld the cause The Word is expresse that affliction is one special powerful mean of conversion but it no where saith any such thing of the Sacrament 4. It was also incumbent to him to prove that afflictions do convert without the Word not onely at such times and in such places as do sequester a person from the liberty of hearing the Word preached but also when and where the Word is freely enjoyed Otherwise how far is he from concluding by Analogy the point he had to prove which is that an unregenerate person living under the Ministery of the Gospel and being an ordinary hearer never converted by the Word may neverthelesse according to the dispensation of the grace of God revealed in Scripture be converted by the Sacrament received His ninth Argument is this That Ordinance whose unworthy participation is a means of our spiritual obduration must by the rule of contraries when worthily received be the instrument of our mortification conversion salvation But the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is a means c. Answ. 1. This Argument doth necessarily suppose that an unconverted unmortified unworthy person while such may yet worthily receive and so by that means be converted the contrary whereof I have demonstrated in my tenth Argument 2. If the Sacrament be not worthily received without repentance faith and self-examination for which cause men are dehorted to come except they repent c. then there is perfect non-sence in the Argument for to say that the Sacrament when worthily received is the instrument of conversion is as much as this The Sacrament is an instrument of conversion to those who are already converted 3. That rule of Contraries is extremely mis-applyed The rule is Oppositorum quatenus talia opposita sunt attributa Contraries have contrary attributes The comparison must be made secundum differentias quibus dissident Otherwise that old fallacy were a good Argument A single life is good