But the King is head of the Church Ergo he maketh lawes to regulate the Family Ans The Antecedent is false if not blasphemous it is proper to Iesus Christ only Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. The King is the head of men who are the Church materialiter he is not formally as King Head of the Church as the Church and therefore we see not how this Statute agreeth with the Word of God Henric. 8. Stat. 37. c. 17. The Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by under and from the Kings Royall Majesty the onely and undoubted supream head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by holy Scripture is given all authority and power to hear and determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever for neither is the subject the Archbishops Bishops c. lawfull nor is the limitation of the subject lawful for Ecclesiasticall officers are the Ambassadors of Christ not of the King Obj. All Christians are to try the Spirits Ergo Much more Magistrates Ans This proveth that Christians as Christians and Magistrates as Christians may judge determine of all things that concerneth their practise and that they are not with blinde obedience to receive things Mr. Pryn cannot say that 1 Iohn 4. 1. is meant of a Royall Parliamentary or Magistraticall tryall Iohn speaketh to Christians as such But this is nothing to prove the power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate for thought the man were neither King nor Magistrate he ought to try the Spirits 1 Iohn 4. 1. The speciall objection moved for Appeals is that which Paul did in a matter of Religion that we may do in the like case but Paul Acts 25. did appeal from a Church Iudge to a civill and a heathen Iudge in a matter of Religion when he said before Festus Acts 25. I appeal to Cesar Ergo so may the Ministers of Christ far more appeal to the Christian Magistrate and that Paul did this jure by Law not by Priviledge but by the impulsion of the Holy Ghost is clear in that he saith He ought to be judged by Cesar so Maccovius so Videlius so Vtenbogardus so Erastus Ans 1. This Argument if it have nerves shall make the great Turk when he subdueth people and Churches of the Protestant Religion to be the head of the Church and as Erastus saith by his place and office as he is a Magistrate he may preach and dispense the Sacraments and a Heathen Nero may make Church constitutions and say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me and by this Nero by office is to excommunicate make or unmake Pastors and Teachers judge what is Orthodoxe Doctrine what not debarre hereticks Apostates and mockers from the Table and admit the worthie and Paul the Apostle must have been the Ambassador and Deputie of Nero in preaching the Gospel and governing the Church and Nero is the mixt person and invested by Iesus Christ with spirituall jurisdiction and the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven This Argument to the Adversaries cannot quit its cost â—or by this way Paul appealed from the Church in a controversie of Religion to a Nero a Heathen unbaptized Head of the Church and referred his faith over to the will judgement and determination of a professed Enemy of the Christian Church and Paul must both jure by the Law of God and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost appeale from the Church to a Heathen without the Church in a matter of Religion and Conscience then Nebuchadnezzar was head of the Church of Iudah and supreame judge and governour in all causes and controversies of Religion how can we beleeve the adversarie who doe not beleeve themselves and shall we make Domitian Dioclesian Trajan and such heads of the Church of Christ 2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour or civill judge as is clear Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten dayes he went downe to Cesarea and the next day sitting in the judgement seat commanded Paul to be brought vers 10. And Paul said I stand at Cesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged he refused v. 9 10. to be judged by Festus at Ierusalem but saith v. 11. I appeal to Cesar Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar for the Iews laid many grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove vers 7. And it is said vers 8. That Festus was willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure and so was manifestly a partiall Iudge and though the Sanedrim at Ierusalem could have judged in point of Law that Paul was a blasphemer and so by their Law he ought to die for so Caiphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Iesus Christ yet his appeal from the Sanedrim 1. corrupted and having manifestly declared their bloodie intentions against Paul 2. From a Sanedrim in its constitution false and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution Deut. 17. 8 9 10. it now usurping civill businesse which belonged not to them Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloodie and degenerating Church judicature acting according to the bloodie lusts of men against an innocent man to a more unpartiall judge and yet be no contemner of the Church this is nothing against our Thesis which is that it is not lawfull to appeal in a constituted Church from a lawfull unmixt Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death 3. Paul appealed from the Sanedrim armed with the unjust and tyrannicall power of Festus a man willing to please the bloodie accusers of Paul as is clear v. 9. And Festus willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure answered Paul and said Wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me 3. The cause was not properly a Church businesse but a crime of bodily death and sedition I deny not but in Pauls accusation prophaning of the Temple teaching against the Law of Moses was objected to him Materialiter the enemies made the cause of Paul a Church businesse but formally it was sedition 1. It was a businesse for which the Sanedrim sought Pauls life and blood for which they had neither authority nor Law by divine Institution therefore they sought the helpe of Felix Festus and the Roman Deputies so Lysias vvrote to Felix Act. 23. 29. I perceived Paul to be accused of questions of their law but to have nothing layd to his charge worthy of death or of bonds Now it is clear the Roman Deputies thought not any accusation for the Iewish Religion a matter of death and bonds and therefore Gallio the Deputie of Achaia Acts 18. 14. saith
c. 12. Zozomen l. 7. e. 8. Theodoretus l. 5. c. 9. Historia tripartit l. 9. c. 14. say that the Emperor ordained him the Synod named him the truth is the Bishops were devided in judgement and its like they referred the matter to the godly Emperour In the mean time Athanasius Epist de solit vita Ambros l. 5. orat ad auxentium and l. 5. Epist 32. ad valentinianum Zozomen l. 6. c. 7. Concilium Toletanum III. Concilium milevitanum and divers others which I have cited elsewhere make the Emperor a Son of the Church not a Head and Lord intra Ecclesiam filium Ecclesiae non judicem non dominum supra Ecclesiam I might adde Augustin Epist 48. 50. 162. l. 1. de doctr Christ c. 18. Cyril Alexandrinus in an Epistle to the Synod of Antioch all Protestant Divines of note and learning CHAP. XXVII Quest 23. Whether the subjecting of the Magistrates to the Church and Pastors be any papal Tyranny and whether we differ not more from Papists in this then our adversaries The Magistrate not the Vicar of the mediator Christ The Testimonies of some learned Divines on the contrary answered IT is most unjustly imputed to us that we lay a Law upon the conscience of the Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church not inquiring into the Nature of the thing This Doctrine we disclaim as Popish and Antichristian It hath its rise from Bonifacius the III. who obtained from Phocas a bloody tyrant who murthered Mauritius and his Children as Baronius confesseth and yet he saith of this murtherer optimortum imperatorum vestigia sequutus he made an Edict that the Bishop of Constantinople should not be called Oecumenick nor universall Bishop but that this should be given only to the Bishop of Rome So Baronius yieldeth this tyranny was inlarged by Hildebrande named Gregorius the seventh a monster of tyrannicall wickednesse and yet by Papists he is sanctitate et miraculis clarus Baronius extolleth him these and others invaded both the swords Bishops would be civill judges and trample first upon the neck then upon the consciences of Emperors and make Kings the hornes of the beast and seclude them from all Church businesses except that with blind obedience having given their power to the beast as slaves they must execute the decrees of the Church Paul the III. the confirmer of the order of Iesuits who indicted the Councell of Trent as Onuphrius saith up braideth Charles the V. for meddling with Church businesse They write that Magistrates do not see in Church matters with their owne eyes but with Bishops eyes and that they must obey without examining the decrees of Councels and this they write of all subject to the Church Toletus in Instruct Sacerdâ—t l. 4. c. 3. Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum morâ—tur in credendo licet sit error Card. Cusanus excit l. 6. sermon obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino Ib. sententia pastoris ligat te pro tua salute etiam si injusta fuerit Envy cannot ascribe this to us Calvin Beza yea all our writers condemne blind obedience as brutish But our Adversaries in this are more Popish for they substitute King and Parliament in a headship over the Church giving to the King all the same power in causes Ecclesiastick that the Pope usurped 2. They make the King a mixed person to exercise spirituall jurisdiction to ordaine Bishops and deprive them and Mr. Prinne calleth the opinion of those who deny Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction legislative a high word proper to God only coercive power of Christian Emperors Kings Magistrates Parliaments in all matters of Religion what in fundamentall Articles of salvation Church-government Discipline Ceremonies c. Anti-monarchicall Anti-parliamentarie Anarchicall as holden by Papists Prelates Anabaptists Arminians Socinians c. It s that which Arminians objects to us and calleth the soul heart and forme of papall tyranny But that the Magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination whither they be right or wrong as Papists teach that the Magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience and submit his faith to them because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church doth erre or not is clear 1. Because if in hearing the word all should follow the example of the men of Berea not relying on the Testimony of Paul or any preacher try whether thâ—â— which concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no and accordingly receive or reject so in all things of Discipline the Magistrate is to try by the word whether he ought to adde his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick and a perverter of souls But the former is true the Magistrates practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing herericks concerneth his conscience knowing that he must do it in faith as he doth all his moral actions Ergo the Magistrate must examine what he practiseth in his office according to the word and must not take it upon the meer authority of the Church else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimaté on the authority of the Church not on the word of God which no doubt is Popery for so the warrant of the Magistrates conscience should not be Thus saith the Lord but Thus saith the Church in their decrees 2. The Magistrate and all men have a command to try all things Ergo to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good 1 Thes 5. 21. To try the spirits even of the Church in their decrees 1 Joh. 3. 1. 3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground that 1. The Church cannot erre in their decrees 2. It s against Scripture and reason that Magistrates and by the like reason all others should obey the decrees of the Church with a blinde faith without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees which is as good Popery as Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the Church beleeveth with an implicite faith so ignorance shall be the mother of Devotion who ever impute this to us who have suffered for non-conformity and upon this ground that Synods can erre refused the Ceremonies are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyall odious to Magistracy in that which we never thought â—ar lesse to teach and professe it to the world 4. Their chiefe reason is the Magistrate by our doctrine by his office is obliged 1. To follow the judgement of the Church and in that he is a servant or inslaved Qui enim
intention signifieth divine adoration p. 147 148 Objections of Swarez contending that intention of adoration is essential to adoration removed p. 148 149 Of the Idolatrous worship of the Iews and Papists p. 150 The relative expressioÌ„ of God in the creature is no ground of adoring the creature p. 151 The Iews beleeved not the Golden ca lt to be really God p. 151 152 The adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremonial law but by the Moral law p 154 The evasions of Bellarmine and Swarez answered p. 155 Papists did of old adore before or at the presence of the Image as a memorative signe and yet were Idolators p. 158 Two sort of signes ibid. Divers evasions of Papists touching the adoring of Images p. 161 162 scq Swarez is not content at the hungry expressions of Durandus Mirandula Hulcot in the worshipping of Images p. 165 166 The place worship at his footstool discussed Psal 99 ibid. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the creature as Adoration p. 169 170 Divers Fables touching Images p. 179 180 The original of Images p. 181 Images not in the ancient Church neither worshippeâ— therein p. 182 â—83 184 c. Vasquez will have all things to be adored p. 190 Joan. dâ— Lugo proveth the same by four Reasons p. 191 Whether sitting or kneeling be the most convenient and lawful gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 192 Sitting the onely convenient and lawful gesture p. 193 What is occasional in the first Supper ibid. Christ sate at the first Supper p. 194 195 Sitting a sign of our coheirship p. 197 198 199 A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ p. 198 Ceremonies fail against the Authority of Rulers p. 201 Whether humane Laws binde the conscience or not p. 201 202 seq How civil positive Laws binde not the conscience p. 202 203 A twofold goodnesse p. 207 The will of created Authority cannot create goodnesse in things p. 204 205 Humane Laws obliâ—ge onely in so far as they agree with the Law of God p. 206 A twofold consideration of Humane Laws p. 208 How Rulers are subordinate to God in commanding p. 209 Humane authority is not the nearest nor the instrumental cause of Laws p. 208 209 A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective p. 210 Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equals p 210 211 False Rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by D. Jackson refuted p. 212. The goodnesse of supposed obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the sinful manner of doing with a doubting conscience p. 214 Other arguments for the obligation of humane Laws answered p. 216 What it is to resist to Ruler p. 217 Why men cannot make Laws that layeth a tie on the conscience p. 219 That Christ hath a spiritual Kingdom not onely in the power of Preaching but also in the power of the Keys by censures p. 220 That there is such a divine Ordinance as Excommunication p. 223 Objections against Excommunication removed p. 224 How we are to rebuke our Brother p. 225 The Church Matth. 18. is not the civil Sanedrim p. 226 227 229 How Heathen and Publicans were excluded from the Church p. 230 Binding and loosing acts judicial p. 235 236 Excommunication is a divine Ordinance proved by 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 seq fuse To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing p. 238 239 The essentials of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 c. Whether the Word doth warrant censures and exclusion from the Seals ibid. Cutting off not alwayes killing p. 241 Moral scandals excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews p. 243 The prophecy Ezek 44. 11 12 c. to be fulfilled under the New Testament p. 244 245 Ceremonial exclusion from holy things under the old did typiâ—ie exclusion for moral uncleannesse under the N. Test p. 247 248 The Churches exclusion from the Seals declarative non coactive by violence ibid. Censures applyed to some by name ibid. Eschuing the society of scandalous Church-members must be a Church-censure p. 249 The hindering of Jezabel by preaching not sufficient p. 251 Debarring of the scandalous from the Seals proved p. 252. seq It belongeth not to the Magistrate to debar from the Seals p. 253 Erastus against exclusion from the Sacraments refuted p. 253 seq fuse By Erastus his way we cannot deny the Seals to a Turk p. 258 259 To exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication p. 260 Excommunication is no real separation of one from Christs invisible body p. 261 262 264 Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it s not empty p. 266 Putting out 1 Cor. 5. p. 269 Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iews for moral uncleannesse from the holy things of God p. 271 A twofold forgivenesse p. 273 All are invited to come to the Sacraments but not that they come any way p. 274 The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus p. 275 Two sort of signes amongst the Iews some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life the latter clean and unclean might eat but not the former p. 277 All are commanded to hear but not to â—ome to the Supper p. 280 Whether Erastus doth justly deny Excommucation to be typified of Old p. 281 Ceremonial uncleannesse typified exclusion out of the visible Church for scandals not out of the Kingdom of Heaven p 287 288 Legal uncleannesse was sin p. 289 The scope and sense of Matth. 18. perverted by Erastus p. 290 Our Saviour speaketh of all not of private or lesser scandals onely p. 291 By the word Brother is not meaned a Iew onely ib. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandal p. 294 A twofold forgiving p. 295 Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth p. 297 Christs scope spiritual Erastus his way carnal p. 298 A Publican most odious to the Iews p. 305 It s not private forgivenesse which is holden forth Matth. 18. 17. p. 308 Binding and loosing proper to Stewarts p. 309 To excommunicate is not formally to debar from the Seals p. 311 Christ might well give directions touching a Church not yet erected p. 314 c. The place 1 Cor. 5. vindicated from Erastus his glosse p. 316 317 c. The prayers of the Church intervene not for this particular miracle p. 318 319 Faith of miracles not in all the faithful at Corinth p. 320 Delivering to Satan not miraculous p. 321 The Church not Paul alone had hand in delivering the man to Satan p. 326 What delivering to Satan is p. 327 The destruction of the flesh what it is p. 328 Hymeneus and Alexander not killed by Satan p. 332 Delivering to Satan not miraclous p 336 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away not alwayes to kill p. 337 To eschew the
not a first converting ordinance yet a confirming one ibid. The Lords Supper presupposeth Faith and Conversion in the vvorthy Receiver in a Church-profession p. 523 c. The Magistrate subject to the Church p. 528 The Church a perfit society without the Magistrate p. 529 530 God efficacious by Preachers not by Magistrates p. 532 Differences between the Preachers and the Magistrate p. 532 c. The Magistrate cannot limit the Pastors in the exercise of their calling p 535 That Magistrates are more hot against the Churches punishing of sin then against sinful omissions argueth that they are unpatient of Christs yoke rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the Subject p. 536 c. Of the Reciprocation of the Subordinations of Magistrates and Church-Officers to each other ibid. Not any power or office subject to any but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons p. 538 A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate different p. 539 Two things in a Christian Magistrate jus authority aptitudo hability p. 539 c. Christianity maketh no new power of Magistracy p. 542 A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary upon which and the former distinction followeth ten very considerable assertions page 542 c. The Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth the exercise of the Ministerial power but not the spiritual and sincere manner of the exercise p. 544 Magistrates as godly men not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of Ministerial power p. 545 c. A twofold goodnesse in a Christian Magistrate essential accidential p. 548 The Magistrate as such commandeth onely in order to temporary rewards and punishments nor holdeth he forth commands to the conscience p. 549 c. Magistrates as Magistrates forbid not sin as sin under the pain of eternal wrath p. 550 Two sorts of Subordinations Civil Ecclesiastick p 553 Subordination of Magistrate and Church to each others p. 554 c. Church Offices as such not subordinate to the Magistrate ibid. What power Erastians give to Magistrates in Church matters p. 557 The minde of Arminians touching the power of the Magistrate in Church matters ibid. A threefold consideration of the Magistrate in relation to the Church p. 558 Reciprocation of subordinations between Church and Magistrate p. 560 The Ministers as Ministers neither Magistrates nor Subjects p. 564 c. The Magistrate as such neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator nor under Satan but under God as Creator ibid. The Prince as a gifted Christian may Preach and spred the Gospel to a Land where the Gospel hath not been heard before page 570 c. The King and the Priest kept the Law but in a far different way p. 572 c. The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another p. 574 c. God hath not given power to the Magistrate and Church to Iudge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause p. 577 Whether Appeals may ly from Church-assembles to the Civil Magistrate p. 578 Of Pauls appeal to Caesar ibid. Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in Causes Ecclesiastical p. 579 c. It is one thing to complain another thing to appeal p. 580 What an appeal is ibid. Refuge to the Magistrate is not an Appeal p. 581 A twofold appeal p. 582 The Magistrates power of punishing or his interest of faith proveth him not to be a Iudge in Synods p. 585 c. Pauls appeal proveth nothing against appeals for appeals from the Church to the Christian Magistrate p. 587 Paul appealed from an inferiour Civil Iudge to a superior Civil Heathen Iudge in a matter of his head and life not in a controversie of Religion p. 588 What power a conqueror hath to set up a Religion in a conquered Nation p 590 There were no appeals made to the godly Emperours of old p. 594 To lay bands on the conscience of the Magistrate to ty him to blinde obedience the Papists not our Doctrine p 595 Subjection of Magistrates to the Church no Papal tyranny p. 600 c. The Magistrate as a Magistrate cannot forbid sin as sin ibid. The Magistrate pomoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom ibid. The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediator Christ p. 601 The Adversaries in the Doctrine of the Magistrate Popish not we at all ibid. Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates in their whole Ministery by the Adversaries p. 603 c. Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiastical Administration p. 604 The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediatory Kingdom ibid. Heathen Magistrates as such are not oblieged to promote Christs mediatory Kingdom p. 606 Magistracy from the Law of Nations p. 608 The Adversaries must teach universal Redemption p 610 Magistrates as such not members of the Church p. 613 Christ mediator not a temporary King p 614 The Magistrat not the servant of the Church p. 616 The adequate and complete cause why the Magistrate is subject to the Church p. 617 That the Magistrate is subject to the Rebukes and censures of the Church is proved from the Word p. 618 c. The supreme and principal power of Church-affairs not in either Magistrate or Church p 620 Though the Magistrate punish Ecclesiastical scandals yet his power to Iudge and punish is not Ecclesiastical and spiritual as the Church censureth breaches of the second Table and yet the Churches power is not Civil for that p. 622 People as people may give power to a Magistrate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church to judge and punish offenders therein p. 625 A Governour of or over the Church a Governour in the Church a Governour for the Church different p. 628 The distinction of a Doctrinal or Declarative and of a Punitive part of Church-Government of which the former is given to Pastors the latter to the Magistrate a heedlessâ— and senselesse notion p. 629 c. That the Magistrates punishing with the sword scandalous persons should be a part of Church-government a reasonlesse conceit p. 631 There is neither coaction nor punishment properly so called in the Church p. 632 Bullinger not of the minde of Erastus p. 634 The Iudgement of Wolfâ—ag Musculus Aretius and Gualther p. 634 c. The Errour of Gualther to please the usurping Magistrate p. 638 Their minde different from Erastus p. 639 The Christian Magistrates sword cannot supply the place of Excommunication in the Church p. 640 The confessions of the Protestant Church for this way p. 642 c. The testimony of Salmasius p. 644 Of Simlerus p. 645 Lavater Ioan. Wolphius ibid. Of Râ—b Burhillus 646 The Contents of the Tractate or Dispute touching Scandal WHether things indifferent can be commanded Introduction p. 1 Indifferent things as such not the Matter of a Church-constitution Introd Actions are not indifferent because their circumstances are indifferent Introd Marrying not indifferent Introd Indifferency Metaphysical and Theological Introd Necessity of obeying the Church
should be according to the word of God and not beside the word of God If it be said they have Gods Commanding will in so far that he doth not forbid any thing not contrary to his own word but hath given the Church Authority to adde to his worship things not contrary to his word as they shall see they do promove godlinesse or may edifie the Church But then if the Church must see by the light of reason and naturall judgement aptitude in these to promove godlinesse they are Commanded by God who hath even stamped in them that aptitude to edifie and so are not beside Gods word 4. Our Divines condemne all the Traditions of the Church of Rome as Purgatory Prayer for the dead Imagery Adoring of Reliques all the Crossing Holy water Chrisme Oyl Babies Bells Beads c. Because God hath no where Commanded them and sins veniall and beside the Law and sins mortall and contrary to the Law we condemne because as what is capable of seeing and life and hearing and yet doth not see live nor hear that in good reason we call blinde dead and deaf all beside the word are capable of Morall goodnesse and yet not Morally good because not warranted by Gods word therefore they must be Morally evil III. Conclus Opinion of Sanctity holinesse and Divine necessity is not essentiall to false worship Formalists will have their Ceremonies innocent and Lawfull so they be not contrary to the word of God 2. So they be not instamped with an opinion that they binde the Conscience and are of Divine necessity holinesse and efficacy So Morton their Prelat for opinion of justice necessity efficacy and merit saith he make them Doctrinals and so unlawfull But this is but that which Papists say So Suarez saith That their unwritten Traditions are not added to the word of God as parts of the word of God but as things to be believed and observed by the Churches Commandment and these who did swear by Jehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. esteemed Malcom and an oath by Malcom not so Religiously and so holy as an oath by Jehovah and Malcom and yet no doubt they ascribed some necessity to oaths by Malcom and Jehoram saying Am I Jehovah to kill and make alive who yet worshipped Ieroboams Calves esteemed the worshipping of these Calves lesse necessary and lesse holy and meritorious then the worshipping of the true Yehovah yet the Calves called their gods which brought them out of the Land of Aegypt had some necessity and opinion of holinesse For 1. Aaron in making a Calf and Proclaiming a Feast to the Calf committed false worship but Aaron placed not holinesse justice or merit in that worship Because Exod. 32. 22. for fear of the people who in a tumult gathered themselves together against him he committed that Idolatry Ergo necessity of Sanctity Merit and Divine obligation is not essentiall to false worship Ieroboam Committed Idolatry in saying These are thy Gods O Israel but he placed no efficacy or merit therein because 1 King 12. 27. He did it least the people going to Ierusalem should return to Rehoboam and kill him And the Philistims dis-worship in handling the Ark unreverently had no such opinion they doubting whither God or Fortune ruled the Ark 1 Sam. 6. 9. It were strange if these who say in their heart There is no God Ezech. 9. 9. Psal 94. 6. And so fail against inward worship due to God should think that the denying of God were service and meritorious service to God and that Peter denying Christ and Iudaizing Gal. 2. 12. for fear thought and believed he did meritorious service to Christ therein Pilate in condemning Christ Iudas in selling him the Souldiers in scourging him did dis-worship to their Creator the Lord of glory Shall we think that Pilate who for fear of the people did this believed he was performing necessary Divine and Meritorious worship to God 2. If opinion of necessity Divine of Merit and sanctity as touching the conscience were essentiall to false worship it were impossible for gain and glory to Commit Idolatry to preach lies in the Name of the Lord for a handfull of barley as Ezek. 13. 19. Mic. 3. 5. 1 Kin. 22. 6. 1 Tim. 4 1 2. Tit. 1. 11. For its a contradiction to Preach Arrianisme Turcisme Popery against the light of the minde only for gain and yet to think that in so doing they be performing meritorious service to God Yea they who devise will-worship know their own will to be the Lord-carver of that worship at least they may know it yet shall we think they hold themselves necessitated by a Religious obligation so to do Else it were impossible that men could believe the burning their Children were will-worship indifferent and Arbitrary to the worshippers which is open war against reason Now a worship cannot be false wanting that which is essentaill to false worship 3. False worship is false worship by order of nature before we have any opinion either that there is Religious necessity in it or meer indifferency Ergo Such an opinion is not of the essence of false worship 4. By that same reason opinion of unjustice or opinion of doing justice should be of the essence of unjustice Cains killing of his Brother should not be Man-slaughter except Cain placed some divine Sanctity in that wicked fact which is against all reason and the reason is alike in both Gods Commanding will and his forbidding will They Answer Gods will constituteth Lawfulnesse in essentiall worship and mans will in things arbitrary but this is to beg the question for when we ask what is essentiall worship they say it is that which God commandeth and what is accidental or arbitrary it is that which human authority commandeth this is just Gods wil is the essentiall cause of that worship whereof it is the essentiall cause mans will is the essentiall cause of that whereof it is the essentiall cause 5. All the materials of Jewish and Turkish worship might be appointed for right worship so we held them to be Arbitrary 6. God cannot forbid false worship but in that tenure that he commandeth true worship but whether we esteem it true or not holy or not he cōmandeth true worship Erg. c. IV. Conclusion It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to divide worship in essentiall which hath Gods 1. Particular approving will to be the Warrant thereof and worship accidentall or Arbitrary which hath only Gods generall and permissive will and hath mans will for its father so Ceremonies say they In these hath Gods generall will according to their specification whether a Surplice be decent or not is from mans will therefore they are called worship reductively because in their particulars they have no Divine institution and they tend to the honouring of God not as worship but as adjuncts of worship so Morton so Burges Ans As Sacramentall worship is lawfull essentiall worship
we be all one body in Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. If he mean Ceremonies as such speciall materialls to wit Surplice c. as ordained of man who may ordain another Ceremony doth not immediatly respect the honour of God 1. This is to beg the question 2. A white garment upon a priest of Jupiter Sacrificing to that Idoll should immediatly respect the honour of Iupiter though the Priest might honour Iupiter with garments of white Roses or some other like device while he officiateth So bowing of the knee in prayer doth immediatly honour God though I may pray sitting or standing 3. It is a dream that the honour of the subject is given to the adjunct yea and properly is the adjunct and agreeth to the adjunct as Surplice hath the very Office and place of Gods word and Sacramentâ— to teach and signifie and yet they are but adjuncts if a mans Coat or his Hat or Shooes could discourse and reason as only the man can do in reason we should say the Coat is the man 2. They say God forbiddeth efficient and operative means of worship and grace in the second Commandment or means immediate which worketh by vertue in themselves or wrapped in them for so the word and Sacraments are means of grace and worship yea the Sacraments be exhibitive seals and therefore we owe to such means subjection of conscience immediatly both to the things instituted and particular means of admonition and to the duties admonished or called to our remembrance by them for they have vertue residing and inherent in them by divine institution to work upon us But God forbiddeth not in the second Commandment means that teach occasionally as Objectum a quo therefore we owe subjection of conscience to the things admonished but not to the particular means of admonition therefore we are tied in conscience to Ceremonies only collaterally and propter aliud they be only externall objects or occasions For whoever saith he expected that men should be stirred up by Ceremonies as by causes or any otherwayes but as by sensible objects as we are by the sight of the creatures or other memorials therefore saith he they are not means by the which grace is wrought by the power of God wrapped in them but resident in God himself that freely giveth the grace by the right use of them so D. Burges Ans All cometh to this Ceremonies taketh the place of Word and Sacraments but cannot fill the chaire and discharge the office so well as Gods Ordinances doth A Clown taketh on the Crown and usurpeth the Throne and cannot do Regall Acts with such grace of Royall Majesty as the Lawfull King what is he for that no usurping Traitor 2. He will not have Ceremonies to be causes of worship but occasions so do Papists say Images saith Vasquez do only set before us the History and effects of God Bellarmine Suarez as all know do say That Images cannot so represent Iehovah as he is in himself or described in his word nor can the Idoll or Image of God represent God as a cause but onely as an object externall and occasion and yet God forbiddeth it Isa 40. 18. Hab. 2. 19. 20. 2. Gods word to the reprobate is a sealed Book and is as if you would teach letters to a new weaned childe Isa 29. 11. c. 29. 9. It worketh by no inherent vertue wrapped in it self but though it be mighty yet is it mighty through God 2 Cor. 10. 4. Ioshuahs twelve stones the Phylacteries the Manna the Rainbow did only as Aquinas saith well worke upon the senses and memory The word it self doth but work morally or objectively and is not a cause having the power of God wrapped in it If Surplice work only as an occasion the Preachers Napkin the bands of women doth so excite the memory and the affection 3. All our Divines teach that the Sacraments are exhibitive seals but not of themselves or by any vertue inherent in them as Papists say but by the power of God which worketh by the right receiving of the Sacraments and the Sacraments Actu Primo and essentially are only signes which worketh objectively and occasionally as you say your unhallowed Ceremonies do 1. because they are Sacraments essentially whether they be received by Faith or not and they are exhibitive seals only to believers 2. Vnbelievers should not prophane the Sacraments by their unworthy receiving of them if they were not Sacraments to them only signifying and if they were exhibiting seals to them then should they receive them worthily which is against what we suppose 3. The Fathers as Justine Martyr Ireneus Epiphanius Chrysostom Ambrose prove that Circumcision in its nature except to believers did only signifie Grace 5. Here be a most vilde distinction That we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished but not to Surplice or to such means and particular admonishers but only collaterally But â— is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collaterall Mistresse over the conscience who is the other collaterall judge here who but Christ 2. We owe this collaterall subjection of Conscience to the Image of the Trinity for though we owe not subjection of Conscience to the image as such an admonisher or such an exhorting object seeing the Word of God may also admonish us of God yet we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished to wit to the blessed trinity 3. Neither owe we subjection of conscience to the word as written with ink on paper nor to the sound of the word Preached yea nor do we owe subjection of Faith to the Word as the Word but only collaterall when we say I hope in the Word I believe the Word I rejoyce in the Word of God we take the Word for Objetum quo and God for Objectum quod for the word is not the formall object of any subjection of Conscience I owe to the Word not a subjection of Conscience collaterall or coequall with the subjection that I owe to God but only subordinate as to a mean and to the Word for God and because it is instituted by God but I owe subjection of Conscience to God solely independently and onely yea subjection of Conscience is not due to the Word for its manner of working and not due to the Ceremonies because they work not as the Word of God doth as no wonder they being but hay and stubble but subjection of Conscience is due to the Word because God is the Author of it and speaketh in it himself as is clear Ier. 13. 15. Amos 3. 8. Heb. 2. 3. Hear for the Lord hath spoken and it is to be received only and in Conscience yielded unto as it is the Word of God Isa 1. 2. 1 Thess 2. 13. Now because we cannot receive the Surplice Crossing Capping as the Surplice of God and as the Crossing of Christ therefore are we not to submit at all to the Doctrines which these
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 4. Conclus Nothing in non-obeying unwarrantable Commandments must be done that redoundeth to the discredit of the Ruler or the hurting of his Majesty and honour 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King Eccles 10. 20. Curse not the King For even when we deny subjection or obedience objective to that which they command yet owe we obedience officiall and all due respect and reverence to the person and eminent place of the Ruler as Act. 7. 2. Steven calleth them Men brethren and fathers Act. 7. 51. And yet stiffe-necked resisters of the holy Ghost 5. Conclus Humane Laws whither civill or Ecclesiastick in that particular positive matter which they have of Art Oeconomy policy and in Gods matters of meer humane coyne and stamp do not bindes the conscience at all per se kindely and of themselves 1. Nothing but what is either Gods expresse word or his word by consequence doth lay a band on the conscience of it self But not to eat flesh in Lâ—nt upon civill reasons Not to carry Armour in the night To wear Surplice and to Crosse infants in Baptisme are neither Gods word expresly nor by consequence The major is sure because the word is the perfect and adequate object of matters of Faith and morall practice which concerneth the conscience Psal 19. 7. 8. Psal 119. 9. Iohn 20. 31. Prov. 8. 9. 2. Because whatever thing layeth a band on the conscience the not doing of that would be a sin before God if the Ruler should never command it But the carrying Armour in the night the not wearing Surplice in Divine service should be no sin before God if the ruler should never command them as reason Scriptures and adversaries teach The Proposition I instruct from the diffinition of an obligation of conscience for to lay a band on the conscience is defined to lay a command on the soul which ye are obliged before God to do as you would eschew sin and obtain eternall salvation So the learned Pareus so Dr. Field so Gerson and so teach Gregorius de Valentia and Suarez 3. None can lay on a band of not doing under the hazard of sin but they that can remit sins for the power that looseth the same bindeth But mortall men cannot binde to sin nor loose men from sin but where God goeth before them in binding and loosing for they cannot bestow the grace of pardoning sin But he onely who hath the keys of David who openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth 4. Whoever can lay on bands of Laws to bring any under the debt of sin must lay on bands of obligation to eternall punishment but God only can do this Mat. 10. 28. The Proposition is clear because sin against God essentially includeth a relative obligation to eternall punishment 5. In matters of Gods worship this is clear The School-men as Aquinaâ— Suarez Ferrariensis Conradus teach us that there is a twofold good The first is an objective and primordiall goodnesse whereby things are agreeable to Gods Law if rulers finde not this in that good which they command they are not just and so not to be obeyed There is another goodnesse that cometh from the will of authority so only divine authority must make things good the will and authority of Rulers findeth objective goodnes in them and therefore enacteth Laws of things but because they enact Laws of things they do not therefore become good and Lawfull It is the will of the Creator of all beings which is the measure rule and cause of the goodnesse of things as Adams not eating of the tree of knowledge is good and gratefull obedience from Gods forbidding will and it should have been as gratefull obedience to eat of that tree if God had commanded so Men cannot make worlds nor can their will create goodnesse in acts indifferent nor can their forbidding will illegittimate or make evil any actions indifferent and therefore things must be morally good and so intrinsecally good without the creative influence of humane Authority and from God only are they apt to edifie and to oblige the conscience in the termes of goodnesse morall And this is strengthened by that which in reason cannot be denied to wit that it is essentiall to every human Law that layeth any obligation on the conscience that it be just nor is it to be called a Law except it be just and justice and equity humane Laws have from God the law of nature and his word not from the Authority and will of men therefore Iurists expound that What pleaseth the Prince hath the vigour of a Law of just things Also the School-men as Carduba Thomas Soto Medina Adrianus Navar Driedo Castro as I gather out of their writings give strong reasons why Rulers cannot lay an obligation on the conscience when the matter of the Law is light and naughty for this were to make a man a trangressor before God for a word a straw a toy which is unjust Because the just weight of the matter is the only just ground of the Laws obligation Ergo the will of the Lawgiver except he make a moat a mountaine cannot lay an obligation of necessity on man 2. It were a foolish law and so no law to oblige to eternall punishment and the offending of 2. God for a light thing for this were to place the way of salvation in that wherein the way consisteth not 3. Such a law were not for edification but for destruction of soules 4. This was the Pharises fault Mat. 23. to lay on intollerable burthens on mens soules 5. The law of God and nature freeth us in positive lawes from guilt in case of necessity as David did lawfully eat Shew-bread 6. A Civill law may not take away a mans life for a straw farre lesse can it bind to Gods wrath 7. Augustine saith they be unjust ballances to esteeme things great or small for our sole will Out of all which I conclude that no law as a Law doth oblige the Conscience but that which hath from the matter morall equity and not from the intention of the Law-giver as Cajetan Silvester Angelus and Corduba teach which intention must take a rule from the matter of the law and not give a rule Gerson No law saith he is a law to be called as necessary to salvation as all good lavves should be but that vvhich de jure Divino is according to Gods lavv yea vve are not saith Durandus to obey the Pope if he command a Monke to doe somthing vvhen he is not moved to command by the necessity the profit of the Church but by his ovvne free vvill and if this be knovven If the Pope faith he for his ovvne vvill and vvithout necessity and utility should seclude vvorkes of supererogation that command should tend to destruction and vve
are to obey Christ vvho is above the Pope And therefore his mind is that all obligation of Conscience in humane commandments commeth from Gods will and law that is from the just and necessary matter of the law not from the will of men 6. Conclus All humane or Ecclesiastick lawes binding the conscience have necessarie and not probable deduction onely by the warrant of both the Mâ—jor Proposition and Assumption from the Word of God and Law of Nature This conclusion is against Suarez he seeketh onely a probable connexion betwixt obliging Lawes and the Divine law And Gregorius de valent is in very deed against Gerson who teacheth three things of all humane lawes 1. That they are in so farre just 2. That they in so farre oblige the Conscience as they have necessary dependance upon natures law or Gods word and therefore compareth them to these precepts that Physitians give to sicke persons they oblige the conscience of the sicke as I thinke from the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther for if the patient sleepe at such a time or drinke wine in such a case he killeth himselfe but they have not obliging power from the fift Commandement not as if the King being sicke were obliged by the fift Commandement to obey the Physitian as his superiour 3. He will have all humane laws that properly obligeth to be onely declaratory and to manifest onely the Divine law and to apply it to such and such a matter The Conclusion is clear from what is said before because all civil laws as meerly positive in the cafe of non-contempt doe not oblige and in the case of non-scandall as Medin Almaine Gerson teach And it followeth from a sure ground that Vasquez layeth downe and he hath it from Driedo to wit that the efficacy of obligation in humane lawes cometh not from the will of Lawgivers or their intention but from the dignity or waightines of the matter If then the matter be not from Gods law just the obligation is none at all for if the law from mans will shall lay on an obligation of three degrees whereas Gods law from Gods vvill before men inacted this in a Law laid on an obligation of two degrees onely tying the Conscience then the will of man createth obligation or the obligative power of conscience in the matter of the Law and by that same reason he createth goodnes which is absurd for that is proper to God onely I grant it is hard because of the variety of singular actions in mans life to see the connexion betwixt particulars of humane lawes and Gods lawes yet a connexion there is and for this cause the learned worthy Divine Pareus will have humane lawes in particulari per se in the particular and of themselves to binde the Conscience Whereas Calvin and Beza Iunius Tilenus Sibrandus Whittakerus and others deny this But the truth is humane civill lawes are two waies considered 1. As they are meerly Positive according to the letter of the Law 2. As they have a connexion with 1. The principles of nature of right and wrong 2. With the end of the law which is the supream law The safety of the people as the Civill law saith he who entreth to an inheritance and maketh no Inventory of all his goods shall pay debts above the-whole heritage this law according to the letter in the Court of conscience is unjust and so cannot oblige in Conscience so as he is guilty before God and deserveth the vengeance of everlasting wrath who doth not make an inventory of all his goods and produce it to the Iudge so he that goeth up to the walls of a City may by the Law be commanded to be put to death yet is he not guiltie of eternall death before God and therefore if the presumption which is the ground of the law cease as this He that maketh not an inventory with a purpose to enjoy the whole inheritance and pay no debts sinneth before God against conscience as famous jurists to wit Jason Bartolus and others teach for this Law considered as having connexion with a principle of nature that every man should pay his debts is a law binding the Conscience and the truth is the end of these Lawes oblige the Conscience they being divine expressions of justice and righteousnesse but not the Lawes themselves for whatever obligeth the conscience as a divine truth the ignorance thereof is a sinfull ignorance and maketh a man guilty of eternall wrath but men are not guilty lyable to the eternal wrath of God because they are ignorant of all the civill Lawes in Iustinians book then were we obliged to be no lesse versed in all the civill lawes that bindeth in foro humano then of the Bible and law of God The adversaries strive to prove that these lawes oblige the conscience we may heare Bellarmine Vasquez Valentinian and the Formalist and Arminian Doctor Jackson say To resist the Rulers in giving and making lawes is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. They have not refused thee but they have refused me that I should not raigne over them Suarez â—aith An humane law is the neerest cause of obligation of conscience as the eternall law is the remote cause And â—ackson as the immediate interposition of divine authority made the killing of Abrahams sonne holy which otherwise would have been cruelty so the interposition of authority derived from God make some actions that barely considered would be apparently evill and desperate to be honest and lawfull to strike a Prophet would seem sin but when a Prophet coÌ„mandeth to strike not to strike is disobedience 1 Kin. 20. 35 36. to rob a Spaniard is Piracie but to do it upon the Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State is obedience to the King Answ To resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and as a servant is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. proveth well But the assumption then is most false for rulers in making lawes and creating by their sole pleasure goodnes morall in particular matters without the word of God are not Gods servants nor is humane authoritie as humane the nearest cause of obligation of conscience instamped in these lawes nor is it the cause at all and therefore to resist them is not to resist God They be Gods instruments and Ministers in 1. Propounding and expounding Gods laws 2. In executing them and defending them from the violence of men 3. In making positive and directory civil lawes for civill government that are lawes improperly so called which bind the conscience as above is said in so far as they have dependance upon Gods Law for Iames saith There is but one Law-giver As for Church-canons all except Physicall circumstances in them are to be warranted by the word Therefore it is a vaine consequence of Valentia humane lawes oblige dependenter
and against order in which case the formall object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a particular humane Law but the violation of the morall goodnesse annexed to it and of the scandall given Now in this meaning the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindely Per se of it self punishable but by accident and so it bindeth the conscience by accident And in this sense great Doctors as Ambrose Anselme Theodoret Chrysostom Navarra Felinus Taraquel say That humane Laws oblige the conscience But the most learned of the Canonists aver that not to obey civill Laws laying aside the evil of scandall is no mortall sin and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltinesse before God 2. They object To resist the Laws of the Magistrate is to resist himself and to resist himself is to resist the Ordinance of God Ans To resist the Laws positive and particular in connexion with the morall reason of the Law is to resist the Ruler true But so the question is not concluded against us for by accident in that sense humane Laws binde the conscience but to resist the particular Laws as particular Laws as particular positive Laws is not to resist the Ruler A Ruler as a Ruler doth never command a thing meerly indifferent as such but as good edificative profitable and except you resist the morality of the positive humane Law you resist not the Ruler yea nor yet is the Law resisted 3. The Iesuit Lod. Meratius objecteth Every true Law obligeth either to guiltinesse or to punishment but the civill and Canonick Laws are Laws properly so called But they do not ever oblige to punishment only Ergo They oblige to sin Ans It is denied that Laws civill or Canonicall as meerly particularly positive do oblige as Laws or that they are Laws they be only Laws according to the morality in them that can promove us to our last end eternall felicity It is also false that the Iesuit saith If thou wilt be saved keep the Commandments doth command the keeping of all Civill and Canonick Laws or that hence is concluded a Law obliging the conscience that is humane and positive as if a Lent Fast a Pilgrimage and not carrying Armour in the night were commanded by Christ as necessary to life eternall The same Meratius striveth to answer the Argument of Almain and Gerson which is this Who ever can oblige to sin mortall before God he can inflict eternall punishment but no mortall man can inflict eternall punishment 1. Saith he This Argument would prove sins against the Law of nature as homicide and adultery not to be deadly sins for by the Law of nature eternall punishment is not inflicted for sins against the Law of nature but by the positive will of God If any say God is the author of the Law of nature because he is the Creator of that humane nature in the which this law is written So if that be sufficient that the law of nature oblige under eternall punishment so also the civill and Ecclesiasticall lavv shall binde the conscience because he is the author of that power which maketh Civill and Ecclesiastick laws for there is no power but it is of God Ans 1. By the Law of nature sins against the Law of nature deserve eternall punishment and that essentially laying aside the positive will of God to whom I grant it is free to inflict punishment or not to inflict and this agreeth to all sin But to carry Armour in the night laying aside the case of scandall and the morality thereof that no murther follow thereupon deserveth neither temporall nor eternall punishment And if this Argument of the Iesuits hold good no mortall sin shall oblige to eternall punishment because Gods positive will is the nearest cause of actuall punishment eternall in all sins 2. God is not the Author of a propper noâ—othetick power in man for that is the question 2. He answereth Distinguishing the Proposition None can oblige to a mortall sin but he who can inflict the eternall punishment of a mortall sin It is true saith he of the punishment which wholly dependeth upon the will of the judge who made the Law but it is not true of that punishment which no way dependeth upon the will of the Iudge such as is eternall punishment excommunication dependeth upon the vvill of man and it obligeth to eternall punishment yet man cannot inflict that eternall punishment for a man may command an act the omission whereof or the commission whereof is of such moment that it serveth much for the good of a community and therefore he vvho of knowledge and vvillingly doth such an act doth sin against right reason and so against the eternall lavv of God Ans 1. The distinction of the Jesuit is but a begging of the question He vvho can oblige to mortall sin by his Lavv can also oblige to eternall punishment if eternall punishment depend vvholly on his free vvill as the Lavv doth What is that but the inflicting of eternal punishment belongeth to him who maketh a Law obliging to sin mortal so being the inflicting of eternall punishment belong to him But our Argument is he who hath dominion and authority to make a Law hath dominion and authority to inflict a punishment answerable to the transgression of that Law for it is one dominion and power to make the Law and to inflict the penalty of the Law Man cannot make the penalty of eternall wrath Ergo he cannot make a Law obliging to eternall wrath 2. Excommunication is not done by mans will but by the power of the keys for a mortall sin deserving excommunication and so eternall wrath If any Excommunicate upon his sole will as wicked Popes have done in that case the will of a man obligeth neither to punishment nor to eternall punishment it is but Brutum Fulmen and not to be feared 3. If any Commit an act that hurteth a whole Community and is forbidden by men in Authority he sinneth against the Law of God though men had never forbidden that Act And we deny not but humane Laws agreeing with the Law of Nature doth oblige the Conscience both to sin and eternall punishment but then they are not humane Laws but Divine Laws and in that case two guiltinesses Duo reatus are Committed one against the fifth Commandment in doing what Superiors according to Gods Word forbiddeth and there is another guiltinesse against the matter it self and a Divine Law which also should stand as a sin before God thought the Ruler had never forbidden it But if any carry Armour in the Night being forbidden by the Iudge for eschewing of night homicide if no homicide follow at all and the matter be not known and so not scandalous the carrier of Armour is involved in no guiltinesse before God CAP. III. Of the power of the
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
brother that is a fornicator Erastus saith he forbiddeth no such thing 2. Though I think Christians may eat with heathens 1. Cor. 10. 27. and that Paul did eat with heathen yet it is no argument to say it is therefore lawfull to eat with one cast out of the Church because we may eat with heathens to gain them and we are not bidden abstain from heathens company that they may be ashamed of their religion though Christians are to use no heathens with intimate familiarity as we do our brethren in Christ But we are to eschew intire fellowship with a scandalous and cast out brother to gain him that he may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. and in this a scandalous brother is in worse case then a heathen But in other respects he is in better condition as being under the medicine of the Church 3. Though we may have commerce and buy and â—ell with heathens and neglect no dutieâ— of humanity to them as to receive them into our house and to be hospitall to them Heb. 13. 2. Iob 31. 32. Yet this will conclude intire fellowship with neither heathen or scandalous brethren Yea we are not to receive a false teacher into our house 2. Ioh. ver 10. Yet are we not forbidden to neglect duties of common humanity to false Teachers though we be forbidden intirenesse of Brotherly fellowship with them Erastus There is not the same reason of holy things and of private civill things for this not eating belongeth to private conversing with men not to publike Communion with them in the holy things of God One saith It is in our liberty Whether we converse familiarly with wicked men or not But it is not in our power Whether we come to the Lords Supper or not And Paul will not have us to deny any thing that belongeth to Salvation and therefore he saith 2 Thess 3. Admonish him as a Brother and none I hope can deny but the Sacraments are helps of godlinesse and Salvation Ans 1. It is true that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren hath in it something civill but it is a censure-spirituall and a Church-censure two wayes 1. Objectively in its tendency Respectu termini ad quem 2. Effectively in its rise and cause Respectu termini à quo it is a spirituall censure Objectively because it tendeth to make the party ashamed that he may repent and become a Brother with whom we are to converse and therefore is destinated for no civill use but for the good of his soul that is a member of a Church that he may return to what he was 2. This censure though one private Brother may exercise it upon another yea a woman on a man who yet hath no Authority over the man is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause a Church-censure 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemne another while first he rebuke him and if he be not convinced while he do the same before two or three witnesses and if he yet be not gained one private Brother may not after conviction before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen or complain of him before an Heathen Iudge as Erastus saith How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother by his own private Authority while he first be sentenced before the Church And the Church shall convince him to walk disorderly to cause divisions and offences to be a Fornicator a Covetous person and so to be unworthy of the intire Brotherly fellowship of another For if this order were not in the Church every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother and so break all bands of Religious Communion and Brotherly fellowship and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches Now certain it is These Texts Rom. 16. 17 18. 2 Thes 3. 11 12 c in the letter intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed as clear by other Scriptures we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother but after such an order Now the places in the letter except we expound them by other Scriptures do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother before we withdraw from him contrary to Levit. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother all Brotherly fellowship by these places then I am to esteem him as a Heathen and as a Brother in name not in reality 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I esteemed him a Brother and did keep Brotherly fellowship with him now this is materially Excommunication I do no more in this kinde to one who is formally Excommunicated yea I am not so strange to a Heathen Ergo This I must have done upon some foregoing sentence of the Church otherwise I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath nor can un-Church and un-Brother 3. Eschewing of Brotherly fellowship to any is an act of Government distinct from the Preaching of the Word tending to make a Brother that walketh disorderly ashamed that he may repent and of a Brother in name only may become a Brother in reallity 2 Thes 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Christian Magistrate for every Brother saith Erastus may exercise it toward his Brother Ergo here is Church-Government that the Magistrate hath no hand in contrary to the way of Erastus and not in the hands of Pastors for it is distinct from Preaching nor is it in a Colledge of Pastors Doctors and Elders for Erastus denyeth any such Colledge Ergo here every one must govern another the man the woman and the woman the man the son the father if he walk unorderly and the Father the Son this can be nothing but the greatest Confusion on Earth 4. To put any to shame especially publikely by way of punishment for publike sins must come from some Iudges or others armed with Authority Iudg. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apostles sense cannot be that every one hath power of himselfe without the Church or any authority there from to put his brother to shame for when a brother is not to eat with a scandalous brother he must be convinced by the Church to be scandalous and so cast our 1 Cor. 5. 11 12 13. as we have proved before and every man here should be his owne judge and party in his owne cause except he put his brother to some shame by an higher authority then his owne The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to put a publike note or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the offender So Stephanus So Piscator Nota ignominiosâ excommunicationis Pomponius laetus de Magistr Rom. â— 21. Censores quintoâ— quoque anno creari solebant hic prorsus cives sic notabantur ut qui Senator esset ejeceâ—etur Senatu qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet c. Mathaeus Harnish Gec Gabellus who adde to Zanchius his Commentary in 2
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
and subjects are Christians but where the Magistrate is of a false Religion two different Governments are tollerable Ans 1. This argument destroâ—eth all Aristocracy Parliaments and Senates where many good men have equall power and so the Common-wealth may not have 70. Heads and Rulers of equall power which is against the Scripture which commandeth subjection to every Civill ordinance of man as lawfull Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Deut. 1. 16. It maketh no Government lawfull but Popedome and Monarchy in both Church and state 2. It is to beg the question that there cannot be two supream powers both supream in their owne kinde for they are both supream in their owne sphere as Pastors dispense Sacraments and Word without subjection to the Magistrate as they are Pastors and Magistrates use the Sword without dependence on Pastors and yet is there mutuall and reciprocall subjection of each to other in divers considerations Pastors as subjects in a Civill relation are subject to the Magistrate as every soul on earth is and Magistrates as they have souls and stand in need to be led to heaven are under Pastors and Elders For if they hear not the Church and if they commit incest they are to be cast out of the Church Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Thes 3. 14. 15. If they walk inordinately we are to eschew their company if they despise the Ministers of Christ they despise him who sent them Math. 10. 40. Luk. 10. 16. God respecteth not the persons of Kings and we finding them not excepted if the preachers of the Gospel be to all beleevers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over them in the Lord 1 Thess 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. call it authority or no Authority they have some oversight over the Christian Magistrate and here be two supreams two highest powers one Ecclesiasticall another Civill nor should any deny Moses to be above Aaron as the supream judge Aaron not having the power of the sword as Moses had and Aaron must be above Moses in sacrificing in burning incensâ— in judging between the clean and the unclean which Moses could not do 2. The excellency of the Civill power in regard of earthly honour and eminency in the fifth Commandment above the servants of God in the Ministry of Christs spirituall Kingdom which is not of this world we heartily acknowledge 3. That the King Preacheth and dispenseth the Sacraments by Pastors as by his servants is wilde Divinty Pastors then must have Magistraticall Authority and power of the sword committed to them as the Deputies and inferior judges of the Lords of the Gentiles which Christ forbade his Disciples Luk. 22. 25 26 27. For the servant must have some power committed to him from the principall cause in that wherein he is a servant 4. What reason is there that where the Magistrate is a Heathen two Governments and so two heads in one body should be for then there is and must be a Church-Government where the Magistrate is a Heathen and that in the hands of the Church if then the Magistrate turn Christian must he spoile the Church of what was her due before Erastus The Lord Jesus changed nothing in the New Testament of that most wise Government in the Iewish Church now there all Government was in the hands of Moses I say not that the Magistrate might sacrifice or do what was proper to the Priests but he did dispose and order what was to be done by the Priests Ans Yea but Erastus saith the Magistrate may dispense word and Sacraments in the New Testament if he had leisure Why might he not sacrifice in the Old Testament also 2. Pastors do by their Doctrine and Discipline order and regulate all callings in their Moralls of right and wrong of just and unjust yet is not the Pastor the only Governour in all externals 3. If Christ changed nothing of the Iewish Government we have all their exclusion of men out of the Campe their separating of the unclean and their politick and Ceremoniall Lawes which is unsound Divinity Erastus Moses Ruled all before there was a Priesthood instituted God Exod. 4. Numb 12. calleth Aaron to his office and maugurateth him by Moses nor doth he command him to exercise a peculiar judgement when he declareth his office to him and when Aaron dieth Moses substituteth Eleazar in his place Ioshua c. 3 4 teacheth the Priests what they should doe and commanded them to circumcise Israel so did Samuel David Solomon and in the time of the Maccabees it was so Ans Moses was once a Prophet and Iudge both Ergo so it may be now it followeth not except Moses as a Magistrate did reveale what was the Priesthood What Aaron and Eleazer his sonnes might doe by as good reason Moses David Solomon Ioshua as Magistrates wrote Canonick Scripture and prophecied Then may Magistrates as Magistrates build new Temples typicall to God give new Laws write Canonick Scripture as these men did by the Spirit of prophecy no doubt not as Magistrates for why but they might sacrifice as Magistrates and why should Moses rather have committed the Priesthood and the service of the Tabernacle due to him as a Magistrate so to Aaron and his sonnes as it should be unlawfull to him as a King and unlawfull to Vzziah to burn incense and to sacrifice and to doe the office of the Priest If the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe all that the Priests are to doe as Priests and that by a supream principle and radicall power in him he ought not to cast off that which is proper to him as a Magistrate to take that which is lesse proper he casteth the care and ruling of souls on the Priests and reserveth the lesser part to himself to rule the bodies of men with the Sword all these are sufficiently answered before Erastus The King of Persia Ezra 7. appointed Iudges to judge the people and teach them but there is no word of Excommunication or any Ecclesiastick punishment but of death imprisonment fines nor did Nehemiah punish the false Prophets with any other punishment Iosephus speaketh nothing of it nor Antiochus Ans I shew before that there is forâ—eiting and separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall be separated from the Church 2. If the King of Persia appointed men to judge and teach the people why should he deny any judicature at all 3. Where ever Iosephus speaketh of the judging of the Priests as he doth antiq l. 11. c. 7. ant l. 11. c. 8. l. 12. c. 9. he hinteth at this Erastus Christ dischargeth his Disciples to exercise dominion Christ would not condemne the adulterous woman nor judge between the brethren Luke 12. Paul calleth Ministers dispensators stewards Peter forbiddeth a dominion Ans Let Erastus be mindfull of this himselfe who yet saith that the Magistrate may both judge also if he have time dispence the
Synedry was the Civill Magistrate Erastus When the Priest accused Jeremiah Chap. 26. of blasphemy he sate not amongst the Judges but stood as an accuser before the Magistrate So Beza Erastus replieth Your Synedry had no Civill jurisdiction because it is a dream 2. Should Pashut the Priest be both accuser and judge 3. In Ieremiahs time there was a Monarch in whose hand was all power in Christs time there was an Aristocracy the Government being in the hands of some chosen men Ans Certainly Ier. 26. 10. the Princes sate down in judgement but that the Priests sate with them we have not one word only the Priests accused him as worthy to die in the question of Law and so the people ver 8. Now the people undeniably cannot have been Iudges 2. Nor do we say the Priests were both judges Civill to condemn Ieremiah to die and accusers that doth not hinder but they in an Ecclesiasticall way were Iudges touching the question of Law whether he had spoken blasphemy or not and also Accusers before the Civill Iudges 3. It is to beg the question to say that all power even of Church-censuring was in the hand of the King 1. The King might exclude none of the Lepers out of the Camp the Priests only could by the Law of God do this and excluded Vzziah the King as a Leper out of the Congregation The King could not judge who were clean who unclean 2. That all power was in the hand of the Kings as if the Kings of Iâ—dah were by Gods Law absolute can never be proved but the contrary is evident Deut. 17. And that inferiour Iudges were essentially Iudges and the Lords immediate Deputies is clear by Scripture Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 5 6 7. Exod. 18. 21 c. Numb 11. â—6 17 18. Psal 82. 6 7. Rom. 13. 1 2. Erastus You ask how Caiaphas and the Priâ—sts had power against Iesus I ansvver 1. From God 2. From the Kings of Persia 3. From the permission of the Romans They apprehended him and bound him which was a part of Civill power nor was this some of the confusion under the Maccabees Hovv can this be proved Christ never rebuked it nor his Apostles the contrary is clear in Iosephus Ans A permissive power from God can prove no Law-power 2. Persians and Romans could not give to Priests and Levites the power of the sword to do what the Law of God had exempted them from doing they were not so much as numbred for the war but set apart for the service of Gods house Num. 1. 3. 45 c. they might in some extraordinary cases judge in civill businesse with the Civill Iudges in the same Iudicature but this was no standing Law 2. Erastus seeketh we would prove that the practise of bloody Pharisees was not against Law He knoweth it is his own Argument Affirmanti incumbit Probatio 3. Christ and the Apostles rebuked not particularly many other sins Pilate might have accused them for binding one of Cesars Subjects of whom he had said he found no fault in him 4. That Ioseph was a Priest or a Levite I reade not he was an Honourable Councellor some think of Pilates Councell 5. That they had any Law of God to apprehend Iesus or that Ioseph had any hand in either condemning or doing any thing in the Sanedrim but shewing his judgement as a Iudge in the question of Law what was blasphemy we must deny let Erastus prove it if so be Erastus make him either Priest or Levite Ioh. 18. 31. The Iews expresly deny the power that Erastus giveth them Pilate therefore said unto them take him and judge him according to your Law which was a salt mocking of them I knovv if you had povver you should not have brought him to me therefore if ye have povver use it The Ievvs therefore said unto him It is not lavvfull for us to put any man to death and the Evangelist addeth ver 32. That the saying of Iesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die that is God had taken power of life and death from the Iews in his admirable providence that Iesus might die a Roman death due for treason that is that he might be crucified Ergo the Iews had no power to put him to death It is weak and empty that Erastus saith They had not povver to put him to death for saying he vvas King because that was a civill crime But they had power to put him to death and to stone him for blasphemy for the Iews say universally without distinction of causes with two negations which in the Greek Language is a strong and universall negation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have not power to kill any man Ergo the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him because the Iews might kill no man you will say Hovv had they povver vvith svvords and staves to take the Kings free subject and binde him which yet they did I answer it was an usurped power for by Erastus his doctrine they had no more power to take him and binde him for Treason which was a civill crime then they had to kill him for Treason both was alike unlawfull by the Roman Lavv and Pilate being a man willing to please the people as the event of the businesse sheweth did not in a legall way challenge them for binding him but he durst not be answerable to his Prince Cesar if he had past by such a high point as their putting Christ to death But we desire any Law of God for practises especially of wicked men are no binding rule that Priests or Levites in the Old-Testament might either binde a Iew or put him to death and when Pilate did stand so much to put Christ to death they would have used their own power malice so necessitating them if they had had any and might well have said to Pilate It is lavvfull for us to put him to death for blasphemy but vve vvill not use our povver vve so love to be loyall to Caesar but they say the contrary We have no povver to put any man to death They say indeed that by their law he ought to die But that they had no power to put him to death for the Common people said that as may appear if we compare Ioh. 19. ver 5. with ver 12. with Matth. 27. 25. and with Act. 2. 36. Act. 3. 12. c. and yet Erastus will not say that the common people were Members of the Sanedrim or had power of life and death as the Civill Magistrate had Erastus Steven was stoned by the Sanedrim not by tumult for there vvere vvitnesses as the lavv required Act. 7. The vvitnesses vvho by the lavv vvere to cast the first stone at the man condemned vvere here therefore there vvas Lavv-povver to stone him though they did it unjustly Ans Beza meant that Steven was stoned by tumult that is without
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
till we all meet in the Vnity of the Spirit and the knowledge of the son of God unto a perfect man Eph. 4. Now neither in that place nor in any other place did Christ give a Magistrate for the edifying his Body the Church but only those that are but his Delegates Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers iâ— the Magistrate be the only Governour of the Church and he who sendeth into the Vineyard those who edifie the Body the King should have been first in this Role as the only supream gatherer edifier and builder of the Church It cannot be said The Ruling Elder then because he is omitted here should not be the gift of Christ given to Edifiâ— the Church and by this it must be denied that the King the Nurse father of the Church who is to take care that the Children be fed with the sincere milk of the Word is given of God to edfâ—ie the Church because he is not nameâ— here Ans Our Divines as Calvin Beza Marlorate do strongly gather from this place that because the Pope pretended to be the Catholick edifier of the Church is not here in this Text nor in any other scripture that therefore he is not the head of the Church and the King being pretended to be the only eminent gatherer of the Church and Supream Governour in all Causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall he should especially have been set down here he being a mixed person and more then half a Church-officer in the minde of the Adversary And there was no colour of reason why the supream and only Head and principall Governour of the Church should be omitted at least the Magistrate should be in some other Scripture as the only Church Governor seeing the Adversaries make Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons only the Delegates and Servants of the Magistrate 1. As God calleth the King to governe the people by the free election of the people so if the Magistrate be called of God to teach and govern the Church this calling of his should be in the Scripture as his calling to the Throne or Bench is Deut. 17. 14. 15 c. 1. 15 16. Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1 2. But in neither the Old nor the New Testament finde we any Prince or Ruler separated for the holy things of God to be ` Priest Apostle Pastor Prophet Teacher by vertue of his office as if he were a mixed person as the Adversarie say No David is called to Sacrifice no Constantine to preach and Administrate the Sacraments by vertue of the Magistrates place 2. If any Reply that the Christian Magistrate is a means ordained for that spirituall end the gathering and edifying the Church in regard the keepeth not only the second Table of the Law and so promoteth not only the Temporall good of the State in promoting mercy and Justice only but also in procuring spirituall good to the people in preserving the first Table of the Law I Answer That the Christian Magistrate doth both but 1. Not directly by being the intrinsecall means in actibus elicitis in elicite and intrinsecall acts promoting edification in both Tables of the Law of which the Scripture speaketh Eph. 4 11. but a far other way 1. In imperated and commanded acts extrinsecally as he doth command with the sword for Peaces cause in all callingâ— in sailing trading painting c. promoting it by carnall means by the sword which belongeth not to the officers of Christs Kingdom 2. Not necessarily as the Pastors and Elders without which Christ hath no externall visible Kingdom on earth whereas he hath had often hath a compleat flourishing externall visible Kingdom without Magistrates yea where Magistrates have been open enemies to the Gospel 3. Not directly the Magistrate doth this but in so far as he admitteth as Triglandius saith the Church of Christ within his State which he may and often doth refuse to do and yet be a compleat Magistrate and therefore the Magistrate may two wayes procure the spirituall good of the Church 1. By procuring that the Nurses give good and wholesome milk to the Church 2. Permodum removent is prohibens which is also a cause for he may save the flock from great temptations when by his sword he driveth away the Wolves from the flock But not any of these bringeth the Magistrate within the lisâ— of the number of these intrinsecall 2. Necessary 3. Spirituall gifts which Christ ascending on high gave for the Edifying of his Body the Church Two powers so different as spirituall and temporall 2. As powers carnall of this world and spirituall not of this world And 3. Both immediatly subject the one to God the creator the other to Christ the Redeemer and Head of the Church and so co-ordinate and supream both of them in their own kinde cannot be so subordinate as the temporall should be the supream in the same kinde the spirituall the inferiour and subordinate But these two powers are so different as spirituall and temporall carnall of this world spirituall not of this world the one subject as supream immediatly to God creator the other supream immediately subject to God the redeemer Ergo Those powers of Governing are not so subordinate as the Temporall should be supream the spirituall subordinate to it The Major is undeniable for it involveth a contradiction that two supreame co-ordinate powers should be two not Supreame but subornidate powers The same way I prove the Assumption 1. The Magistrates power is supreame from God Rom. 13. 1. The Powers that are be of God Prov. 8. By me Kings reigne for no Ecclesiasticall power nor any power on earth interveenes between God the Creator and the power of the civill Magistrates But God who giveth being to a society of men hoc ipso because they are a society of reasonable men hath given to them a power immediately from himselfe to designe such and such to be their Rulers Shew us any higher power above the Magistrates but God the creator making the civill power Never man dreamt that the Spirituall power of the Church doth interveen as an instrumentall cause of the politick power 2. By order of nature a politick power is first men are first men in naturall and politick society ere they be in a supernaturall pollicy or a Church and Christ did not make a spirituall power by the intervention of a civill power 2. The power of the two Kingdoms are distinguished by Christ Iohn 18. 36. Iesus answered my Kingdome is not of this World then the power thereof is not of this World if my Kingdome were of this World then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iewes The one power is coactive by the Sword the other free voluntary by the Word Erastus had no reason to infer thence that Christs Kingdome is onely internall and invisible not externall and visible because Christ opposeth his Kingdom to a fighting Kingdom using the sword to defend him from
not subordinate to the Ministers of the Gospel as Ministers far lesse to the Magistrate as the Magistrate because it dependeth upon none on earth Minister or Magistrate but the only good pleasure of him who when he ascended to heaven gave gifts unto men that there is such an office as Minister Pastor or teacher And the Church cannot create a new office of a Prelate because of its nature it tendeth to a supernaturall end the governing of Christs body in a way to life eternall purchased by Christ Now the question in this sense whether the power of the Ministery be subordinate to the Magistrate in its constitution it is alike in its subordination to Magistrate and Minister certain it is subordinate to neither Other lawfull and profitable offices and Arts are from God mediately possibly by the intervening acts of rationall nature though Magistracy be from God Rom. 13. 1. yet it would seeme God by the naturall reason of men might devise and constitute the very office of Magistracy in abstracto and the Art of sayling painting c. yet is there no subjection of power to power here by way of dominion Hence the question must be of the subordination of the power quoad exercitium whether Ministers in the exercising of their Ministeriall calling be subordinate to the Magistrate as the Magistrate 5. Dist A judge is one thing and a just judge another thing so here are we to distinguish between a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate As 1. a husband is one thing and a Christian husband another thing a Captaine is one thing and a Christian and a beleeving Centurion or Captain such as Cornelius Acts 10. is another a Physitian is one thing and a gracious Physitian is another thing sure a heathen Husband hath the same jus Maritale the same Husband power in regard of Marriage union that a Christian and beleeving Husband hath 2. A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate may be one and the same Magistrate with one and the same Magistraticall power as being first heathen Magistrate as Sergius Paulus Act. 13. 7 12. and there after converted to the faith Paulus was no lesse a civill Deputie when Heathen then when Christian and not more a Deputy as touching the essence of a Magistrate when a Christian beleever then he was before when a Heathen yet to be a Magistrate and to be a beleeving Magistrate are two different things even as Christianity is a noble ornament and a gracious accident and to be a Magistrate is as it were the Subject even as a man and the accidents of the man are two different things 6. There be two things here considerable in the Magistrates office 1. There is his jus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistraticall power or the authority officiall the power of office to beare the sword 2. There is aptitudo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speciall heavenly grace of well governing this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift or grace of God to use that power for Christ These two make one Christian husband one Christian captain Physitian Master in relation to to the wife souldiers sick servants Now the Magistrate heathen as Magistrate even Nero when the Church of God is in his court and dominions hath the same jus the same Authority and Officiall power to be a keeper of both Tables of the Law and to defend the Gospell and to command the Preachers and Synods to fulfill their charge and to see that the officers doe their dutie and to punish dumbe dogs Idolaters excommunicated persons to drive away with the sword false Teachers from the flock he hath I say the same Magistraticall power while he is a Heatheâ— and when he is converted to the Christian faith and he is equally head of men that professe Christ when Heathenish as when Christian but in neither States is he the Head of the body the Church and you give not to Cesar the things that are Cesars if you make converted Nero because a Magistrate now the head of the Church and deny non-converted and heathenish Nero to be the Head of the Church for he is a Magistrate with compleat power of the Sword in the one case as in the other that he neither doth nor can use the sword for the Church it is from Nero his state of infidelity that he is in as a man and not the fault of his office for when Paul saith the Husband is the head of the Wife doth hee meane a Christian husband onely and exclude all heathen Husbands No for then the wife were not to be subject to the Husband if a Heathen and an unbeleever which is against Pauls mind 1 Cor. 7. and the Law of Nature But the converted Magistrate who was before a heathen Magistrate hath a new aptitude faculâ—y and grace to keep both Tables of the Law and to govern in a civill way and indirectly the affaires of Christs Kingdome Hence the adversaries clearly contradict themselves by confounding those two a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate one while they give supream power over the Church to the Magistrate as the Magistrate sometime to the Magistrate as Christian So Vtenbogard in his book De officio authoritate supremi Magistratus Christiani in rebus Ecclesiasticis p. 7. and p. 8. hoc addo ut intelligatur Magistratum cum religioneÌ„ Christianam amplectitur non acquirere novam authoritatem sed quod eam authoritatem quam ante etiam in rebus religiâ—nis â—ultus divini habebat authoritateÌ„ rectè utitur If the Magistrate when he becommeth a Christian acquireth no new authority as a Magistrate but onely useth well his old Authority in matters of Religion and of Gods worship which he had before while he was Heathen as he saith then the Heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate hath a supreame power in Church matters and yet in the same place he draweth the state of the question to a Christian Magistrate De solo Christiano Magistratu acturus The Arminians in their Apologie fol. 297. as saith their Declaration speake onely of the Christian Magistrate and yet page 298. potestati enim supremae sive Architectonicae qua potestas suprema est jus hoc ut competat ratio ordinis sive boni Regiminis natura sua postulat si Magistratui qua tali jus hoo competit â—rgo multo magis competit Magistratui Christiano Sure if the Magistrate in generall and as the Magistrate have a supream Authority in the Government of the Church such as the Adversaries contend for then the Christian Magistrate farre more must be Head of the Church and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be supreame Governour and judge in all Ecclesiasticall causes and in these same causes he must not be Iudge as a Magistrate but as a Christian Nor can they make a Christian Magistrate à medium per participationem utriusque extremi a middle betweene a Magistrate and a Christian 1. For where is there such an
in the second table Rom. 13. 3 4. Isai 49 23. and you said elsewhere that externall peace is too narrow an object for the Magistrate for the intrinsecall end of a Magistrate is also a supernaturall good and not only a peaceable but also a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ans It is true the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth care for the supernaturall good of subjects and the duties of Religion and the first table but how intrinsecally and as a magistrate that is that men worship God according to his word But 1. The magistrate as such hath nothing to do with the spirit nor can he command the sincerity of the worship his care is that there be a divine worship that is materially and externally right and consonant externally to the rules of the word and for this cause learned divines make the externall man the object of the magistrates office but not the externall man as doing the duties of the second table only but also as serving God in the duties of the first table for which cause I said Augustine meant the same when he said that Kings serve God as men and as Kings 2. Magistrates as magistrates are to extend their power for Christ that is that not only there be Iustice and Peace amongst men but also that there be Religion in the land yea that the Gospel be preached so all our Divines make the King to be custos â—t vindex utriusque tabule Yea I think he is a keeper and preserver of the Gospel also and is to command men to serve Christ and professe the Gospel and to punish the blaspheming of Iesus Christ and this is royall and magistraticall service that the King as King performeth to God and to Iesus Christ the mediator ex conditione operis in regard that good which he procureth as King materially and externally is consonant to the supernaturall Law of the Gospel but it is not magistraticall service to Christ ex intentione operantis Obj. 4. When it s required that the Magistrates be men fearing God hating coveteousnesse c. is not this an essentiall ingredient of an King as a King that he read in the book of the Law that he may feare God Deut. 17 Ans There is a twofold goodnesse here to be considered one of the magistrate as a magistrate another as a good and Christian magistrate The former is an officiall goodnesse or a magistraticall prudence justice and goodnesse this is required of all magistrates as such to judge the people so the acts of an heathen magistrate done according to common naturall equity by Nebuchadnezzar Pilate Cesar Felix Festus are to be acknowledged as acts of a Lawfull Magistrate valide and no lesse essentially Magistraticall then if performed by King David and of this goodnesse the Scriptures speak not as essentiall to a Magistrate as a Magistrate But there is another goodnesse required of Magistrates as they are Members of the Iewish Church and as they are Christians and of these the Scripture speaketh and so Magistrates not as Magistrates but as good and Christian are to be such as feare God hate covetousnesse respect not the face and favour of men so it s denied that the fear of God hating of covteousnesse are essentiall ingredients of Kings as Kings For Kings as Kings intend justice peace godlinesse materially considered both ex conditione operis and operantium But for justice and righteous judgement in a spirituall and an Evangelick way that belongeth not to the essence of a Magistrate nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis nec ex conditione operantis The Holy Ghost requireth it of judges as they would approve themselves as truly Holy and Religious and would be accepted of God and in this sense Kings as Kings do not serve God nor the mediator Christ nor yet as men only they serve God and the mediator Christ as Christian Kings or as Christian men rather III. According to that third member of our seventh Distinction The unjust and evil exercise of the Ministeriall power is obnoxious to the magistrate as the magistrate thus in that he beareth the sword against all evil doers Ro. 13. 1. The magistrate as the magistrate doth only command well doing in order to praise and a good name or temporall reward amongst men Rom. 13. 3. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power 1 Tim. 5. 17. Matth. 10. 10. Nor can the magistrate as the magistrate promise or command the Elders to feed the Flock with the promise of the reward that Peter promiseth 1 Pet. 5. 4. to wit That when the chief shepheard shall appear they shall receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away The magistrate as a Preacher if he be one as David and Solomon were both or as a godly religious Christian man may hold forth such a promise but not as a Magistrate and upon the same ground the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot forbid careles unsound preaching and rigorous and tyrannicall ruling or rather domineering over the Flock under the pain of death eternall for he can but kill the body and hath but the carnall and temporall sword Rom. 13. 4. and so he can inhibite ill doing only in order to temporary punishment and though the duty of the former be spirituall and the sinne of the latter also yet the externall man is capable only of the Magistrates promises and threatnings as they respect evill or good temporary so that it is a wonder to me that M. Pryn or any learned man can say that magistrates can make Lawes to binde the conscience sure it is ill divinity 2. If there never had been sin there should have been no government but of Fathers and Husbands there should have been no magistraticall dominion not any magistraticall allurement to weldoing by temporall rewards not any terrifying from evill doing from fear of the sword death stripes or bands and God governed the Apostolick Church and they attained the Crowne and supernaturall end of life eternall without the accessory hire of a a temporary reward from the magistrate and the subsidy of his sword Ergo it is evident that the magistrate is neither an essentiall nor an integrall part of the visible Church as the visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God Word Sacraments Discipline Censures Rebukes Admonition Excommunication Prayers Mutuall edification in as great perfection as is happily attainable in this life without yea against the will of the civill magistrate Though it be a great incouragement to have the King a Nurse-father yet hath not Christ counted it simply necessary to his visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God to the full 3. If the magistrate do only command the teachers and Pastors to preach and determine synodically in order to a temporall reward and forbid them to abuse their ministeriall power in order to temporary punishment by the temporary sword then surely the Pastors and Teachers are
he calls David his Prince a bloody murtherer and saith this evill is come on him for rising up against Saul his Master The Magistrate may not punish him with the Sword for railing against the Lords anoynted 2. And if the Magistrate ought not to strike with the sword any Prophet for preaching according to his conscience for that is persecution to this Author how shall the Prophets judge and condemne the Magistrate for those same decrees which he hath given out according to his conscience for this is a persecution with the tongue Mat. 5. 11. Iob 19. 22. and it is one and the same spirituall cause saith this Author 3. The same very Author and the Parliament do reciprocally judge and condemne one another for the Parliament make warre against Papists for drawing the King on their side and causing him make warre against the Lambe and his followers that is against godly Protestants Now suppose Priests and Iesuits preach this to the Queen and other Papists and they according to their conscience make warre against the flock of Christ and the Parliament according to their conscience make warre against them this Author sitteth downe and judgeth and condemneth both sides as bloody persecutors for point of conscience Now though the Author in his Bench with his penne condemneth and judgeth both according to his conscience yet if the Papists or possibly the Parliament had this Author in their fingers might not they reciprocally judge and condemne him I think he cannot deny how justly they should reciprocally judge the Author I cannot say 3. This Author would have a contradiction such as is to make East and West both one that one and the same man both sit in the Bench and stand at the barre that the Church judge the Magistrate and the Magistrate judge the Church But I hope contradictions were no more under the Old Testament to be admitted nor under the New Now in the Old Testament the King might put to death the Prophet who should prophecy blasphemies and again the Prophet might judge the King by denouncing the judgement of the Lord against the King let the Author say how the King both did sit in the Bench and stand at the baâ—â—e in divers respects I think Aâ—hab might judge and punish Micaiah unjustly for prophecying that he should dye at Ramoth Gilead and Micaiah might in prophecy give out the sentence of death justly against him but here be two contrary sentences the like may fall out in Synodicall constitutions 2. To answer to his reasons 1. It followeth not that in one and the same spirituall respect one and the same person judgeth on the Bench and is judged at the Bar for the Churches judging is in a spirituall respect as the officer ordained may promote the building of Gods House the Magistrates suppressing him is no spirituall respect but as it disturbeth the peace of the State that so unworthy a person is an officer in Gods House and is hurtfull to the Church of God in their ediâ—icatioâ— which the Magistrate is to promote not in spirituall but in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 3. That one judge on the Bench and the same stand at the Barre and be judged at divers and sundry times is not so impossible by farre as to reconcile East and West together Aâ—â—â—b may judge Naboath to be condemned and stoned for his vineyard to day and immediately after Elias the Prophet may arraigne him before the Barre and tribunall of God to be condemned and adjudged to dye in the portion of Iezreel where the dogs may lick his blood It is true Elias is not properly a judge but a declarer in a propheticall and authoritative way of the judgement of God but this is all the judiciall power which we ascribe to Church or Presbytery and Pastors they are meer Ministers or servants to declare the will and sentence of God When the Minister preacheth wrath against the King for his sins he judgeth the King in a Pastorall and Ministeriall way which is all we contend for in many officers united in a Church way and at that same time the King hath power after that to judge him for preaching treason for â—ound Doctrine if it be found to be treason by the Church and this reciprocation of judging we maintaine as consistent and necessary in Ministers of Gospel and Magistrates But such a distance betweene them as between East and West we see not The Author should have shewne it to us by his owne grounds The Church may excommunicate a Magistrate as a persecutor who cutteth off Idolaters for their conscience yet the godly Magistrate may judge and punish them with the sword for abusing the ordinance of Excommunication so as to excommunicate the godly Magistrate because he doth punish evill doing with the Sword Rom. 13. 4. 4. The Author infers that tumults and bloods do arise from these two But that will not prove these two to be inconsistent and contrâ—dictorious tumults and blood arise from preaching the Gospel what then Ergo the Gospel is a masse of contradictions â—â— followeth not The â—umulâ—s and blood have their rise from mens lusts who are impatient of the yoak of Christ not from these two powers to judge Ecclesiastically in the Church and to be judged civilly by the Magistrates The Author draweth his instance to the actuall judging of the same thing contradictory wayes for example the Church ordaineth one to be a preacher and this they do Ecclesiastically and the Magistrate actually condemneth the same man civilly as unworthy to be a preacher It is one thing to say that the Church hath power to judge righteously in an Ecclesiasticall way any matter and another that the Christian Magistrate hath power in a civill way to judge righteously the same matter and a â—ar other thing it is to say The Church hath a power Ecclesiastically to judge a matter righteously according to the word and the Magistrate hath power to judge the same matter civilly in a wrong and unjust way the former we say God hath given a power to the Church to ordaine Ecclesiastically Epaphroditus to be a preacher of the Gospel because these graces and gifts are in him that are requisite to be in a faithfull preacher and God hath also given a power to the Christian Magistrate to adde his civill sanction to the ordination and calling of the same Epaphroditus But we do not teach that God hath given to the Church a power to call Epaphroditus to the Ministery in an Ecclesiasticall way and that God hath given a power to the Christian Magistrate to anull this lawfull ordination of Epaphroditus Now the Author putteth such a supposition that Church and Magistrate have two lawfull powers toward contrary acts the one of them a power to give out a just sentence the other a power to give out an unjust sentence in one and the same cause which we teach not God gave to none either in Church
members of the Church and that they are to be cast out of the Church as he doth also he must either grant that Christian Magistrates cannot turn Apostates and Idolaters which is against Scripture and experience or that if they turn Apostates and Idolaters they remain no longer members of the Church but are to be excommunicated or then Christ must have made some speciall exception that Kings though Idolaters and Apostates do yet remain members of the Church and are not to be cast out of the Church which beside that Erastus cannot shew is contradictory to his words Hence it is clear the Magistrate if he turn as Saul did a wicked man he is to be excommunicated But 1. By whom by the Church Erastus will deny he can be judged by the Church because he is above the Church by himselfe that is against reason By other Magistrates he is the only supream in that Church and by what reason he is above the Church he is above the other Magistrates and other Magistrates are guilty of the same fault Obj. 5. The supream and principall power called Architectonica of governing the Church in externals either agree to the Magistrate or to the Church not to the Magistrate as they say if to the Church Then 1. The universall care and inspection over the Church is taken from the Magistrate and given to the Church Ergo 2. Then the Christian Magistrate not indirectly only but directly must be obliged to follow the judgement of the Church in ordaining depriving punishing of Ministers or of any excommunicated 3. The subjects must be obliged not to obey yea to disobey the Magistrate if he decern any thing contrary to the Church and the Magistrate as a lictor and servant must execute all Ans 1. There is no reason to say that the supream and principall power by way of royall dominion as the argument supposeth in Church matters should agree to either Magistrate on earth or Church it is a Rose of the Crown of him who is the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords and so the Major is false Nor is that care and inspection which is due to the Magistrate taken from him when we ascribe to Christ what is his due 2. Neither doth it follow that the Magistrate is directly obliged to follow the judgement of the Church except we did make the judgement of the Church supream and absolute and armed with such a dominion as the adversaries give to the Magistrate in which case it followeth that the Church is directly and absolutely obliged to follow the judgement of the Magistrate according to the way of the adversaries and that if this argument be good they must ascribe blind obedience either to the Church or Magistrate not to the Magistrate they say Ergo to the Church Nor can they take it off by saying that the Magistrates dominon is limited by the Word of God for they know that we teach that all the constitutions and decrees of Synods made by the Church as the Church is limited by the Word of God yet they cease not to object to us that we make the Magistrate a servant and a lictor to the Church and obliged by his place to give blind obedience to the Church and therefore they are obliged to answer the argument and remove papal dominion from their way according to their owne argument if they will be willing to take in to themselves with the same measure that they give out to others But if they give a ministeriall power of judging to the Church the argument is easily answered which they cannot give to the Magistrate except they make his office to oblige the conscience and his commands as magistraticall to be given out under the pain of the second death Now his sword is too short to reach to this I hope except you make the vengence that he executeth on evil doers Rom. 13. to be eternall fire and his sword to be no materiall nor visible sword but such as commandeth Devils and Hell which is absurd for the Magistrates power of judging and commanding is commensurable to his power of rewarding and punishing that is both is temporary within time on the body of this world The Pastors have a power of commanding though only ministeriall but free of all domination or externall coaction which is spirituall and the punishment is accordingly spirituall a binding in earth and heaven I borrow only the word of punishment it being no such thing properly Obj. 6. If the end of the Church be a spirituall and of the Magistrate be a temporall good and if the Magistrate have no spirituall power to attain to his temporall end no more then the Church hath any temporall power to attain to her spirituall end is not this a contradiction that the Magistrate should determine what the true Church and Ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword for the Magistrates power to judge and punish in spirituall causes must be either spirituall or civill or then he hath none and so acts without commission Now for civill power the Magistrate hath it only over the bodies and goods of men and hath it not over the soul nor can he have it say â— in soul cases It is confessed that the Magistrate hath no spirituall power to attain a temporall end and therefore those who provoke the Magistrate without either civill or spirituall power to punish or prosecute in spirituall causes are to fear that they come too near to those frogs that proceed out of the mouth of the Dragon and Beast and false Prophet who with the same argument stirre up the Kings of the earth to make war against the Lambe and his followers Rev. 17. Bloody Tenent Answ 1. All this argument is builded on a great mistake and a conseqence never proved except by this one word of the Author Therefore say I and it is this The Magistrate hath no civill power over the soul therefore say I he hath no power in soul matters and cannot judge and punish in spirituall causes Sir this is a non sequitur The learned Divine Rivetus saith well The Magistrates power in spirituall things to judge and punish is formaliter and in it self and intrinsecally civill but objective in regard of the object and extrinsecally it is spirituall 1. I ask when the Author and his take a professor into Church-communion they judge whether he be just mercifull and peaceable when they excommunicate any member for murther for unjustice in taking away the goods of his brother whether the Church doth judge and punish in the causes of justice mercy and peace which properly belongeth to the civill Magistrate not to the Church properly but only ratione scandali as they are offensive in the Church of God I ask I say if the Churches power in judging and punishing be civill or spirituall not civill for this Author will say that the Church hath no power over the lives and goods
of men those belong to the Magistrate and to his civill power Yet he cannot deny but the Churches power in judging and punishing here is formally spirituall and objectively and unproperly civill so say I the Mgaistrates power in spirituall causes is formally civill and objectivelâ— only spirituall and he neither hath nor needeth any spirituall power formally to attain his temporall end nor needeth the Church any power formally civill to attain her spirituall end The reason is because powers have their specification and nature from their formall object not from the materiall because the Magistrate punisheth hereâ—ies and false Doctrine as they disturbe the Peace of the civill State therefore his power is civill and because the Church censureth unjustice incest 1 Cor. 5 1 2. and sins against the second Table because they are scandalous in the Church and maketh the name of God to be ill spoken of though materially those sins be punishable by the Magistrate yet is the Churches power spirituall because it judgeth those as scandalous and offensive to God and therefore the power is spirituall because the object to wit as scandalous to the Church and as offensive to God is spirituall even as destructive to civill Peace is formally a civill object 2. The Magistrate without any spirituall power judges what is the true Church and true ordinances setteth them up by his sword he doth set them up only for a civill end because they conduce most for the peace and flourishing condition of the civill state whereof he is head not that the members of his state may attain life eternall for the Magistrate intendeth life eternall to his subjects in setting up a true Church and true Ordinances not as a Magistrate but as a godly man As the woman of Samaria brought out the Samaritanes that they might receive Christ in their heart by saith as she had done But as a Magistrate he intendeth not life eternall to his subjects so a Master as a Master hireth a man to serve who is a believer and as a Master he judgeth such a one will be most faithfull and active in his service now the Master judgeth him not to be a Saint that he may be a fit member of the Church The Church only as the Church is to judge so of this servant nor doth he judge him a believer that he may obtain life eternall nor doth he love and chuse him as his servant that he may obtain life eternall Christians as Christians judge and love one another that way So the Husband as a Husband doth chuse a believing woman for his Wife judging she will perform the duties of a Wife better then an unbelieving Wife he judgeth her to be a believer as a Husband and loveth her with a Husband-love as a Husband but if he love her because the image of God is in her and as an heir of life eternall then he loveth her as a Christian man not as a Husband and it is a Christian love he hath to her such as he hath to other godly women that are also co heirs with himself of life eternall and this is a lawfull and a Christian love But if this Husband should bear a Husband-love such as he doth to his own Wife to all other godly Wives it should be an adulterous and unlawfull love So the Magistrate as a Magistrate judges loves chuses and setteth up true Ordinances a true Church as means of a flourishing Kingdom and of externall Peace and pulleth down the contrary as means destructive to the peace and safety of his subjects But he judgeth not in a spirituall manner and with any spirituall power of the sword of those as fitting and conducing to life eternall and inward peace of conscience with God but as a justified and believing Saint he judgeth chuseth and loveth Ordinances and the true Church in this consideration and no wise as a Magistrate If those Relations of Magistrate and Christian had been considered by the Author he had not compared the Magistrate punishing idolatry to the Dragon and the godly Pastors who exhort the Magistrate to punish false teachers to the Beast and the false Prophet who maketh war with the Lambe For the godly magistrate who advanceth the throne of the Lambe is praise worthy he doth cut off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord Psal 101. 8. and doth this as a Magistrate that his Kingdome might have peace and well grounded prosperity but as a man according to Gods heart he doth it formally set on high the throne of the Lambe nor would he have compared those worthy and dear brethren of New England the Saints of the most high especially reverend Master Cotton to the frogs that proceeded out of the mouth of the false Prophet Rev. 17. 3. Nor do the Papists use this argument at all but another argument and for a contrary conclusion for the Pope as the Pope is an earthly Monarch and as Pope hath power to translate Crowns and Kingdoms and as Pope the Holy Ghost in him commandeth the Kings of the Earth to make war with the Lambe and his followers as Papists teach do we ascribe any such power be the Church or Churchmen are Malignants Prelates and Papists the followers of the Lambe Obj. 7. If the people may erect what government they will and seems most fit for their civill condition then governments by them so erected have no more power nor for no longer time then the civill power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with for people are not deprived of their naturall freedom by the power of tyrants And if so that Magistrates receive their power of governing the Church from the people Then a people as a people naturally considered of what Nature or Nation soever in Europe Asia Africa America have fundamentally and originally as men a power to govern the Church to see her do her duty to correct her to redresse to reform to establish c. And this is to subject God Christ heaven the spirit to naturall sinfull and unconstant men Indian and American governments are as true and lawfull governments as in the world and therefore their governours are keepers of the Church and of both Tables if any Church should arise or be amongst them and therefore if Christ have betrusted the civill power with his Church they must judge according to their Indian and American consciences for others they have not Ans 1. No doubt the power that makes Magistrates because of vertue and dexterity to govern may unmake them when they turn tyrants and abuse their power and upon the same ground as men create Magistrates so Christian men as Christian men act to chuse Christian and gracious Magistrates as if a Husband as a man chuse a Wife as grace perfumeth and spiritualizeth all the common actions of men so Christian men are to chuse Christian Wives Christian Masters Christian servants so is a Church to chuse a Christian not an American Magistrate
myster incarnat disp 37. Sect. 1. n. 1. 2 3. d Leo. 1. Serm. 7. De nativita abstinendum ab ipsa specic offiâ—ij e Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. f Alex. alâ—n 3. p. q. 30. memb 3. art 3. sect â— g Albertus dist 9. art 4. h Bonavent art 1. q. 2. ad 1. in contrarium i Martuinus de ajala tract de trad 3. par k Abulens Deut. 4. q. 4 5. l Carol. lib. 2. cap. 25. m Ibid. n Carol. l. 4. cap. 27. a Carol. l. 4. cap. 27. b Carol. l. 1. cap. 2â— c L. 4. c. 10. l. 3. c. 21. d L. 3. c. 2â— e Symson treats of the worshipping of Images pag. 50 51. f Concilium Eleherio cap. 36. Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas non esse debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parictibus pingatur g Caâ—us line 5. cap. 4. h Surjus 1 Tom. of concell an in can 36. cont Eliber i Sozomen l. 5. c. 20. b Nicephor hist l. 11. cap. 43. c Prov. 2. â—0 Eph. 5. 1. â— Thes 1. 16. 2 Thess 3. 6 7. â— Cor. â—â— Phil. 3. 17. 2. Tim. 3. 4. Sitting the only convenient gesture What is occasionall in the first supper 2. Arg. Christ sate at the first Supper Of kneeling part 2. pag. â—â— Part. 2. Page 62. Sitting a signe of our co-heireship Part 2. pag. 187. Paybodie p. 268. 269. Disputer against kneeling Arg. 1. c. 6. A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ 4. Arg. Arg. 8. Ceremonies fail against the authority of Rulers a Pareus Com. in Rom. 13. dub v. 5. How civill positive laws binde not the conscience b Pareus Com. in Rom. c. 13. Dub. 7. c Richard Field on the Church 4. book c. 33. d Gerson de vita spir part 3. lect 4. e Greg. de val to 1. disp 7. punct 6. Sect. â— f Suarez tom de legibus lib. 3. cap. 22. h Aquin. 22 q. art 1. ad 3. i Suar. Deoper 6. dierum Tract 3. disp 5. Sect. 1. num 2. k Ferra. câ—â—â— Genteâ— cap. 21. l Conrad 12. q. 20. art 1. A twofold goodnesse in things The will of authority cannot treate goodnesse in things m â— F. de conâ—â—iâ— Prineip Quâ—d Principi placuit legis babet vigorem est verum de placito justo n Carduba in sum quest 18. part 1. o Thom. 22. q. 104. art 6. p Soto de inst leg 1. 4. 6. art 4. q Medinâ— C. de paenitentia tract 4. de jujun c. 7. r Adrian quod 6. art 2. Å¿ Navar. in sum cap. 23. num 55. t Driedo l. 3. De liber Christ c. 3. ad 5. u Castro lib. 1. de lege pena c. 4. x August De Baptis l. c. 6. y Cajet verbo pracepti transgressio z Silvest verbo praecept q. 9. a Angelus verb. lex 11. 3. b Corduba q. 189. part 2. rat 1. 2. c Gers de vit spir lect 4. c. 7. Nulla lex sâ—reuda est tanquam necessaria ad salutem quâ— non est de jure Divino d Durand l. 2. d. 44. q. 5. numb 6. Si Papa praeciperet Monacho ea quae sum contra suam professionem non motus aliqua necessitate vel utilitate Ecclesiae sed sola voluntate de hoc constaret Abbas praeciperet contrarium obediendum esset Abbati non Papae e Suarez Tom. de leg lib. 3. c. 24. f Greg. de valent tom 2. disp 7. q. 5. punct 6. Sect. 1. Humane lawes oblige onely in so farre as they agree with the Law of God g Medina tract De jejunio cap. 7. h Almain Moral c. 12. i Gers uti supra k Vasquez 12. disp 158 c. 4. num 32. Praecipient is intentio non facit praeceptum habere majorem vel minorem obligandi efficaciam sed necesfiâ—as diguitas vel utilitas corum quae praecipiuntur l Driedâ— de lib. Christ l. 3. c. 3. ad 5. m Pareus com in Rom. 13. v. 5. Dub. 7. Conclus 5. n Calvin inst l. 3. c. 19. Sect. 15. 16. o Beza in Notis in Rom. 13. A twofold consideration of humane laws p Iason q Baldus in rubrica Fâ—de acquirendis bâ—reditatibus nu 23. seq r Bellarm. tom 1. cont 5. l. 3. c. 11. s Vasquez tom 2 in 12. disp 152. cap. 2. t Valent. tom 2. disp 7. q. 5. punct 6. v Doctor Iackson on the Creed lib. 2. cap. 4 How inferiour rulers are subordinate to God in commanding x Bellar cont Barclai cap. 3. Bonâ— sensu Christus dedit Petro potestatem faciendâ— de peccato non peccatum de non peccato peccatum Humane authority is not the nearest or instrumentall cause of Lawes y Stapleton de statu Eccles cont 5. q. 7 art 2. z Field on the Church booke 4. c. 33. a Gerson b Almain oper moral cap. 12. c Decius namcoâ—â—upiscen lect 1. d Mencha questionum illustrium l. 1. c. 19. num 1. e Iunius animadv f Doctor Iackson 16. g Sutluvius de Presbyter c. 11. 66. Sic non magis Ecclesiae Synodo logâ—s scribere promulgaâ—e liceres quam populâ— subditis sibilâ—geâ— coâ—deâ—â— prâ—ter sui principis Magistratus voluntatem si nimirum Christus esset externâ— politiae legislator h Bellar. de interp verbi lib 3. cap. 4. A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective i 1 Thes 2. 13. Esa 1. 2. â—er 1. 2. Ezek. 2. 7. Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equalls Ibid. p. 259 260. False rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by Doctor Jackson refuted 3. Rule a Hooker Churchpolicy 5. book p. 197. 198. b Suarez de Relig. tom 4. lib. 4. tract 9. cap. 15. Considerare â—rgâ— aporteâ— aâ— secluso precepto res sit utraque ex parte probabilis tunc universaliter verum erit adjuncto praecepto obediendum esse c Thomas Sanches Jesuita Cordubensis in Decalog tom 2. l. 6. c. 3. n. 3. Quado subditus dubius est an res precepta sitlicita nec ne tenetur obedire exeusatur abpreceptun superioris d Ignat. loyola cat Jesuit lib. 2. cap. 17. 18. Prudentia non obedicntis sed imperantis est Item non est dignus nomine obedientis qui legittimo superiori non cum voluntate judicum suum submittit e Greg. dâ— Valentia to 3. dis 7. q. 3. punct 2. Subditus non suo judicio atque authoritati nititur superioris f Vasquez 12. q. 19 disp 66. c. 9. num â—1 g Salas 12. q 21. tract 8. disp unic sect 17. num 152. The good nesse of obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the manner of doing with a doubting conscience and so sinfully i Vasquez in 12. â—om 1. disp 68. cap. 2. k Câ—ssian collat 17. cap. 17 l Chrysâ—â—â— oper imperf fi ejus â—it opus homil 9. cap. 7. m Ambr. lib. iâ—de offic cap. 30. n Aquin. 12. q. 19. art 7. o
or State a power to unjustice ad malum nâ—â—la est potestas Obj. 14. How can the Magistrate determine what the true Church and ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword and how can he give judgement of a â—alse Church false Ministery false Doctrine and false Ordinances and so pull them down by the sword and yet you say the Magistrate is to give no spirituall judgement of these nor hath he any spirituall power for these ends and purposes Bloody Tenent Ans The Magistrate judges of these as a Magistrate not in a Pastorall way or Ecclesiastically for then by office he should be a preacher of the Gospel but civilly as they are agreeable or contrary to the Laws of the Common-wealth made concerning Religion and in order to the civill praise and reward of stipends wages or benefices or to the bodily punishment inflicted by the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. So though the object be spirituall yet the judging is civill and the Magistrates power in setting up true or pulling downe false ordinances is objectively spirituall or civilly good or ill to speak so against the duty or agreeable to that which men owe as they are members of a civill incorporation a City or Common-wealth But the same power of the Magistrate is formally essentially in it selfe civill and of this world CHAP. XXVI Quest 22. Whether appeals are to be made from the Assemblies of the Church to the civill Magistrate King or Parliament and of Paul his appeal to Cesar FOr the clearer explanation of the question its possible these considerations may help to give light 1. There be these opinions touching the point Some exclude the Magistrate from all care of Church-discipline â— As Iesuits and Papists will have Princes not to examine what the Church the Pope and the cursed Clergy of Rome decrees in their Synods To these the Sorbonists of Paris oppose and the Parliament of France cause to be burnt by the hand of the hangman any writings of Iesuits that diminisheth the just right of the Magistrate 2. Those who in the Low-countries did remonstrate under the name of Arminians as they are called hold that the Magistrate ought to tollerate all Religions even Turcisme and Iudaisme not excepted because the conscience of man cannot be compelled Some of them were Socinians as Henry Slatius who saith right downe he that useth the sword or seeketh a Magistracy is not a Christian yea war is against the command of Iesus Christ or in any tearms to kill any saith Henry Welsingius Episcopius their chief man will have the Magistrate going no further then reall or bodily mulcts or fines Ioan. Geisteranus pronounceth it unlawfull to be a Magistrate to use the sword But all say the Magistrate ought not to use the sword against Hereticks Blasphemers Idolaters or against any man for his conscience or Religion 3. Those that think the Magistrate bear the sword lawfully yet do confine him to the defence of the halfe of Gods Law the duties of the second Table and not to these all but to such as border not directly on conscience for if some should sacrifice their children to Molech and Devils as some do the Magistrate were not to punish them it being a joynt of their Religion and a matter of conscience and all these will be found to give to the Magistrate as the Magistrate just as little as Iesuits do in the matters of Religion and that is right downe nothing except possibly the Magistrate be of their Religion only whom he Governs only as a Christian man the Magistrate hath more with these then with Papists 4. Erastus giveth all in Doctrine and Discipline both in power and exercise to the Magistrate even to the dispensing of Word and Sacraments 5. Others forsaking Erastus in a little But following him in the main deny power of order 2. Power of internall jurisdiction granteth to him all the externall government of the Church 6. We hold that the Magistrate keeps both Tables of the Law and that he hath an inspection in a civill coactive way in preserving both Tables of the Law but that he is not as a Magistrate a member of the Church but as a Christian only 2. The exercise of Discipline is one thing and the exercise of it as the modus the way of exercising of it either in relation to Ecclesiasticall constitutions or in relation to the politick and civill Laws of a Common-wealth is a far other thing 3. As the Church is to approve and commend the just sentence of the civill judge in punishing ill doers but only conditionally in so far as it is just so is the magistrate obliged to follow ratifie and with his civil sanction to confirme the sound constitutions of the Church But conditionally not absolutely and blindely but in so far as they agree with the Word of God 4. Hence there is a wronging of the Church as the Church and a civill wronging of the Magistrate as the Magistrate or of the members of the Church as such or of the members of the Common-wealth as such the former and the latter both cannot belong to one judicature No more then the failing of a Painter against the precepts of Art because he hath drawn the colours proportion and the countenance beside the samplar and the failing not against Art but against the Lawes of the King in that he hath lavished out too much gold in the drawing of the image doth belong to one judgement for the Painter as a Painter according to the Law of Art must judge of the former and the Magistrate as a Magistrate of the latter 5. An appellation is one thing and the complaint of an oppressed man is another thing or a provocation to a competent judge is one thing and the refugium the refuge and fleeing of an oppressed man to a higher power is another thing if the Church erre and fail against the Law of Christ in the matter and decree the man to be a heretick who is none and that to be heresie which is truth the oppressâ—d man in a constituted Church may have his refuge to the godly Magistrate and complain but he cannot appeal for an appellation is from an erring judge to an higher judge in eadem sâ—rie in the same nature and kinde of judicatures as from a civill Court to a higher civill Court and from an Ecclesiasticall Court to a higher as suppose the Church of Antioch judge that the Gentiles must be circumcised the godly there may appeal to the judgement of Apostles and Elders in a Councell conveened from Antioch and Ierusalem both and therefore because the Magistrate can no more judge what is heresie what truth as a Magistrate then he can dispense Word and Sacraments an appeal cannot be made to him who is no more a judge ex officio nor he can dispense the Sacraments ex officio but a complaint may be made to the Magistrate if the Church