by the Word of God and by the Confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches doth belong to the Christian Magistrate in matters of Religion Which I do but now touch by the way so far as is necessary to wipe off the aspersion cast upon Presbyterial Government The particulars I refer to Chapter 8. Our sixth Concession is That in extraordinary cases when Church-government doth degenerate into tyranny ambition and avarice and they who have the managing of the Ecclesiastical power make defection and fall into manifest Heresy Impiety or Injustice as under Popery and Prelacy it was for the most part then and in such cases which we pray and hope we shall never see again the Christian Magistrate may and ought to do diverse things in and for Religion and interpose his Authority diverse wayes so as doth not properly belong to his cognizance decision and administration ordinarily and in a Reformed and well constituted Church For extraordinary diseases must have extraordinary remedies More of this before A seventh Concession is this The Civil Sanction added to Church-government and Discipline is a free and voluntary Act of the Magistrate That is Church-government doth not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessitate the Magistrate to aid assist or corroborate the same by adding the strength of a Law But the Magistrate is free in this to do or not to do to do more or to do lesse as he will answer to God and his conscience it is a cumulative Act of favour done by the Magistrate My meaning is not that it is free to the Magistrate in genere moris but in genere entis The Magistrate ought to adde the Civil Sanction hic nunc or he ought not to do it It is either a duty or a sin it is not indifferent But my meaning is The Magistrate is free herein from all coaction yea from all necessity and obligation other then ariseth from the Word of God binding his conscience There is no power on Earth Civil or Spiritual to constrain him The Magistrate himself is his own Judge on Earth how far he is to do any cumulative Act of favour to the Church Which takes off that calumny that Presbyterial Government doth force or compel the conscience of the Magistrate I pray God we may never have cause to state the Question otherwise I mean concerning the Magistrate his forbidding what Christ hath commanded or commanding what Christ hath forbidden in which case we must serve Christ and our consciences rather then obey Laws contrary to the Word of God and our Covenant whereas in the other case of the Magistrate his not adding of the Civil Sanction we may both serve Christ and do it without the least appearance of disobedience to the Magistrate Eighthly We grant that Pastors and Elders whether they be considered distributively or collectively in Presbyteries and Synods being Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth ought to be subject and obedient in the Lord to the Magistrate and to the Law of the Land and as in all other duties so in Civil subjection and obedience they ought to be ensamples to the Flock and their trespasses against Law are punishable as much yea more then the trespasses of other Subjects Of this also before Ninthly If the Magistrate be offended at the sentence given or censure inflicted by a Presbytery or a Synod they ought to be ready in all humility and respect to give him an account and reason of such their proceedings and by all means to endeavour the satisfaction of the Magistrate his conscience or otherwise to be warned and rectified if themselves have erred CHAP. IV. Of the agreements and differences between the nature of the Civil and of the Ecclesiastical Powers or Governments HAving now observed what our opposites yeeld to us or we to them I shall for further unfolding of what I plead for or against adde here the chief agreements and differences between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers so far as I apprehend them They both agree in these things 1. They are both from God both the Magistrate and the Minister is authorized from God both are the Ministers of God and shall give account of their administrations to God 2. Both are tyed to observe the Law and Commandments of God and both have certain directions from the Word of God to guide them in their administration 3. Both Civil Magistrates and Church Officers are Fathers and ought to be honoured and obeyed according to the fifth Commandment Utrumque scilicet dominium saith Luther Tom. 1. fol. 139. both Governments the Civil and the Ecclesiastical do pertain to that Commandment 4 Both Magistracy and Ministery are appointed for the glory of God as Supreme and for the good of men as the subordinate end 5. They are both of them mutually aiding and auxiliary each to other Magistracy strengthens the Ministery and the Ministery strengthens Magistracy 6. They agree in their general kinde they are both Powers and Governments 7. Both of them require singular qualifications eminent gifts and endowments and of both it holds true Quis ad haec idoneus 8. Both of them have degrees of censures and correction according to the degrees of offences 9. Neither the one nor the other may give out sentence against one who is not convict or whose offence is not proved 10. Both of them have a certain kind of Jurisdiction in foro exteriori For though the Ecclesiastical power be spiritual and exercised about such things as belong to the inward man onely yet as Dr. Rivet upon the Decalogue pag. 260. 261. saith truly there is a two-fold power of external jurisdiction which is exercised in foro exteriori one by Church-Censures Excommunication lesser and greater which is not committed to the Magistrate but to Church-Officers Another which is Civil and coercive and that is the Magistrates But Mr. Coleman told us he was perswaded it will trouble the whole World to bound Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction the one from the other Maledicis pag. 7. Well I have given ten agreements I will now give ten differences The difference between them is great they differ in their causes effects objects adjuncts correlations executions and ultimate terminations 1. In the efficient cause The King of Nations hath instituted the Civil power The King of Saints hath instituted the Ecclesiastical power I mean the most high God possessor of Heaven and Earth who exerciseth Soverainty over the workmanship of his own hands and so over all mankind hath instituted Magistrates to be in his stead as gods upon Earth But Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church whom his Father hath set upon his holy Hill of Zion Psal. 2. 6. to reigne over the House of Jacob for ever Luke 1. 33. who hath the key of the House of David laid upon his shoulder Isa. 22. 22. hath instituted an Ecclesiastical power and goverment in the hands of Church-Officers whom in his name he sendeth forth 2. In the matter Magistracy or Civil
commonly say of the Magistrate that he is Custos utriusque Tabulae He is to take speciall care that all his Subjects be made to observe the Law of God and live not onely in moral honesty but in Godlinesse and that so living they may also enjoy peace and quietnesse More particularly the end of Church censures is that men may be ashamed humbled reduced to repentance that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. The end of civil punishments inflicted by the Magistrate is That justice may be done according to Law and that peace and good order may be maintained in the Common-wealth as hath been said The end of delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan was that they may learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20. Erastus yeelds to Beza pag. 239. that the Apostle doth not say Ut non possint blasphemare that henceforth they may not be able to sin as they did before which yet he acknowledgeth to be the end of civil punishments but that they may learn not to blaspheme Wherefore when he expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to no other sence but this That the Apostle had delivered those two to be killed by Satan Ut non possint that they may not be able to blaspheme so any more just as a Mastgirate delivers a theef from the gallows that he may not be able to steal any more and as he tels us some speak that he may learn to steal no more He is herein confuted not onely out of the Text but out of himself So then the end of Church-censures is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the offenders may learn or be instructed to do so no more which belongeth to the inward man or soul. The end of civil punishments is Ut non possint as Erastus tels us that the offenders may not be able or at least being alive and some way free may not dare to do the like the sword being appointed for a terrour to them who do evil to restrain them from publike and punishable offences not to work upon the spirit of their mindes nor to effect the destroying of the flesh by mortification that the spirit may be safe in the day of the Lord. The fifth difference between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers is in respect of the effects The effects of the Civil power are Civil Laws Civil punishments Civil rewards The effects of the Ecclesiastical power are Determinations of Controversies of Faith Canons concerning Order and Decency in the Church Ordination or Deposition of Church-Officers Suspension from the Sacrament and Excommunication The powers being distinct in their nature and causes the effects must needs be distinct which flow from the actuating and putting in execution of the powers I do not here speak of the effects of the Ecclesiastical power of Order the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments but of the effects of the power of Jurisdiction or Government of which onely the Controversic is Sixthly The Civil power hath for the object of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things of this life matters of Peace War Justice the Kings matters and the Countrey-matters those things that belong to the external man But the Ecclesiastical power hath for the object of it things pertaining to God the Lords matters as they are distinct from Civil matters and things belonging to the inward man distinct from the things belonging to the outward man This difference Protestant Writers do put between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers Fr. Junius Ecclesiast lib. 3. cap. 4. saith thus We have put into our definition humane things to be the subject of Civil administration but the subject of Ecclesiastical administration we have taught to be things Divine and Sacred Things Divine and Sacred we call both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our minde and conscience as things necessary and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary For example Prayers the administration of the Word and Sacraments Ecclsiastical censure are things necessary and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saints but set dayes set hours set places fasts and the like belong to the decency and order of the Church c. But humane things we call such as touch the life the body goods and good name as they are expounded in the second Table of the Decalogue for these are the things in which the whole Civil administration standeth Tilen Synt. part 2. disp 32. tels us to the same purpose That Civil Government or Magistracy versatur circa res terrenas hominem externum Magistratus saith Danaui Pol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 1. instituti sunt à Deo rerum humanarum quae hominum societati necessariae sunt respectu ad earum curam If it be objected How can these things agree with that which hath been before by us acknowledged that the Civil Magistrate ought to take special care of Religion of the conservation and purgation thereof of the abolishing idolatry and superstition and ought to be Custos utriusque Tabulae of the first as well as second Table I answer That Magistrates are appointed not onely for Civil Policy but for the conservation and purgation of Religion as is expressed in the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland before cited we firmly beleeve as a most undoubted truth But when Divines make the object of Magistracy to be onely such things as belong to this life and to humane society they do not mean the object of the Magistrates Care as if he were not to take care of Religion but the object of his Operation The Magistrate himself may not assume the administration of the keys nor the dispensing of Church-censures he can but punish the external man with external punishments Of which more afterwards The seventh difference stands in the Adjuncts For 1. the Ecclesiastical power in Presbyterial or Synodical Assemblies ought not to be exercised without prayer and calling upon the Name of the Lord Matth. 18. 19. There is no such obligation upon the Civil power as that there may be no Civil Court of Justice without prayer 2. In divers cases Civil Jurisdiction hath been and is in the person of one man But no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is committed to one man but to an Assembly in which two at least must agree in the thing as is gathered from the Text last cited 3. No private or secret offence ought to be brought before an Ecclesiastical Court except in the case of contumacy and impenitency after previous admonitions This is the ordinary rule not to dispute now extraordinary exceptions from that rule But the Civil power is not bound up by any such ordinary rule For I suppose our opposites will hardly say at least hardly make it good that no Civil injury or breach of Law and Justice being privately committed may be brought before a Civil Court except first there
delegare plus juris quam ipse habet No man can give from him by delegation or deputation to another that right or power which he himself hath not 3. If the power of excommunication come by delegation from the Magistrate either the Magistrate must in conscience give this power to Church-officers onely or he is free and may without sin give this power to others If the former what can bind up the Magistrates conscience or astrict the thing to Church-Officers except it be Gods ordinance that they only do it If the latter then though this Parliament hath hath taken away the old High Commission Court which had Potestatem utriusque gladii yet they may lawfully and without sin erect a new High Commission Court made up of those who shall be no Church-officers yea having none of the Clergy in it as the other had with commission and power granted to them to execute spiritual Jurisdiction and Excommunication and that not onely in this or that Church yea or Province but in any part of the whole Kingdom So much of the first point Now to the second concerning appeals to the Magistrate as to the head of the Church It is asked what remedy shall there be against the abuse of Church-discipline by Church-officers except there be appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the civil Magistrate which if it be Church-officers will be the more wary and cautious to do no man wrong knowing that they may be made to answer for it And if it be not there is a wide dore opened that ministers may do as they please Answ. 1 Look what remedy thene is for abuses in the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments the like remedy there is for abuses in Church-discipline Mal-administration of the Word and Sacraments is no lesse sinfull to the ministers and hurtful to others then mal-administration of discipline and in some respects the former is more to the dishonour of God and destruction of men than the latter Ministers have not an arbitrary power to preach what they will Now when the word is not truly preached nor the Sacraments duely administred by any minister or ministers the Magistrate seeketh the redresse of these things in a constituted Church by the convocating of Synods for examining discovering and judging of such errors and abuses as are found in particular Churches But if the Synod should connive at or comply with that same error yet the Magistrate taketh not upon him the supreme and authoritative decision of a controversie of faith but still endeavoureth to help all this by other Ecclesiastical remedies as another Synod and yet another till the evil be removed The like we say concerning abuses in Church-discipline The Magistrate may command a resuming and re-examination of the case in another Synod but still the Synod ratisieth or reverseth the censure In which case it is betwixt the Magistrate and the Synod as betwixt the will and understanding for Voluntas imperat Intellectui quo ad exercitium yet notwithstanding determinatur per intectellum quoad specificationem actus Take for instance this also If it be a case deserving deposition or degradation In such a case saith learned Salmasius appar ad lib. de primatu pag. 298. the Prince or Magistrate cannot take from a minister that power which was given him in ordination with imposition of hands for he cannot take away that which he cannot give But if a Prince would have a minister for his offenceâ— to be deprived of his ministeriall power he must take care that it be done by the ministers themselves qui Judices veri ipsius sunt auferre soli possunt quod per ordinationem dederunt Who are his true Judges and they onely can take away what by ordination they have given Thus Salmasius 2. And further if Presbyteries or Synods exceed the bounds of Ecclesiasticall power and go without the Sphaere of their own activity interposing and judging in a civil cause which concerneth any mans life or estate The Magistrate may reverse and make null whatsoever they do in that kind and punish themselves for such abuse of their power As Solomon punished Abiathar and banished him to Anathoth he being guilty of high treason 1 Kings 2. 26. It was not a case of scandall onely or of Delinquency or mal-administration in his Sacerdotall office otherwise it had fallen within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin 3. Though the case be meerly spirituall and ecclesiastical the Christian Magistrate by himself and immediatly may not onely examine by the judgement of discretion the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court but also when he seeth cause either upon the complaint of the party or scandall given to himself interpose by letters messages exhortations and sharp admonitions to the Presbyterie or Synod who in that case are bound in conscience with all respect and honour to the Magistrate to give him a reason of what they have done and to declare the grounds of their proceedings till by the blessing of God upon this free and fair dealing they either give a rationall and satisfactory accompt to the Magistrate or be themselves convinced of their mal-administration of Discipline 4 And in extraordinary cases when the Clergy hath made defection and all Church discipline is degenerated into Tyrannie as under Popery and Prelacy it was it belongeth to the Magistrate to take the protection of those who are cast out or censured unjustly for extraordinary evils must have extraordinary helps And in this sence we are to understand divers of our Reformers and others groaning under the pressures of the Roman Clergy and calling in the help of the civil Magistrate for their relief But we deny that in a well constituted Church it is agreeable to the will of Christ for the Magistrate either to receive appeals properly so called from the sentence of an Ecclesiastical Court or to receive complaints exhibited against that sentence by the party censured so as by his authority upon such complaint to nullifiâ— or make void the Ecclesiastical censure The latter of these two Vâ—…delius pleadeth for not the former But Apollonius oppugneth the latter as being upon the matter all one with the former Now to ascribe such power to the Magistrate is 1. To change the Pope but not the Poâ—…edome the Head but not the Headship for is not this the Popes chief supremacy to judge all men and to be judged of no man to ratifie or rescind at his pleasure the decâ—ees of the Church Councels â—nd all and shall this power now be transferred upon the Magistrate Good Lord where are we if this shall be the up-shot of our Reformation Oâ— for it Shall we condemn the Papists and Anabaptists who give too little to the Magistrate and then joyn hands with the Arminians who give as much to the Magistrate as the Pope hath formerly usurpâ—d 2. Appeals lie in the same line of subordination and do not go de gâ—…nere
not so hatefull to God as legall uncleannesse The Law of confessing sin Levit. 5. Num. 5. is meant of every known sin which was to be expiated by Sacrifice especially the more notorious and scandalous sins CHAP. XIII M. Prynnes argument from 1 Cor. 10. which he takes to be unanswerable discussed and confuted Mr Prynne in expounding that Text of the Passeover differeth both from the Apostles and from Erastus himselfe His argument if good wil necessarily conclude against his owne Concessions If scandalous sinners had been suspended from the Manna and Water of the Rocke they had been suspended from their ordinary orporal meat and drinke That the scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle were committed not before but after their eating of that Spirituall meate and drinking of that Spirituall drinke The Argument strongly retorted The scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle were Nationall sins and so come not home to the present Question which is of persons not of Nations An Appendix to the first Booke THe Erastians misrepresent the Jewish Government Their complyance with the Anabaptists in this particular Their confounding of that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Church with that which was the ordinary rule Fourteen Objections answered M. Prynne his great mistakes of Deut. 17. and 2 Chron. 19. The power and practice of the godly Kings of Iudah in the reformation of Religion cleared The Argument from Solomon his deposing of Abiathar and putting Zadock in his place answered foure waies The Priests were appointed to be as Judges in other cases beside those of leprosie and jealousie 2 Chro. 23. 19. further scanned A scandalous person was an unclean person both in the Scripture phrase and in the Jewish language The sequestration of the uncleane from the Sanctuary no civill punishment Of Lawes and causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall among the Jewes Of their Scribes and Lawyers Some other observable passages of Maimonides concerning Excommunication What meant by not entring into the Congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 1 2 3. and by separating the mixed multitude Nehem. 13. 3. Five reasons to prove that the meaning of these places is not in reference to civil dignities and places of government nor yet in reference to unlawful mariages onely but in reference to Church-membership and communion Two Objections to the contrary answered One from Exod. 12. 48. Another from the example of Ruth An useful observation out of Onkelos Exod. 12. The second Booke Of the Christian Church Government CHAP. I. Of the rise growth decay and reviving of Erastianisme THe Erastian error not honest is parentibus natus Erastus the Mid-wife how engaged in the busines The breasts that gave it sucke prophannesse and self-interest It s strong food arbitrary Government It s Tutor Arminianisme It s deadly decay and consumption whence it was How ill it hath been harboured in all the reformed Churches How stiffled by Erastus himselfe Erastianisme confuted out of Erastus The Divines who have appeared against this error How the Controversie was lately revived CHAP. II. Some Postulata or common principles to be presupposed THat there ought to be an exclusion of vile and prophane persons knowne to be such from the holy things is a principle received among the Heathens themselves That the dishonour of God by scandalous sinnes ought to be punished as well yea much rather than private injuries That publique sinnes ought to be publiquely confessed and the offenders put to publique shame That there ought to be an avoyding of and withdrawing from scandalous persons in the Church and that by a publique order rather then at every mans discretion That there is a distinction of the Office and power of Magistracy aâ—d Ministery That the directive judgement in any businesse doth chiefly belong to those who by their prosession and vocation are set apart to the attendance and oversight of such a thing CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto us and what we yeeld unto them THey yeeld that the Magistrate his power in Ecclesiasticis is not arbitrary but tied to the word That there may be a distinct Church government under Heathen Magistrates That the abuse takes not away the just power They allow of Presbyteries and that they have some jurisdiction That the Ministery is Iure divino and Magistracy distinct from it We yeeld unto them That none ought to be Rulers in the Church but such against whom there is no just exception That Presbyteriall government is not a Dominion but a Service That it hath for its object onely the inward man That Presbyteriall government is not an Arbitrary government cleared by sive considerations That it is the most limited and least Arbitrary government of any other cleared by comparing it with Popery Prelacy Independency and with lawfull Magistracy That the civil Magistrate may and ought to doe much in and for Religion ordinarily and yet more in extraordinary cases That the civil Sanction is a free and voluntary act of the Magistrates favour That Ministers owe as much subjection and honour to the Magistrate as other Subjects CHAP. IV. Of the agreement and the differences between the nature of the Civill and of the Ecclesiasticall powers or Governments TEn agreements between the Civil power and the Ecclesiasticall power The differences between them opened in their causes efficient matter where a fourfold power of the keys is touched for me and ends both supreme and subordinate where it is opened how and in what respect the Christian Magistrate intendeth the glory of Jesus Christ and the purging of his Church Also effects objects adjuncts correlations ultimate terminations and divided executions CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdome of Iesus Christ a generall Kingdome as he is the eternall Sonne of God the Head of all Principalities and Powers raigning over all creatures and a particular Kingdome as he is Mediator raigning over the Church onely HOw this controversie fals in and how deepe it drawes That our Opposites herein joyne issue with the Socinians Nine Arguments to prove this distinction of a twofold Kingdom of Christ. In which of the eternity universality donation and subordination of the Kingdome of Christ. The Arguments brought to prove that Christ as Mediator raigneth over all things and hath all government even civil put in his hands examined and confuted In what sence Christ is said to be over all the heire of all things to have all things put under his feet to be the head of every man A distinction between Christs Kingdome Power and Glory cleared CHAP. VI. Whether Iesus Christ as Mediator and Head of the Church hath placed the Christian Magistrate to hold and execute his office under and for him as his Vicegerent The Arguments for the affirmative discussed THe decision of this Question will doe much yet not all in the decision of the Erastian controversie The question rightly stated Ten Arguments for the affirmative discussed and answered Where divers Scriptures are debated and cleared How we are to understand that Christ is King
of Kings and Lord of Lords How all power in Heaven and in Earth is said to be given to him That the Governments set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not civill Magistrates fully proved Ephes. 1. 21 22 23. and Colos. 2. 10. vindicated CHAP. VII Arguments for the negative of that Question formerly propounded THe lawfull authority of the Heathen Magistrates vindicated It can not be shewed from Scripture that Christ as Mediator hath given any Commission of Vice-gerentship to the Christian Magistrate That the worke of the Ministery is done in the name and authority of Jesus Christ the worke of Magistracy not so The power of Magistracy or civill Government was not given to Christ as Mediator shewed from Luke 12. 14. Iohn â—8 36. Luke 17. 20 21. Magistracy founded in the Law of nature and Nations The Scripture holds forth the same origination of Heathen Magistracy and of Christian Magistracy CHAP. VIII Of the power and priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not and what it is THat no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall and namely the dispencing of Church censures doth belong unto the Magistrate nor may according to the Word of God be assumed and exercised by him proved by six Arguments That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church to receive appeales from all Ecclesiasticall Assembles There are other sufficient remedies against abuses or Mal-administration in Church-Government Reasons against such appeales to the Magistrate The Arguments to the contrary from the Examples of Ierenâ—…y and of Paul discussed Of the collaterality and coordination of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers What is the power and right of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall cleared first generally next more particularly by five distinctions 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong to the civill power but non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Magistrate may imperare that which he may not elicere 3. Distinguish the directive power from the coercive power 4. The Magistrates power is cumulative not privative 5. He may doe in extraordinary cases that which he ought not to doe ordinarily A caution concerning the Arbitrary power of Magistrates in things Ecclesiasticall CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government besides Magistracy or civill Government namely an Ecclesiasticall Government properly so called in the hands of Church-officers THe Question stated and the Affirmative proved by one and twenty Scripturall Arguments Who meant by the Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 names of government The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 13. 7 17. examined Of receiving an accusation against an Elder Of rejecting an Hereticke Of the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian and the sence of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the subjection of the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets The Angels of the Churches why reproved for having false Teachers in the Church Note that man 2 Thess. 3. 14. proved to be Church-censure Of the Ruler Rom. 12. 8. and Governments 1 Cor. 12. 28. A patterne in the Jewish Church for a distinct Ecclesiasticall government What meant by cutting off Gal. 5. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly what Of the Ministeriall power to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 8. what Of the visible administration of the Kingdome of Christ by his Laws Courts Censures The Arguments for Excommunication from Matth. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. briefly vindicated That Elders are rulers of the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of Government Ministers why called Sâ—…ewards of the Mysteries of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of government Church-Government exercised by the Synod of the Apostles and Elders Acts 15. CHAP. X. Some objections made against Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline answered Mr Husseys objection doth stricke as much against Paul as against us The fallacy of comparing Government with the word preached in point of efficacy Foure ends or uses of Church-government That two coordinate Governments are not inconsistent The objection that Ministers have other worke to doe answered The feare of an ambitious ensnarement in the Ministery so much objected is no good Argument against Church-government M. Husseys motion concerning Schooles of Divinity examined Church Government is no immunity to Church-officers from Censure Though the Erastian principles are sufficiently overthrown by asserting from Scripture the may be of Church-government yet our Arguments prove a must be or an Institution Six Arguments added which conclude this point CHAP. XI The necessity of a distinct Church-government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates THis acknowledged by Christian Emperours of old Grotius for us in this particular Christian Magistracy hath never yet punished all such offences as are Ecclesiastically censurable Presbyteries in the primitive times did not exercise any power which did belong of right to the Magistrate No warrant from the word that the Ordinance of a distinct Church government was onely for Churches under persecution but contrariwise the Churches are charged to keep till the comming of Christ the commandement then delivered No just ground for the feare of the interfeering of the civill and of the Ecclesiasticall power The Churches liberties enlarged not diminished under Christian Magistrats The Covenant against this exception of the Erastians The Christian Magistrate if he should take upon him the whole burthen of the corrective part of Church-government could not give an account to God of it The Erastian principles doe involve the Magistrate into the Prelaticall guiltinesse The reasons and grounds mentioned in Scripture upon which Church-censures were dispenced in the Primiâ—ive Churches are no other then concerne the Churches under Christian Magistrâ—tes The end of Church-censures neither intended nor attained by the administration of Christian Magistracy The power of binding and loosing not temporary They who restrict a distinct Church-government to Churches under Heathen or persecuting Magistrats give a mighty advantage to Socinians and Anabaptists Gualther and Master Prynne for us in this Question APPENDIX A Collection of some testimonies out of a Declaration of King Iames the Helvetian Bohemian Augustane French and Dutch confessions the Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches in France Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum the Irish Articles a Book of Melanchton and another of L. Humfredus The third Booke Of Excommunication from the Church AND Of Suspension from the Lords Table CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles A Transition from Church-government in generall to Excommunication and Suspension in particular The present controversie ten waies mis-stated by M. Prynne That which was publiquely depending between the Parliament and Assembly did rather concerne the practicall conclusion it selfe then the Mediums to prove it The strength of the Assemblies proofes
Law but Gods owne Law which the Priests and Levites were to expound So that it was proper for that time and there is not the like reason that the Ministers of Jesus Christ in the New Testament should judge or rule in civill affairs nay it were contrary to the rule of Christ and his Apostles for us to do so yet the Levites their judging and governing in all the bufines of the Lord is a patterne left for the entrusting of Church officers in the New Testament with a power of Church government there being no such reason for it as to make it peculiar to the old Testament and not common to the New The fourth Scripture which proves an Ecclesiasticall government and Sanhedrin is 2 Chro. 19. 8 10 11. where Iehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government which was first instituted by the hand of Moses and afterward ordered and setled by David Moreover saith the Text in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies c. It is not controverted whether there was a civill Sanhedrin at Ierusalem but that which is to be proved from the place is an Ecclesiasticall Court which I prove thus Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiasticall members judging Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end moderated by an Ecclesiasticall president having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and controversies brought before them by appeale or reference from inferiour Courts and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiasticall officers There it must needs be granted that there was a supream Ecclesiasticall court with power of Government But such a Court we finde at Ierusalem in Iehoshaphats time Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man wil deny For a Court so constituted so qualified and so authorised is the very thing now in debate And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption shall have leave to call it by another name if he please The assumption I prove by the parts 1. Here are Levites and Priests in this Court as members thereof with power of decisive suffrage and with them such of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel as were joyned in the government of that Church Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Divines and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders And this is one of the Scriptures alledged by our Divines against Bellarmin to prove that others beside those who are commonly but corruptly called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voyce in Synods 2. Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes were here judged which are called by the name of the judgement of the Lord V. 8. and the matters of the Lord distinguished from the Kings matters V. 11. so V. 10. beside controversies between blood and blood that is concerning consanguinity and the interpreting of the Laws concerning forbidden degrees in marriage it being observed by interpreters that all the lawfull or unlawfull degrees are not particularly expressed but some onely and the rest were to be judged of by parity of reason and so it might fall within the cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin Though it may be also expounded otherwise between blood and blood that is Whether the murther was wilfull or casuall which was matter of fact the cognisance whereof belonged to the civill Judge It is further added between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements noting seeming contradictions between one Law and another such as Manasseb Ben Israel hath spoken of in his Conciliator or when the sence and meaning of the Law is controverted which is not matter of fact but of right wherein speciall use was of the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge and the Law was to be sought at his mouth Aâ—…al 2. 7. and that not onely ministerially and doctrinally but judicially and in the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem such controversies concerning the Law of God were brought before them as in 2 Chro. 19. the place now in hand Yea shall even warn them c. Which being spoken to the Court must be meant of a synedricall Decree determining those questions and controversies concerning the Law which should come before them As for that distinction in the Text of the Lords matters and the Kings matters Erastus page 274. saith that by the Lords matters is meant any cause expressed in the Law which was to be judged Whereby he takes away the distinction which the Text makes for in his sence the Kings matters were the Lords matters Which himselfe it seems perceiving he immediately yeeldeth our interpretation that by the Lords matters are meant things pertaining to the worship of God and by the Kings matters civill things Si per illas libet res ad cultum Dei spectantes per haec res civiles accipere non pugnabo If you please saith he by those to understand things pertaining to the worship of God by these civill things I will not be against it 3. It was for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord. It s not said against one another but against the Lord for two reasons 1. Because mention had been made of the Commandements Statutes and Iudgements after the generall word Law V. 10. by which names Interpreters use to understand both in this and many other places of Scripture the Lawes morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall Now the case to be judged might be part of the Ceremoniall Law having reference to God and his Ordinances and not part of the Judiciall law or any injury done by a man to his neighbour And in referâ—nce to the morall Law it might â—e a trespasse against the first Table not against the second 2. Even in the case of a personall or civill injury or whatsoâ—ver the controversie was that was brought before them they were to warn the Judges in the Cities not to trespasse against the Lord by mistaking or mis-understanding the Law or by righting mens wrongs so as to wrong Divine right And for that end they were to determine the Ius and the intendment of the law when it was controverted 4. Whatsoever cause of their brethren that dwelt in the Cities should come unto them V. 10. whether it should come by appeale or by reference and arbitration this Court at Ierusalem was to give out an ultimate and authoritative determination of it So that what was brought from inferiour courts to them is brought no higher to any other Court 5. This Court had an Ecclesiasticall Prolocutor or moderator V. 11. Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord Whereas Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah was Speaker in the civill Sanhedrin for all the Kings matters Amariah and Zebadiah were not onely with the Sanhedrin as members or as Councellors but over them as Presidents Eis summos Magistratus
shall not finde councell nor the understanding of the law saith Sanctius Polanus upon the place draweth an Argument against the infallibility of counsels because the law and counsell did perish not onely saith he from the Priests here and there in the Cities but also from the high Priest and the other Priests and Elders who were together at Ierusalem If this Text be rightly applied by him and so it is by other Protestant Writers to prove against Papists that Councels may erre then here was an Ecclesiasticall councell Eightly even without Ierusalem and Iâ—…da there was a Senate or assembly of Elders which did assist the Prophets in overseeing the manners of the people censuring sin and deliberating of the common affairs of the Church This C. Bertramus de polit Jud. c. 16. collecteth from 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house and the Elders sate with him I know some think that those Elders were the Magistrates of Samaria but this I cannot admit for two reasons 1. Because Iosephus Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 2. cals them Elishaes disciples and from him Hugo Cardinalis Carthusianus and others doe so expound the Text. They are called Elishas Disciples as the Apostles were Christs Disciples by way of Excellency and eminency all the disciples or sonnes of the Prophets were not properly Elders but those onely who were assumed into the Assembly of Elders or called to have a share in the mannaging of the common affaires of the Church 2. Cajetan upon the place gives this reason from the Text it selfe to prove that these Elders were spirituall men as he speaketh because Elisha asketh them See ye how this sonne of a murderer hath sent to take away my head What expectation could there be that they did see a thing then secret and unheard of unlesse they had been men familiar with God Now these Elders were sitting close with Elisha in his house It was not a publike or Church assembly for worship but for counsell deliberation and resolution in some case of difficulty and publike concernment So Tostatus and Sanctius on the place A paralell place there is Ezech. 8. 1. I sate in mine house and the Elders of Iudah sate before me Whether those Elders came to know what God had revealed to the Prophet concerning the state of Iudah and Ierusalem as Lavater upon the place supposeth or for deliberation about some other thing it is nothing like a civill Court but very like an Ecclesiasticall senate Now if such there was out of Ierusalem how much more in Ierusalem where as there came greater store of Ecclesiasticall causes and controversies concerning the sence of the Law to be judged so there was greater store of Ecclesiastical persons â—it for government whatsoever of this kind we finde elsewhere was but a Transsumpt the Archetype was in Ierusalem Ninthly that place Zeâ—…h 7. 1 2 3. helpeth me much The Jews sent Commissioners unto the Temple there to speake unto the Priests which were in the house of the Lord of Hosts and to the Prophets the Chaldee hath and to the Scribes saying Should I weepe in the first moneth c. Here is an Ecclesiasticall assembly which had authority to determine controversies concerning the worship of God Grotius upon the place distinguisheth these Priests and Prophets from the civill Sanhedrin yet he saith they were to be consulted with in controverted cases according to the Law Deut. 17. 9. If so then their sentence was authoritative and binding so far that the man who did presumptuously disobey them was to die the death Deut. 17. 12. Tenthly let it be considered what is that Moshav Zekenim consessus or Cathedra seniorum Psal. 107. 32. for though every argument be not an infâ—llible demonstration yet cuncta juvant let them exalt him also in the Congregation or Church of the people and praise him in the Assembly of the Elders Compare this Text with Psalm 115. 9 10 11. as likewise with Psalm 118. 2 3 4. In all the three Texts there are three sorts of persons distinguished and more especially called upon to glorifie God Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodnesse saith the Text in hand Psalm 107. 31. for that you have in the other two places Ye that feare the Lord c. for the congregation of the peple you have in the other two places Israel and the house of Israel For the Assembly of the Elders you have in the other Texts the house of Aaron I will not here build any thing upon the observation of Hugo Cardinalis on Psalm 107. 32. that the congregation of the Princes is not mentioned in this businesse because not many mighty not many noble c. One thing I am sure of there were Elders in Israel clearly distinct both from the Princes Judges and civill Magistrates Ios. 23. 2. 2 Kings 10. 1. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. and elsewhere And the parallel Texts afore cited doe couple together these Elders and the house of Aaron as Pastors and ruling Elders now are and as the Priests and Elders are found conjoyned elsewhere in the old Testament Exod. 24. 1. Deut. 27. 1. with vers 9. Ezech. 7. 26. Ier. 19. 1. So Matth. 26. 59. The work also of giving thanks for mercies and deliverances obtained by the afflicted and such as have been in distresse the purpose which the Psalmist hath in hand extended also to the deliverances of particular persons is more especially commended to those who are assembled in an Ecclesiasticall capacity Even as now among our selves the civill Courts of Justice or Magistrates and Rulers or Judges assembled by themselves in a politick capacity use not to be desired to give thanks for the delivery of certain persons from a danger at Sea or the like But it were very proper and fit to desire thanks to be returned 1. by those that feare God for as we should desire the prayers so likewise the praises of the Saints 2. By the Church or Congregation of which they that have received the mercy are members 3. By the Eldership yea if therebe occasion by a Synod of Elders who as they ought to watch over the City of God and to stand upon their watch-tower for observing approaching dangers so they ought to take speciall notice of exemplary mercies bestowed upon the afflicted members of the Church and be an ensample to the flocke in giving thanks as well as in other holy duties The eleventh place which seemeth to hold forth unto us an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin is Ezech. 13. 9. where its said of the Prophets that did see vanity and Divine lies they shall not be in the assembly of my people neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel neither shall they inter into the Land of Israel Where as Diodati and Grotius observe the speech riseth by degrees 1. they shall not any more be admitted into the assembly or councell to have any voice there as Prophets in those daies had saith
punishment except what was civill He granteth also that Niddui was included in the other two so that in all three there was a shutting out from the holy things I must not forget the Testimony of my Countreyman Master Weemse in his Christian Synagogue lib. 1. cap. 6. sect 3. paragr 7. They had three sorts of Excommunication first the lesser then the middle sort then the greatest The lesser was called Niddui and in the New Testament they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put out of the Synagogue and they hold that Cain was excommunicated this way The second was called Cherem or Anathema with this sort of Excommunication was the Incestuous person censured 2 Cor. 2. The third Shammatha they hold that Enoch instituted it Jude v. 14. And after these who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put out of the Synagogue were not simply secluded from the Temple but suffered to stand in the Gate c. These who were Excommunicated by the second sort of Excommunication were not permitted to come neer the Temple These who were Excommunicated after the third sort were secluded out of the society of the people of God altogether And thus I have produced fifteen witnesses for the Ecclesiasticall Excommunication of the Jewes I might produce many more but I have made choice of these because all of them have taken more than ordinary paines in searching the Jewish antiquities and divers of them are of greatest note for their skill therein In the next place let us observe the causes degrees manner and rites how the authority by which the ends and effects of excommunication among the Jewes and see whether all these doe not helpe to make their Excommunication a patterne for ours For the causes there were 24 causes for which a man was Excommunicated among the Jewes You may read them in Buxtorfs Lexicon Chald Talmud Rabbin p. 1304 1305. M. Selden de jure nat Gentium lib. 4. cap. 8. Jo. Coch Annot. in Excerp Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 2. pag. 147. divers of these causes did not at all concerne personall or civill injuries for such injuries were not accounted causes of Excommunication but were to be punished otherwise as shall be proved afterward but matters of scandall by which God was dishonoured and the stumbling-blocke of an evill example laid before others One cause was the despising of any of the preceps of the Law of Moses or Statutes of the Scribes Another was the selling of Land to a Gentile Another was a Priest not separating the gifts of the oblation Another he that in captivity doth not iterate or observe the second time a holy day Another he that doth any servile worke upon Easter eve Another he that mentioneth the name of God rashly or by a vaine oath Another he that enduceth or giveth occasion to others to prophane the name of God Another he that makes others to â—ate holy things without the holy Temple Another he that maketh computation of yeeres and moneths without the Land of Israel that is as D r Buxtorf writeth Calendars or as M. Selden computeth yeeres and moneths otherwise than their fathers had done Another he that retardeth or hindreth others from doing the Law and Commandement Another he that maketh the offering prophane as D r Buxtorf or offereth a sickly beast as I. Coch. Another a Sacrificer that doth not shew his Sacrificing Knife before a Wise man or a Rabbi that it may be knowne to be a lawfull Knife and not faulty Another he that cannot be made to know or to learne Another he that having put away his wife doth thereafter converse familiarly with her Another a Wise man that is a Rabbi or Doctor infamous for an evill life The other causes had also matter of scandall in them namely the despising of a Wise man or Rabbi though it were after his death The despising of an Officer or messenger of the house of judgement He that casteth up to his neighbour a servile condition or cals his neighbour servant He that contumaciously refuseth to appeare at the day appointed by the Judge He that doth not submit himselfe to the Judiciall sentence He that hath in his house any hurtfull thing as a mad dogge or a weake leather He that before Heathen Judges beareth witnesse against an Israelite He that maketh the blind to fall He that hath Excommunicate another without cause when he ought not to have been Excommunicate Thus you have the 24 causes of the Jewish Excommunication of which some were meere scandals others of a mixed nature that is partly injuries partly scandals but they were reckoned among the causes of Excommunication qua scandals not qua 〈◊〉 Io. Coch. Annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin pag. 146 explaining how the wronging of a Doctor of the Law by contumelies was a cause of Excommunication sheweth that the Excommunication was because of the scandall Licet tamen condonare nisi res in praputulo gesta sit Publicum Doctoris ludibrium in legis contemptum redundat 〈◊〉 ob causam Doctor legis honorem 〈◊〉 remittere non potest Ubi res clam sine scandalo gesta est magni animi sapientis est injuriam contemptu vindicare If there was no scandall the injury might be remitted by the party injured so as the offendor was not to be Excommunicate But if the contumely was known abrond and was scandalous though the party wronged were willing and desirous to bury it yet because of the scandall the Law provided that the offender should be excommunicate For they taught the people that he who did contend against a Rabbi did contend against the holy Ghost for which see Gul. Vorstius annot in Maimon de fundam legis pag. 77 78. and hence did they aggravate an Ecclesiasticall or Divine not a Civill injury Whence it appeareth that the causes of Excommunication were formally lookt upon as scandals Adde that if qua injuries then a quatenus ad omne all personall or civill injuries had been causes of Excommunication But all civill injuries doe not fall within these 24. causes If it be objected that neither doe all scandalls fall within these 24. causes I answer they doe for some of the causes are generall and comprehensive namely these two the 5 th He that despiseth the Statutes of the Law of Moses or of the Scribes and the 18 th He that retardeth or hindereth others from doing the Law When I make mention of any particular heads either of the Jewish Discipline or of the ancient Christian discipline let no man understand me as if I intended the like Strictnesse of Discipline in these dayes My meaning is onely to prove Ecclesiasticall censures and an Ecclesiasticall Government And let this be remembred upon all like occasions though it be not everywhere expressed And so much for the causes The degrees of the Jewish excommunication were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niddui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cherem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schammata Elias in Tisbite saith plainly
excommunication and sub formalitate criminis with capitall punishment And who knoweth not that a capitall crime is a cause of excommunication which is also sometimes the sole punishment the Magistrate neglecting his duty If a known blasphemer or incestuous person be not cut off by the Magistrate as he ought by the Law of God shall he therefore not be cut off by excommunication If he had proved that all the causes of cutting off in the Law were capitall crimes he had said much but that will never be proved CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue WE read of a casting out of the Church which was pretended to be a matter of conscience and religion and such as did more especially concerne the glory of God Isa. 66. 5. Your brethren that hated you that cast you out for my names sake said let the Lord be glorified Such was the casting out of the Synagogue mentioned in the Gospell Ioh. 9. 22. 12. 42. 16. 2. Arias Montanus de arcano Sermone cap. 47. expounds it of excommunication from Church Assemblies So the Magdeburgians cent 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. and Corn. Bertramus de repub Ebraeor cap. 7. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 3. cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 2. Wherein the interpreters also upon the places cited doe generally agree Erasmus Brentius Tossanus Diodati Cartwright in his harmony Gerhard c. So likewise M. Leigh out of Paulus Tarnovius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur ejectus e 〈◊〉 sacro Ecclesiae excommunicatus See Critica Sacra of the new Test. pag. 391. So doth Aretius Theol. Probel loc 133. though cited by our Opposites againstus he saith though it was abused by the Pharisees yet it sheweth the Antient use of the the thing it self that there was such a discipline in the Jewish Church It is not much materiall to dispute which of the degrees of the Jewish Excommunication or whether all the three were meant by that casting out of the Synagogue Drusius and Grotius expound Io. 9. 22. of Niddui Gerhard expounds Io. 16. 2. of all the three Niddui Cherem and Shammata It is enough for this present argument if it was a spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censure not a civill punishment Master Prynne Vindic. pag. 48 49. tels us First this casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods Word but was onely a humane invention Secondly as it was practiced by the Jewes it was a diabolicall institution Thirdly that it was meerly a civill Excommunication like to an Outlary whereby the party cast out was separate from civill conversation onely or from all company with any man but was not suspended from any Divine Ordinance Fourthly that it was inflicted by the Temporall Magistrate Fifthly that in the Jewish Synagogues at that time there was neither Sacrament nor Sacrifice but onely Reading Expounding Preaching Disputing and Prayer so that it cannot prove suspension from the Sacrament To the first I answer it was not onely warranted by the cutting off mentioned in the Law but Erastus himselfe gives a warrant for it from Gods word He saith pag. 315. the casting out of the Synagogue was vel idem vel simile quidpiam with that separating from the congregation Ezâ—…a 10. 8. To the second Aretius hath answered The best things in the world may be abused To the third I offer these eight considerations to prove that it was an Ecclesiasticall not a civill Censure First the causes for which men were put out of the Synagogues were matters of scandall offences in point of Religion and we read of none cast out of the Synagogue for a civill injury or crime It was for confessing Christ Io. 9. 22. 12. 42. then counted heresie and for Preaching of the Gospell Io. 16. 2. Secondly The Synagogicall Assembly or Court was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall as Ludoviens de Dieu noteth upon Matth 10. 17. we read of the Rulers of the Synagogue Act. 13. 15. among whom he that did preâ—de and moderate was called the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue Act. 18. 8. 17. names never given to civill Magistates or Judges Therefore Brughton makes this of the Rulers of the Synagogue to be one of the paralells betweene the Jewish and the Christian Church Seâ— his exposition of the Lords Prayer pag. 14. 16. As for that Assembly of the Pharisees which did cast out or excommunicate the blind man Io. 9. Tossanus upon the place calls it Senatus Ecclesiasticus and Brentius argueth from this example against the infallibility of Councells because this Councell of the Pharisees call'd Christ himselfe a finner 3 The Court of civill Judgement was in the Gates of the City not in the Synagogue 4 Such as the Communion and fellowship was in the Synagogue such was the casting out of the Synagogue But the Communion or fellowship which one enjoyed in the Synagogue was a Church-Communion and Sacred fellowship in acts of Divine worship Therefore the casting out of the Synagogue was also Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall not civill or temporall 4 The end was Sacred and Spirituall to glorifie God Is. 66. 5. to doe God good service Io. 16. 2. in that which did more immediately and neerly touch his name and his glory Though the Pharisees did falsely pretend that end their error was not in mistaking the nature of the Censure but in misapplying it where they had no just cause 5 Master Prynne himself tells us pag. 49. That this excommunication from the Synagogue was of force forty dayes though I beleeve he hath added ten more then enough and if he look over his Bookes better he will find he should have said thirty yet so as that it might be shortned upon repentance But I pray are civill punishments shortned or lengthened according to the parties repentance I know Church Censures are so But I had thought the end of civill punishments is not to reclaime a mans soule by repentance and then to be taken off but to guard the Lawes of the Land to preserve Justice Peace and good order to make others feare to doe evill to uphold the publike good The Magistrate must both punish and continue punishments as long as is necessary for those ends whether the party be penitent or not 6 How is it credible that the holy Ghost meaning to expresse a casting out from civill company or conversation onely which was not within but without the Synagogue would choose such a word as signifieth the casting out from an Ecclesiasticall or Sacred Assembly for such were the Synagogues in which the Jewes had Reading Expounding Preaching and Prayer as Master Prynne tells us Christ himselfe distinguisheth the Court or Judicatory which was in the Synagogue from civill Magistracy Luk. 12. 11. And when they bring you unto the Synagogues and unto Magistrates and Powers Magistrates and Powers are civill Rulers supreame and subordinate but the Synagogues are distinct Courts from both these 7 Our Opposites cannot give any other rationall interpretation of the word
these two things 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jewes one Civill and another Ecclesiasticall that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concerne both Church and State both did consult conclude and decree in a joynt way and by agreement together Now Ezra 10. the Princes Elders Priests and Levites were assembled together upon an extraordinary cause which conjuncture and concurrence of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious forfeiture and excommunication But 2. The objection made doth rather confirme me that Excommunication is intended in that place For this forfeiture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a making sacred or dedicating to an holy use as I have shewed out of Iosephus The originall word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted which is the word put in the margin of our bookes The Greek saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anathemstizabitur which is the best rendring of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a mans substance Intellige saith Grotius ita ut Deo sacra fiat And so the excommunication of a man and the devoting of his substance as holy to the Lord were joyned together and the substance had not been anathematized if the man had not been anathematized I doe not say that Excommunication ex natura rei doth inferre and draw after it the devoting of a mans estate as holy to the Lord. No Excommunication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate further than the Civill Magistrate and the Law of the Land appointeth And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches where there was no Christian Magistrate to adde a Civill mulct But the devoting of the substance of Excommunicated persons Ezra 10. as it had the authority of the Princes and Rulers for it so what extraordinary warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence we can not tell Finally M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 4. cap. 9. p. 523. agreeth with Lud. Capellus that the separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. plane ipsum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri it is the very same with casting out of the Synagogue which confuteth further that which M. Prynne holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods word but was onely a humane invention I know some have drawne another argument for the Jewish Excommunication from Nehem. 13. 25. I contended with them and cursed them id est anathematizavi excommunicavi saith C. a lapide upon the place So Tirinus upon the same place Mariana expounds it anathema dixi Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of Excommunication Niddui and Cherem For my part I lay no weight upon this unlesse you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiasticall power onely authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate Which the words may well beare for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his owne hand smite those men and plucke off their hayre but that by his authority he tooke care to have it done by civill Officers as the cursing by Ecclesiasticall Officers The Dutch annotations leane this way telling us that Nehemiah did expresse his zeale against them as persons that deserved to be banned or cut off from the people of God Another Text proving the Jewish Excommunication is Luke 6. 22. When they shall separate you and shall reproach you and â—…ast out your name as evill It was the most misapplied censure in the world in respect of the persons thus cast out but yet it proves the Jewish custome of casting out such as they thought wicked and obstinate persons This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beda upon the place understandeth of casting out of the Synagogue Separent Synagoga depellant c. yet it is a more generall and comprehensive word then the casting out of the Synagogue It comprehendeth all the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication as Grotius expounds the place Which agreeth with Munsterus Dictionar Trilingue where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the onely Greeke word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui Cherem and Shammata and for the Latine Excommunicatio Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is extermino excommunico repudio which is one of the usuall significations of the word given by Stephanus and by Scapula It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Councels to expresse such a separation as was a Church-censure and namely suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For by the ancient Canons of the Councels such offences as were punished in a Minister by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deposition were punished in one of the people by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is segregation or sequestration Zonaras upon the 13 th Canon of the eighth generall Councell observeth a double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the ancient Church â—ne was a totall separation or casting out of the Church which is usually called Excommunication another was a suspension or sequestration from the Sacrament onely Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Booke I hold now at the Text in hand which may be thus read according to the sence and letter both when they shall excommunicate you c. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you holds forth the same thing which I speake of separate from what our Translators supply from their company but from what company of theirs not from their civill company onely but from their sacred or Church assemblies and from religious fellowship it being a Church-censure and a part of Ecclesiasticall discipline in which sence as this word frequently occurreth in the Greeke fathers and ancient Canons when they speake of Church discipline so doubtlesse it must be taken in this place 1. Because as Grotius tels us that which made the Jewes the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civill coercive power of Magistracy which sometime they had And I have proved before that the civill Sanhedrin which had power of criminall and capitall judgements did remove from Ierusalem and cease to execute such judgement forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple 2. Because in all other places of the new Testament where the same word is used it never signifieth a bare separation from civill company but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church members did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walke or were conceived to walke disorderly and scandalously Acts 19. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Gal. 2. 13. or Gods separating between the godly and the wicked Matth 13. 49. 25. 32. or the setting apart of men to the ministery of the Gospell Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly a Civill separation is for a Civill injury but this separation
your selves in any of these things Of the shedding of bloud defile not therefore the Land wherein ye dwell Wherefore this word uncleannesse or defilement is said of three sorts of things first of a mans qualities and of his transgressions of the Commandements whether theoricall or practicall that is which concerne either Doctrine or his conversation Secondly of externall filthinesse and defilements c. Thirdly of these imaginary things that is the touching or carrying upon the shoulders some uncleane thing c. Adde hereunto the observation of Drusius de tribus sect Judaeor lib. 2. num 82. 83. 84. The Pharisees did account sinners and prophane persons to be uncleane and thought themselves polluted by the company of such persons for which reason also they used to wash when they came from the mercate Though there was a superstition in this Ceremony yet the opinion that prophane persons are uncleane persons and to be avoided for uncleannesse had come from the purest antiquities of the Jewes even from Moses and the Prophets Since therefore both in the old Testament phrase and in the usuall language of the Jewes themselves a scandalous prophane person was called an unclean person it is to me more then probable that where I read none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in it is meant of those that were morally uncleane by a scandalous wicked conversation no lesse yea much more than of those that were onely ceremonially uncleane 3. Especially considering that the Sanctuary was prophaned and polluted by the morall uncleannesse of sinne and by prophane persons their entring into it as is manifest from Lev. 20. 3. Eze. 23. 39. How can it then be imagined that those Priests whose charge it was to keepe back those that were uncleane in any thing would admit and receive such as were not onely unclean persons in the language of Scripture and of the Jewes themselves but were also by expresse Scriptures declared to be defilers or polluters of the Sanctuary 4. It is said of the high Priest Lev 16. 16. and he shall make atonement for the holy place because of the uncleannesse of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins or from their uncleannesse and from their transgressions as the Chaldee and the LXX have it the sence is the same and it sheweth that the holy place was made uncleane by the transgressions and sinnes of the children of Israel which uncleannesse of transgression if it were visible publik and notorious then the Priests had failed in admitting such to the holy place 12. Object Throughout the old Testament we read onely of temporall punishments as burning hanging stoning fines stripes and the like but never of Excommunication or any Church censure Neither did the Jewes know the distinction of Lawes Ecclesiasticall and Lawes civill causes Ecclesiasticall and causes civill for the Church of the Jewes was thâ—ir Common-Wealth and their Common-Wealth was their Church and the Government of Church and State among them was one and the same Their civill Lawyers were also Expositors or Doctors of the Law of God Ans. That in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiasticall censure or punishment distinct from the civill I have proved in this preceeding booke both from Scripture and from the Jewish antiquities And if there were no more but the sequestration or separation from the Temple or from the passeover for such legall uncleannesse as did not separat a man from his house nor from all company of men even that alone proves a kinde of censure distinct from all civill punishment neither did it belong to the Magistrate or civill Judge but to the Priests to examine judge and determine concerning cleannesse or uncleannesse and consequently concerning admission to or separation from the Temple Passeover and sacrifices That the Jewish Church and the Jewish State were formally distinct see before Chap. 2. Where it hath beene observed that some Proselytes had the full priviledges of the Jewish Church though none of them had the full priviledges of the Jewish common-wealth The like I have read of the Spaniards who admit the Moores or inhabitants of Morisco to turne Christians and receive them into Ecclesiasticall Membership and Communion but by no meanes into their civill liberties That the causes of Excommunication among them were lookt upon as scandalls and not as civill inâ—uries see Chap. 4. This onely I adde that More Nevochim part 2. Chap. 40. doth distinguish civill Lawes from sacred Lawes even among the people of God making the scope of the civill Lawes to be the good safety and prosperity of the Common-wealth the Sacred or Divine Lawes to concerne properly Religion and mens soules He that will compare the civill Lawes and panall Statutes of the Jewes mentioned in Baba Kama with their ceremoniall Lawes concerning the holy Ordinances of God and who should have communion therein who not cannot but looke upon their Church and 〈◊〉 Lawes as formally distinct from their State and civill Lawes Again he that will consider who were the viri synagogae magnae the men of the great synagogue and what their power and acts were as Dr. Buxtorf describeth the same in his Tyberiâ—…t Cap. 10 11. and their authoritative determinations concerning the right writing reading and expounding of the holy Scripture c. must needs acknowledge that it was Senatus ecclesiasticus magnus as Buxtorf cals it and that such power and acts were incompetent to the civill Magistrate As for their Doctors of Law and Scribes they were of the sons of Aaron yet some way diversified in their administrations Scaliger in elench Trihaeres Nic. Serar cap. 11. distinguisheth between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the former were the wisemen or chief of the Scribes who did interpret the Law and declare the sence of it the latter did attend civill forensicall matters Drusius de tribus sect Jud. lib. 2. cap. 13. noteth from Luke 11. 45. 46. that there was some distinction between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the Scribes and the Lawyers for when Christ had spoken of the Scribes and Pharises then answered one of the Lawyers and said unto him Master thus saying thou reproachest us also And he said Wo unto you also ye Lawyers This will be more plaine by that other distinction observed by Lud. de dieu in Mat. 22. 35. and diverse others between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the Scribes of the Law of God who did interpret the Law such as Ezra the Priest and the Scribes of the people who were Actuarii publici publick Notaries or Clerks Whence it appeareth that the Offices of Scribes and Lawyers although the persons themselves were of the Tribe of Levi were so ordered as that civill and sacred affaires might not be confounded Yea the Scriveners or Notaries were of two sorts for besides those which did attend
are for impenitent contumacious offenders but the Magistrate doth and must punish offenders when the course of Justice and law so requireth whether they appear penitent or impenitent Fourthly The Magistrates power of punishing offenders is bounded by the law of the land What then shall become of such scandalls as are not crimes punishable by the law of the land such as obscene rotten talking adulterous and vile behaviour or the most scandalous conversing and companying together though the crime of adultery cannot be proved by witnesses living in known malice and envie refusing to be reconciled and thereupon lying off it may be for a long time from the Sacrament and the like which are not proper to be taken notice of by the civil Judge So that in this case either there must be Church-censures and discipline exercised by Church-officers or the Magistrate must go beyond his limits Or lastly Scandalls shall spread in the Church and no remedy against them Far be it from the thoughts of Christian Magistrates that scandalls of this kind shall be tolerated to the dishonour of God the laying of the stumbling blocks of bad examples before others and to the violation and pollution of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ who hath commanded to keep his ordinances pure A second Argument may be this In the old Testament God did not command the Magistrates but the Priests to put a difference betwixt the prophane and the holy the unclean and the clean Levit. 10. 10. Ezech. 22. 26. Ezech. 44. 23 24. Deut. 21. 5. 2 Chron. 23. 18 19. And in the new Testament the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Ministers of the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. but no where to the civil Magistrate It belongeth to Church-officers to censure false doctrine Revel 2. 2. 14. 15. to decide controversies Acts 16. 4. and to examine and censure scandalls Ezech. 44 23 24. which is a Prophecy concerning the ministery of the New Testament And Elders judge an Elder 1 Tim. 5. 19. or any other Church-member 1 Cor. 5. 12. Thirdly The Scripture holdeth forth the civil and Ecclesiastical power as most distinct insomuch that it condemneth the Spiritualizing of the civil Power aswell as the Secularizing of the Ecclesiastical power State Papacy aswell as Papal-State Church-officers may not take the civil sword nor judg civil causes Luke 12. 13 14 and 22. 25. Matth. 26. 52. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. So Uzzah might not touch the Ark nor Saul offer burnt offerings nor Uzziah burn incense I wish we may not have cause to revive the proverb which was used in Ambrose his time That Emperors did more covet the Priesthood then the Priests did covet the Empire Shall it be a sin to Church-officers to exercise any act of civil government and shal it be no sin to the civil Magistrate to ingrosse the whole and sole power of Church-Government Are not the two powers formally and specifically distinct Of which before Chap. 4. It is to be well noted that Maccovius and Vedelius who ascribe a sort of Papal power to the civil Magistrate to the great scandall of the Reformed Church do notwithstanding acknowledge that Christ hath appointed Church discipline and censures and the same to be dispenced by Church-officers onely And that the Magistrate as he may not preach the Word and administer the Sacraments So he may not exercise Church-discipline nor inslict spiritual censures such as excommunication Though Erastus pag. 175. hath not spared to say that the Magistrate may in the New Testament though he might not in the old exercise the ministeriall function if he can have so much leisure from his other employments Fourthly The power of Church discipline is intrinsecall to the Church that is both they who censure and they who are censured must be of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. 13. They must be of one and the same Corporation the one must not be in the body and the other out of the body But if this power were in the Magistrate it were extrinsecall to the Church For the Magistrate quatenus a Magistrate is not so much as a Church-member far lesse can the magistrate as magistrate have jurisdiction over Church-members as Church members even as the minister as minister is not a member of the Common-wealth or State far lesse can he as minister exercise jurisdiction over the Subjects as Subjects The Christian magistrate in England is not a member of the Church as a magistrate but as a Christian. And the minister of Jesus Christ in England is not subject to the magistrate as he is a minister of Christ but as he is a member of the Common-wealth of England He was both a learned man and a great Royallist in Scotland who held that all Kings Infidel as well as Christian have equal authority and jurisdiction in the Church though all be not alike qualified or able to exercise it Io. Wemius de Reg. primat pag. 123. Let our opposites loose this knot among themselves for they are not of one opinion about it Fifthly Church-officers might and did freely and by themselves dispence Church-censures under Pagan and unbeleeving magistrates as is by all confessed Now the Church ought not to be in a worse condition under the Christian magistrate then under an Infidel for the power of the Christian magistrate is cumulative not privative to the Church He is a Nursing Father Isa. 49. 23. not a Step-Father He is keeper defender and guardian of both Tables but neither Judge nor Interpreter of Scripture Sixthly I shall shut up this Argumentation with a convincing dilemma The Assemblies of Church-officers being to exercise discipline and censure offences which is supposed and must be granted in regard of the Ordinances of Parliament either they have power to do this Iure proprio and virtute officii or onely Iure devoluto and virtute delegationis such authority being derived from the magistrate If the former I have what I would If the latter then it followeth 1. That where Presbyteries and Synods do exercise spirituall Jurisdiction not by any power derived from or dependant upon the civil Magistrate but in the name and authority of Iesus Christ and by the power received from him as in Scotland France the Low-Countries c. there all Ecclesiastical censures such as deposition of Ministers and Excommunication of scandalous and obstinate persons have been are and shall be void null and of no effect Even as when the Prelaticall party did hold that the power of ordination and jurisdiction pertaineth onely to Prelats or such as are delegate with commission and authority from them thereupon they were so put to it by the Arguments of the Anti-Episcopall party that they were forced to say that Presbyters ordained by Presbyters in other Reformed Churches are no Presbyters and their excommunication was no excommunication 2. It will follow that the Magistrate himself may excommunicate for nemo potest aliis
in genus but the civil and Ecclesiasticall Courts stand not in one line neither are they of one kind and nature they are disparata non subordinata 3. They who receive appeals have also power to 〈◊〉 the sentence else the appeal is in vain But the Magistrate hath no power to execute the Church ceâ—sure nor to shut out of the Church our opposites themselves being Judges It was not therefore without just cause that Augustine did vâ—ry â—uch â—lame the Donatists for their appealing from the Ecclesiâ—stical Assemblies to the Emperors and civil Câ—urts Epist. 48. and Epist. 162. There are two examples alledged from Scripture for appeals from Ecclesiastical to Civil Courts One is the example of Ieremiah Iâ—…r 26. The other is the example of Paul Act. 25. But neither of the two prove the point For 1. Ieremiah was not censured by the Priests with any Spirituall or Ecclesiastical censure of which alone our controversie is but the Priests took him and said to him Thou shalt surely die Jer. 26. 8. 2. Would God that every Christian Magistrate may protect the servants of God from such unjust sentences and persecuting decrees When Ecclesiasticall Courts are made up of bloody persecuters that is an extraordinary evil which must have an extraordinary remedy 3. Neither yet is there any syllable of Ieremiahs appealing from the Priests to the Princes but the Text saith When the Princes of Judah heard these things then they came up c. verse 10. that is The Princes so soon as they understood that the Priests had taken Ieremiah and had said to him Thou shalt surely die verse 8. And being also informed that all the people were gathered together tumultuously and disorderly against the Prophet verse 9. They thought it their duty to rescue the Prophet from the Priests and people that he might be examined and judged by the civil Court he being challenged and accused as one worthy to die As for Pauls Appellation to Caesar. First It is supposed by our opposites that he appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jews which is a great mistake For he appealed from the Judgement-seat of Festus to Caesar that is from an inâ—eriour civil Court to a superiour civil Court which he had just cause to do for though Festus had not yet given forth any sentence against Paul yet he appeals à gravamine and it was a great grievance indeed while as Festus shew'd himself to be a most corrupt Judge who though the Jews could prove none of those things whereof they accused Paul Act. 25. 7. which should have made Festus to acquit and dismisse him yet being willing to do the Jews a pleasure he would have Paul to go to Ierusalem there to be judged before himself verse 9. Now this was all the favour that the Jews had desired of Festus that he would send Paul to Ierusalem they laying wait in the way to kill him vers 3. No appellation here from the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem where he had not as yet compeered to be examined far lesse could he appeal from any sentence of the Sanhedrin The most which can be with any colour alleadged from the Text is that Paul declined to be judged by the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem they not being his competent and proper Judges in that cause I stand at Caesars Iudgement-seat saith he where I ought to be judged meaning that he was accused as worthy of death for sedition and offending against Caesar whereof he ought to be judged onely at Caesars Tribunall not by the Jews who were no Judges of such matters A declinator of a Judge is one thing and Appellation from his Judgement or sentence is another thing But put the case that Paul had indeed appealâ—d from the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem either it was the civil Sanhedrin or the Ecclesiasticall If the civil it is no President for appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts If the Ecclesiastical yet that serveth not for appeals from Ecclesiasticall Courts in Ecclesiasticall causes for it was a capital crime whereof Paul was accused Nay put the case that Paul had at that time appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in an Ecclesiastical cause yet neither could that help our opposites for the government of the Christian Church and the government of the Jewish Church were at that time separate and distinct so that the Ecclesiastical Court which should have judged of any scandall given by Paul if at all he ought to have been censured had been a Christian Synod not a Jewish Sanhedrin And so much of Appeals Of which Question Triglandius Revius and Cabeljavius have peculiarly and fully written Three famous Academies also of Leyden Groening and Utrecht did give their publike testimonies against appeals from Ecclesiastical to civil Courts And the three Professors of Utrecht in their testimony do obtest all Christians that love truth and peace to be cautious and wary of the Arminian poyson lurking in the contrary Tenent See Cabeljav defensio potestatis Ecclesiasticae pag. 60. It is further objected That thus fixing a spirituall jurisdiction in Church-officers we erect two collateral Powers in the Kingdom the Civil and the Ecclesiastical unlesse all Ecclesiastical Courts be subordinate to Magistracy as to a certain head-ship Answ. There is a subordination of Persons here but a co-ordination of powers A subordination of Persons because as the Ministers of the Church are subject to the civil Magistrate they being members of the Common-wealth or Kingdom So the Magistrate is subject to the Ministers of the Church he being a Church-member The former we assert against Papists who say that the Clergy is not subject to the Magistrate The latter we hold against those who make the Magistrate to be the head of the Church Again a co-ordination of powers because as the subjection of the person of the Christian Magistrate to the Pastors and Elders of the Church in things pertaining to God doth not inferre the subordination of the power and office of the Magistrate to the Church-officers So the subjection of Pastors and Elders to the Magistrate in all civil things as other members of the Common-wealth are subject may well consist with the co-ordination of the Ecclesiastical power with the civil And as it is an error in Papists to make the secular power dependant upon and derived from the Ecclesiasticall power So it is an error in others to make the Ecclesiastical power derived from and dependant upon the civil power for the Ecclesiastical power is derived from Christ Ephes. 4. 11. And now while I am expressing my thoughts I am the more confirmed in the same by falling upon the concession of one who is of a different Judgement For he who wrote Ius Regum in opposition to all spiritual authority exercised under any forme of Ecclesiastical Government doth not withstanding acknowledge pag. 16. Both of them the Magistrate and the Minister have their Commission immediatly from God and each of them are subject to the other without any subordination of offices
divinum naturale that is the moral Law or Decalogue as it bindeth all Nations whether Christians or Infidels being the Law of the Creator and King of Nations The Magistrate by his authority may and in duty ought to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to that Law and punish the external man with external punishments for external trespasses against that Law From this obligation of the Law and subjection to the corrective power of the Magistrate Christian Subjects are no more exempted then Heathen Subjects but father more straitly obliged So that if any such trespasse is committed by Church-Officers or Members the Magistrate hath power and authority to summon examine judge and after just conviction and proof to punish these as well as other men We do therefore abominate the disloyal Papal Tenent that Clergy men are not to be examined and judged by civil but by Ecclesiastical Courts onely even in causes civil and criminal Whereof see Duarenus de Sacr. Eccl. Minist lib. 1. cap. 2. Spelman Concil Britann Tom. 1. pag. 413. I further explane my self by that common distinction that there are two sorts of things that belong to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things inward and things outward For Church Officers and Church-members do consist as other men of a soul and of a body All things properly belonging to the soul or internal man which here we call things inward are the object of Ecclesiastical power given to Church-officers Pastors and other ruling officers But what belongs to the outward man to the bodies of Church-officers and members which things are outward the judging and managing thereof is in the hand of the Magistrate who ruleth not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are without whom the Church judgeth not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things outward of the Church Salmasius calls the power of the Magistrate in things Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inward Episcopacy or overseeing Which well agreeth with that which Constantine said to the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are made Bishops of the inward things of the Church I of the things outward So that he doth not assume their government but distinguisheth his from theirs This external inspection and administration of the Magistrate in reference to Religion is twofold 1. Corrective by externall punishments 2. Auxiliary by externall benefits and adminicles The Magistrate may and ought to be both Custos vindex utriusque Tabulae he ought to preserve both the first and second Table of the holy and good Law of God from being despised and violated and punish by corporal or other temporal punishments such whether Church Officers or Church-members as openly dishonour God by grosse offences either against the first or against the second Table and this he doth as Gods Deputy and Vicegerent subordinate and subservient to that universall dominion which God almighty exerciseth over the children of men But in doing hereof he is also helpfull and usefull to the Kingdom of Christ as Mediator Magistracy being in the respects aforesaid serviceable and profitable as to order the Common-wealth aright so also to purge the Church of scandals to promote the course of the Gospel and the edification of one another But how not perfectly but pro tanto not every way but more suo not intrinsecally but extrinsecally not primarily but secundarily not directly but ex consequenti not sub formalitate scandali sed sub formalitate criminis not under the notion of scandall but of crime The Magistrate in punishing all crimes committed by any in the Church which are contrary to the Law of God in suppressing tumults disorders in protâ—cting the Church from danger harme or molâ—station in putting a hook in the nostrils and a bridle in the mouthes of unruly obstinate and contumacious sinners who vexe the Church and create trouble to the people of God in so doing he doth by consequence and removendo prohibens purge the Church and advance the Kingdom of Christ and the course of the Gospel In the mean while not depriving the Church of her owne intâ—insecall power and Jurisdiction but making it rather more 〈◊〉 by the aid of the secular power And so much of the corrective part of the Magistrates administration The other part of his administration in reference to Religion is auxiliary or assistant to the Church For the Magistrate watcheth over the outward businesse of the Church not onely by troubling those persons and punishing those sins that trouble the Israel of God but by administring such things as are necessary for the well being and comfortable subsistence of the Church and for that end doth convocate Synods pro re nata beside the ordinary and set meetings and presideth therein if he please in externall order though not in the Synodicall debates and resolutions He addeth his civil sanction to the Synodical results if he find nothing therein which may hurt Peace or Justice in the Common-wealth The Magistrate ought also to take care of the maintenance of the Ministery Schooles poor and of good works for necessary uses that Religion and Learning may not want their necessary adminicles Finally He ought to take care that all Churches be provided with an able orthodox and Godly Ministery and Schools with learned and well qualified Teachers such as shall be best approved by those to whom it belongeth to examine and Judge of their qualifications and parts And all these wayes the Magistrate ought to be and the well affected Magistrate hath been and is a nursing Father to the Church of Christ. 2. My second distinction shall be this The Magistrate may and ought not onely to conserve Justice peace and order in the Common-wealth and in the Church as it is in the Common-wealth but also to take speciall care of the conservation of the true Reformed Religion and of the Reformation of it when and wherein it needeth to be reformed imperativè not elicitivè The Magistrate saith Dr. Rivet on the decalogue pag. 262. is neither to administer Word nor Sacraments nor Church discipline c. but he is to take care that all these things be done by those whom God hath called thereunto What ever is properly spiritual belonging to the soul and inward man such as Church-censures and the other particulars before mentioned cannot be actus elicitus of the Magistrate The Magistrate can neither immediatione suppositi nor immediatione virtutis determine controversies of faith ordain Ministers suspend from the Sacraments or excommunicate He can neither doe these things himself nor are they done in the name and authority of the Magistrate or by any Ministeriall power receeived from him but in the name and authority of Jesus Christ and by the power given from Jesus Christ. Yet all these and generally the administration of the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are actus imperati of the Christian Magistrate and that both antecedenter and consequenter Antecedently
the Magistrate may command Church-officers to suspend or excommunicate all obstinate and scandalous persons he may command the Classis to ordain able and godly ministers and no other he may command a Synod to meet to debate and determine such or such a controversie Consequently also when the thing is examined judged resolved or done by the Ecclesiasticall power the Magistrate hath power and authority to adde his civil sanction confirmation ot ratification to make the Ecclesiasticall sentence to be obeyed and submitted unto by all whom it concerneth In all which the Christian Magistrate doth exceeding much for the conservation and purgation of Religion not eliciâ—…ndo actus doing or exercising by himself or by his owne authority acts of Church Government or discipline but taking care that such and such things be done by those to whom they do belong 3. Distinguish the directive part and the coercive part The directive part in the conservation or purgation of Religion doth belong to the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church assembled together In administring therefore that which concerneth Religion and peoples spirituall good the Magistrate not onely juvatur but dirigitur is not onely helped but directed by the Ecclesiastical directive power Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 6. Magistracy may say to Ministery as Moses said to Hobab Thou mayest be to us in stead of eyes Ad sacrae Religionis informationem fidâ—…lis Magistratus verbi divini administris veluti oculis uti debet and for that end he is to make use of consistoriall and Synodicall Assemblies say the Professors of Lâ—…yden Synopspur 〈◊〉 Disp. 50. Thes. 44. But the coercive part in compelling the obstinate and unruly to submit to the Presbyteriall or Synodicall sentence belongs to the Magistrate Not as if the Magistrate had nothing to do but to be an executioner of the pleasure of Church-officers or as if he were by a blind and implicite faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination God forbid The Magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compell men to do to judge of it not onely judicio apprehâ—…nsivo by understanding and apprehending â—right what it is but judicio discretivo by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion examining by the Word of God the grounds reasons and warrants of the thing that he may in Faith and not doubtingly adde his authority thereto In which judging he doth Iudicare but not Iudicem agere that is he is Iudex suarum actionum he judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to Church-officers and doth not concur therewith except he be satisfied in his Conscience that he may do so yet this makes him not supreme Judge or Governour in all Ecclesiastical causes which is the Prerogative of Jesus Christ revealing his will in his word nor yet doth it invest the Magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forensicall directive judgement in Ecclesiastical things or causes which belongeth to Ecclesiasticall not to civil Courts 4. Distinguish between a Cumulative and a Privativâ—… authority The Magâ—strate hath indeed an authoritative influence into matters of Religion and Church-Government but it is cumulative that is the Magistrate takes care that Church-officers as well as other Subjects may do those things which ex officio they are bound to do and when they do so he aideth assisteth strengtheneth ratifieth and in his way maketh effectuall what they do But that which belongs to the Magistrate is not privative in reference to the Ecclesiastical Government It is understood salvo jure Ecclesiastico for the Magistrate is a nursing Father not a step Father to the Church and the Magistrate as well as other men is under that tye 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth This Proviso therefore is justly made that whatever power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion it is not to hinder the free exercise of Church discipline and censures against scandalous and obstinate sinners As the Casuists in other cases distinguish Lucrum cessans and damnum emergens so must we distinguish between the Magistrate his doing no good to the Church and his doing evil to the Church between his not assisting and his opposing between his not allowing or authorizing and his forbidding or restraining It doth properly and of right belong to the Magistrate to adde a civil sanction and strength of a law for strengthning and aiding the exercise of Church discipline or not to add it And himself is Judge whether to add any such cumulative act of favour or not But the Magistrate hath no power nor authority to lay bands and restraints upon Church-officers to hinder any of Christs ordinances or to forbid them to do what Christ hath given them a commission to do And if any such restraints of prohibitions or lawes should be laid on us we ought to obey God rather than men 5. Distingue tempora Whatever belongs to the Magistrate in matters of Religion more then falls under the former distinctions is extraordinary and doth not belong to ordinary Government In extraordinary reformations the Magistrate may do much by his owne immediate authority when Synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine or from holinesse and godlinesse yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly Divines as can be had either in his owne or from other Dominions Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 5. And so much be spoken of the Magistrate his power and duty in things and causes Ecclesiasticall As we do not deny to the Magistrate any thing which the Word of God doth allow him so we dare not approve his going beyond the bounds and limits which God hath set him And I pray God that this be not found to be the bottome of the controversie Whether Magistracy shall be an arbitrary Government if not in civil yet in Ecclesiastical things Whether the Magistrate may do or appoint to be done in the matter of Church-Government admission to or exclusion from the Ordinances of Christ what ever shall seem good in his eyes And whether in purging of the Church he is obliged to follow the rules of Scripture and to consult with learned and godly Ministers although Erastus himself as is before observed and Sutlivius a great follower of him de Presbyt cap. 8. are ashamed of and do disclaim such assertions CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy â—r Civil Goveramâ—nt â—amely an Ecclesiastical Government properly so callâ—d in the hands of Church-officâ—rs THis Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament excluding all Government of Church-officers Ministers and Elders that is as he expounds himself all corrective government leaving them no power except what is meerly doctrinal and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate onely Mr. Hussey following him
Classical and Synodical Assemblies and to give a kind of Papal power to the Magistrate yet in this particular he argueth strongly for us and not against us Secondly Where is that Christian Magistracy which hath suppressed or punished all such offences as did fâ—ll under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure in the Primitive and Apostolick Churches Or where is that Christian Magistrate that will yet undertake to punish all those offences and scandals which were censured in the Apostolick Churches Till some such instance be given this exception against Church-discipline and censures under a Christian Magistrate hath not so much as colour enough Aliae sunt leges Caesarum aliâ—…e Christi aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit saith Hierome in Epitaph Fabiâ—…lae Caesars Lawes and Christs Lawes are not the same but different Papinianus commands one thing Paul another thing Chrysostome Homil. 12. in 1. Epist. ad Cor. tells us that the best and wisest Law-givers had appointed no punishment for fornication for consuming and trifling away of time with playing at dice for gluttony and drunkennesse for Stage-plaies and lascivious whorish gestures therein Is there not some cause to apply all this and much more of this kind even to Christian Law givers and Magistrates Put the case that he who is called a brother as the Apostle speaks that is a member of the visible Church be found grossely ignorant of the Principles of Religion and so far from growing in knowledge that he loseth the knowledge of the Scriptures and of the truth of God which he had for this hath been diverse times observed through neglect of the means or if he be known to neglect ordinaâ—lly prayer in and with his Family and to continue in that offence after admonition or if he live in known or scandalous malice and envie and refuse to be reconciled with his neighbour or if he be a known lyar and dissembler or if by his words and actions he do scandalously and manifestly shew himself covetous drowned in sensuality ambitious proud or if he give a foul scandal by filthy and obscene speeches by lascivious obscene whorish-like gestures or actions where the act it self of adultery or fornication cannot be proved I suppose that for these and such like scandals which are causes deserving not onely the Elderships enquiry and admonition but suspension from the Lords Table the Christian Magistrate neither doth nor by the civil or municipal Laws is bound to arraign and punish all such as are guilty thereof Thirdly whereas Arch-bishop Whitgift Answ. to the Admon pag. 114. did alledge that the Church may not be governed under a Christian Magistrate as it may under a Tyrant which he brings as an exception against ruling Elders and Elderships while he could not denie but such there were in the Primitive Church Mr. Cartwrigh in his Reply pag. 140. answereth that if these Elders under a Tyrant had medled with any office of a Magistrate then there had been some cause why a godly Magistrate being in the Church that office should cease but since they did onely assist the Pastor in matters Ecclesiastical there is no distinction between times of persecution and times of peace as touching the office of Elders The like say I of Church-censures and discipline If the Government of the Church by Presbyteries and Synods if suspension and excommunication in the Apostles times had been an usurping of any thing belonging to the Magistrate then there had been some reason to lay aside all Church-censures and Ecclesiastical Government when the Magistrate turned Christian and willing to do his duty But if not then the civil and Church-government may still remain distinct even where the State is Christian. Fourthly Every Institution or Ordinance of Christ must continue as a perpetual obligation unlesse we can find in the Word that Christ hath given us a dispensation or taken off the obligation and set a period to the Ordinance that it shall continue so long and no longer I mean every Ordinance of Christ must be perpetual which we cannot prove from the Word to be but temporal or extraordinary Now in the Word Christ hath not appointed the governing the Church and correcting scandals to be onely under a Tyrant and to cease under a Christian Magistrate neither is there any such thing held forth in Scripture which yet our opposites must shew if they will make good what they say But contrariwise what Christ delivered to the Apostles and they to the Churches is to be kept and continued till our Lord come again 1 Cor. 11. 23. 26. 1 Tim. 6. 14. and he himself saith Rev. 2. 24. 25. That which ye have already hold fast till I come These things were not spoken to the Apostles to Timothy to the Churches of that time personally for they were not to live till Christs comming again but the charge was given to them in name of and with respect unto all the Ministery and Churches of Christ. Fifthly This exception made against Church-censures under a Christian Magistrate supposeth that such censures will make an interfering and clashing between the civil and Ecclesiastical power But there is no cause for that fear these powers being so hugely differenced in their efficient causes matters formes ends effects objects adjuncts correlations and ultimate terminations as I have made it to appear in the particulars Chap. 4. Sixthly The Churches liberty and power is not to be infringed diminished nor taken away but preserved maintained enlarged and augmented under a Christian Magistrate Were it not a sad case if there should be cause to say that the Churches of Christ have not so much liberty under a Christian Magistrate to keep themselves and the Ordinances from pollution as they had under Pagan and Infidel Magistrates Seventhly Why may not Christian Church-government consist with Christian Magistracy as well as the Jewish Church government did consist with the Jewish Magistracy being of the same Religion Or if we please to look to later Presidents who can be ignorant that civil government and Church-discipline have rather strengthened then destroyed each other not onely in France where the Magistracy is not Protestant but in Scotland in the Low-Countries in Geneva and else-where Eightly We have covenanted to endeavour a Reformation of Church-Government and discipline according to the word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches Now both the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches leadeth us to a Church-government distinct from civil Government and the example of the best Reformed Churches doth undeniably lead us to a Church-discipline even where he Magistrate is Christian neither doth the word make any exception of Christian States but contrariwise chargeth us to keep the commandement and Ordinances till Christ come again Ninthly The Magistrate hath other work to do and such as will take up the whole man and if he should take upon him the whole burthen of Church-Government the enquiring into examining and correcting of all
his calling to minde those words in the rule of Prayer even as we forgive those who trespasse against us Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers 19. Againe I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth supposing that agreement and consequently forgiving of injuries is necessary to make our Prayers the more effectuall for my part I think it not improbable that whatever the occasion of the Question was vers 21 beginneth a new and distinct purpose Which I take to be the reason why the Arabik here makes an intercision and beginneth the eight and fiftieth Section of Matthew at those words Then came Peter and said Lord how oft c. 4. And if vers 21. have a dependence upon that which went before it may be conceived thus Christ had said If thy Brother trespasse against thee goe tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone which supposeth a continuance of the former Christian fellowship and fraternall familiarity and that we must not cast off a scandalous Brother as lost or as an Enemy but admonish him as a Brother This might give occasion to Peter to aske Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me that is scandalize me by his sinne against God for even in Luk. 17. 3. 4. that of forgiving one that trespasseth against us is added immediately after a Doctrine of scandals and I forgive him that is as Grotius expounds it restore him to the former degree of friendship and intimate familiarity to deale with him thus as with a Brother Which he well distinguisheth from that other forgiving which is a not revenging And so much of Master Prynnes first reason His second reason is because the Mention of two or three witnesses vers 16. relateth onely to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes as murders and the like before the civill Magistrates of the Jewes c. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories of which we find no president Answ. 1. If this hold then the Text must not be expounded indefinitely of civill injuries as he did before but of civill capitall injuries whereas Erastus takes the meaning to be of smaller offences onely and not of Capitall crimes 2. The Law concerning two or three witnesses is neither restricted to Capitall crimes nor to civill Judicatories I appeale to the Ordinance of Parliament dated Octo. 20. 1645. The Elder-ship of every Congregation shall judge the matter of scandall aforesaid being not Capitall upon the Testmiony of two credible Witnesses at the least That Law therefore of witnesses is alike applicable to all causes and Courts Ecclesiasticall and civill Deut. 19. 30. One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sinne in any sin that he sinneth at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established 3. And the same Law is in the new Testament clearly applied to proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Cor. 13. 1. again 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against the Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses which is not spoken to any civill Magistrate but to Timothy and others joyned with him in Church Government His third reason doth onely begge what is in Question that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiasticall but a civill Court of the Jewes He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jewes had civill Courts If he could but cite one place to prove that they had no Ecclesiasticall Courts this were to the purpose Not that I grant that at this time the Jewes had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin in the opinion of many learned men the Jewes had no more any civill Jurisdiction Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministery Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death How ever he cannot prove that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church the Jewes had any civill Court of Justice which did exercise either Criminall or Capitall Judgements I have in the first Book shewed out of Buxtorf L'Empereur Casauhon and I. Coch. who prove what they say from the Talmudicall writers that 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and so before Christ said Tell the Church the Court of civill Justice at Hierusalem did cease If Master Prynne make any thing of this Glosse of his he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes I have before proved that that Councell of the Jewes in Christs time was an Ecclesiasticall Court though he conceives it was meerely civill 2. That a private civill injury might not then nor may not now be brought before a civill Court except after severall previous admonitions despised 3. That Chists Rule Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased when a civill Court of Justice among the Jewes ceased If he say that the same rule continueth for telling the civill Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition then I aske â— how will he reconcile himself for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice among the Jewes 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of Ierusalem and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to goe to then the Pagan Magistracy must passe under the name of the Church for they had no other civill Court of Justice to goe to One thing I must needs take notice of that whereas he would prove here that Tell the Church is nothing but tell the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes commonly called the Councell saith he or Sanhedrin he doth hereby overthrow all that he hath been building for the Jewish Sanhedrin at that time had not power to judge civill nor criminall and least of all Capitall offences but onely causes Ecclesiasticall The Romans having taken from them their civill Government and left them no Government nor Jurisdiction except in matters of Religion I hope Master Prynne will not in this contradict Erastus And if so how shall his Glosse stand that this Text is to be understood of civill injuries yea and of these onely for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ sends his Disciples to the Jewish Sanhedrin How sweetly doe his Tenents agree together His fourth reason is that those words let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican cannot signifie excommunication because Heathen men being never members of the Church could never be excommunicated or cast out of it being uncapable of such a censure As for publicans those of them who were members of the Jewish Church though they were execrable to the Jewes by reason of their Tax-gatherings and oppressions yet we never read in Scripture that they were excommunicated or cast out of their Synagogues but
AARONS ROD BLOSSOMING OR The Divine Ordinance of Church-Government VINDICATED So as the present Erastian Controversie concerning the distinction of Civill and Ecclesiasticall Government Excommunication and Suspension is fully debated and discussed from the holy Scripture from the Jewish and Christian Antiquities from the consent of latter Writers from the true nature and rights of Migistracy and from the groundlesnesse of the chiefe Objections made against the Presbyteriall Government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power By George Gillespie Minister at Edinburgh For unto us a child is born unto us a sonne is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder Isaiah 9. 6. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5. 17. And the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the Author of confusion but of peace 1 Cor. 14 32 33. August lib. contra Donatistas post collationem Cap. 4. Ne fortè aut indisciplinata patientia foveat iniquitatem aut impatiens disciplina dissipet unitatem Published by Authority London Printed by E. G. for Richard Whitaker at the signe of the Kings Armes in Pauls Church yard 1646. TO THE Reverend and Learned Assembly of DIVINES Convened at WESTMINSTER Right Reverend THough many faithfull servants of God did long agoe desire to see those things which we see and to heare those things which we heare Yet it hath been one of the speciall mercies reserved for this Generation and denied to the times of our Ancestors that Divines of both Kingdomes within this Island should be gathered and continued together to consult peaceably and freely concerning a Reformation of Religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government 'T is a mercy yet greater that two Nations formerly at so great a distance in the form of publike Worship and Churchgovernment should to their mutuall comfort and happines and to the further endearing of each to other through the good hand of God be now agreed upon one Directory of Worship and with a good progresse advanced as in one Confession of Faith so likewise in one forme of Church-government For all which as the other Reformed Churches in regard of their common interest in the Truth and Ordinances of Christ so especially your Brethren in the Church of Scotland are your debters Your name is as precious Oynment among them and they doe esteeme you very highly in love for your workes sake A worke which as it is extraordinary and unparalleld requiring a double portion of the Spirit of your Master so You have very many Hearts and Prayers going along with you in it that the pleasure of the Lord may prosper in your hand As for my Reverend Colleagues and my selfe it hath been a good part of our happinesse that we have been partakers of and Assistants in your grave and learned Debates Yet as we declared from our first comming amongst you we came not hither presuming to prescribe any thing unto You but willing to receive as well as to offer light and to debate matters freely and fairely from the Word of God the common Rule both to you and us As herein You were pleased to give testimony unto us in one of your Letters to the Generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland so the great respects which in other things and at other times you have expressed both towards that Church from which we are entrusted and particularly towards our selves doe call for a returne of all possible and publique testimonies of gratitude For which purpose I doe for my part take hold of this opportunity I know that I owe much more unto You then I have either ability to pay or Elocution to set forth Yet although I cannot retaliate your Favours nor render that which may be worthy of your selves I beseech you to accept this part of my retribution of respects I doe offer and entitle unto You this Enucleation of the Erastian Controversie which is Dignus vindice nodus I hope here is a word in season concerning it Others might have done better but such furniture as I had I have brought to the worke of the Tabernacle I submit what is mine unto your greater learning and better judgement and shall ever continue Yours to serve you GEO. GILLESPIE To the Candid Reader I Have often and heartily wished that I might not be distracted by nor ingaged into polemick Writings of which the World is too full already and from which many more learned and idoneous have abstained and I did accordingly resolve that in this Controversall age I should be slow to write swift to read and learne Yet there are certaine preponderating reasons which have made me willing to be drawn forth into the light upon this subject For beside the desires and sollicitations of diverse Christian friends lovers of truth and peace seriously calling upon me for an answer to M r Prynne his Vindication of his foure Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension the grand importance of the Erastian controversie and the strong influence which it hath into the present juncture of asfaires doth powerfully invite me Among the many Controversies which have disquieted and molested the Church of Christ those concerning Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline are not the least but among the chiefe and often mannaged with the greatest animosity and eagernesse of spirit whence there have growne most dangerous divisions and breaches such as this day there are and for the future are to be expected unlesse there shall be through Gods mercy some further composing and healing of these Church-consuming distractions which if we shall be so happy as once to obtaine it will certainely contribute very much toward the accommodation of civill and State-shaking differences And contrariwise if no healing for the Church no healing for the State Let the Gallio's of this time who care for no intrinsecall evill in the Church promise to themselves what they will surely he that shall have cause to write with Nicolaus de Clemangis a Booke of lamentation de corrupto Ecclesiae statu will finde also cause to write with him de lapsu reparatione Justitiae As the thing is of high concernment to these so much disturbed and divided Churches so the elevation is yet higher by many dègrees This controversie reacheth up to the Heavens and the top of it is above the clouds It doth highly concerne Iesus Christ himselfe in his glory royall prerogative and kingdome which he hath and exerciseth as Mediator and Head of his Church The Crowne of Iesus Christ or any part priviledge or pendicle thereof must needs be a noble and excellent Subject This truth that Iesus Christ is a King and hath a Kingdome and government in his Church distinct from the kingdomes of this World and from the civill Government hath this commendation and character above all other truths that Christ himselfe suffered to the death for it and sealed it with his blood For it may be observed from the story
of his Passion this was the onely point of his accusation which was confessed and avouched by himselfe was most aggravated prosecuted and driven home by the Iewes was prevalent with Pilate as the cause of condemning him to die and was mentioned also in the superscription upon his crosse And although in reference to God and in respect of satisfaction to the Divine justice for our sinnes his death was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of redemption yet in reference to men who did persecute accuse and condemne him his death was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Martyrs Testimony to seale such a truth This Kingly Office of Iesus Christ as well as his Propheticall is administred and exercised not onely inwardly and invisibly by the working of his Spirit in the soules of particular persons but outwardly also and visibly in the Church as a visible politicall ministeriall body in which he hath appointed his own proper Officers Ambassadours Courts Laws Ordinances Censures and all these administrations to be in his own name as the onely King and Head of the Church This was the thing which Herod and Pilate did and many Princes Potentates and States doe looke upon with so much feare and jealousie as another Government co-ordinate with the civill But what was darke upon the one side to them hath been light upon the other side to those servants of Iesus Christ who have stood contended and sometime suffered much for the Ordinance of Church-Government and Discipline which they looked upon as a part of Christs Kingdome So Bucer So Parker So M. Welseh my countreyman of precious memory who suffered much for the same truth and was ready to seale it with his blood Beside divers others who might be named especially learned Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cap. 1. and throughout I am not ignorant that some have an evill eye upon all government in a Nation distinct from civill Magistracy and if it were in their power they would have all Anti-Erastians and so consequently both Presbyterians and Independents lookt upon as guilty of Treason at least as violaters of and encroachers upon the rights and priviledges of Magistracy in respect of a distinct Ecclesiasticall government And indeed it is no new thing for the most faithfull Ministers of Iesus Christ to be reproached and accused as guilty of Treason which was not onely the lot of M. Calderwood and as hath been now shewed of M. Welsch and those that suffered with him but of M. Knox before them as likewise of many Martyrs and confessors and of the Apostles themselves Yet if we will judge righteous judgement and weigh things in a just ballance we doe not rob the Magistrate of that which is his by giving unto Christ that which is Christs We desire to hold up the honour and greatnesse the power and authority of Magistracy against Papists Anabaptists and all others that despise dominion and speake evill of dignities We doe not compare as Innocentius did the civill and the ecclesiasticall powers to the two great lights that to the Moone this to the Sunne We hold it is proper to Kings Princes and Magistrates to be called Lords and Dominators over their Subjects whom they governe civilly but it is proper to Christ onely to be called Lord and Master in the Spirituall government of the Church and all others that beare office therein ought not to usurpe Dominion therein nor be called Lords but onely Ministers Disciples and Servants We acknowledge and affirme that Magistracy and civill Government in Empires Kingdomes Dominions and Cities is an Ordinance of God for his owne glory and for the great good of mankind so that whoever are enemies to Magistracy they are enemies to mankind and to the revealed will of God That such persons as are placed in authority are to be beloved honoured feared and holden in a most reverend estimation because they are the Lieutenants of God in whose seat God himselfe doth sit and judge We teach that not onely they are appointed for civill policy but also for maintenance of the true Religion and for suppressing of Idolatry and superstition whatsoever We confesse that such as resist the supreame power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge doe resist Gods Ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltlesse And further we affirme that whosoever deny unto them their ayd counsell and comfort whilest the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their Office that the same men deny their help support and counsell to God who by the presence of his Lieutenant doth crave it of them We know and believe that though we be free we ought wholly in a true faith holily to submit our selves to the Magistrate both with our body and with all our goods and endeavour of mind also to performe faithfulnesse and the oath which we made to him so far forth as his government is not evidently repugnant to him for whose sake we doe reverence the Magistrate That we ought to yeeld unto Kings and other Magistrates in their owne stations feare honour tribute and custome whether they be good men or evill as likewise to obey them in that which is not contrary to the Word of God It being alwaies provided that in things pertaining to our soules and consciences we obey God onely and his holy Word We believe that God hath delivered the Sword into the hands of the Magistrates to wit that offences may be repressed not onely those which are committed against the second Table but also against the first We doe agree and avouch that all men of what dignity condition or state soever they be ought to be subject to their lawfull Magistrates and pay unto them Subsidies and Tributes and obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the word of God Also they must poure out their prayers for them that God would vouchsafe to direct them in all their actions and that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life under them with all godlinesse and honesty We teach that it doth belong to the authority and duty of the Magistrate to forbid and if need be to punish such sinnes as are committed against the ten Commandements or the Law naturall as likewise to adde unto the Law naturall some other lawes defining the circumstances of the naturall Law and to keepe and maintaine the same by punishing the transgressors We hold that the lawes of the Realme may punish Christian men with death for heynous and grievous offences And that it is lawfull for Christian men at the command of the Magistrate to beare Arme and to serve in just warres All these things we doe sincerely really constantly faithfully and cheerfully yeeld unto and assert in behalfe of the civill Magistrate So that the cause which I now take in hand doth not depresse but exalt doth not weaken but strengthen Magistracy I doe not plead against
for Suspension scarce touched by M. Prynne That the power of Suspension is neither in the Minister alone nor unlimitted The question is practically stated by Aretius The present controversie how different from the Prelaticall The power desired to Elderships is not to judge mens hearts but to judge of externall evidences The distinction of converting and confirming Ordinances how necessary in this question Excommunication and Suspension confounded by M. Prynne as likewise by the Separatists contrary to the manner both of the Jewish Church and of the ancient and reformed Christian Churcheâ— M. Prynnes assertion concerning suspension is contrary to the Ordinances of Parliament The Question stated as it ought to be stated CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15 16 17. prove Excommunication THe Erastians cannot avoyd an argument ex consequenti from this Text for Excommunication although we should grant that the literall sence and direct intendment of the words is not concerning Excommunication Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the trespasse meant vers 15. is sometime known to more then one at first That the meaning is not of a civill personall injury but of a scandalous sinne whether there be materially a personall injury in it or not This confirmed by six reasons That if it were granted these words If thy brother trespasse against thee are understood of a personall injury this could be no advantage to the Erastian cause in six respects Erastus his Argument that the trespasse here meant is such as one brother may forgive to another answered That the Law of two or three witnesses belongeth to Ecclesiasticall as well as to civill Courts That Tell the Church here can not be Tell the civill Sanhedrin or Court of justice among the Jewes Of the meaning of these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican M. Prynnes Argument retorted That the Heathens might not enter into the Temple to wit into the Court of Israel but into the Intermurale they might come and worship That there is not the like reason for excluding Excommunicate persons wholly from our Churches Of Solomons porch That M. Prynne confoundeth the devout penitent Publican with the prophane unjust Publicans The Objection from the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray examined Publicans commonly named as the worst and wickedest of men Another objection Let him be to thee not to the whole Church as an Heathen c. discussed CHAP. III. A further demonstration that these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican are not meant of avoyding Civill but Religious or Church-fellowship THe great disorder and confusion which M. Pâ—…ynne his sence of this Text might introduce That it was not unlawfull to the Jewes to have civill company or fellowship with Heathens unlesse it were for religious respects and in case of the danger of an idolatrous insnarement which is cleared by a passage of Elias in Thesbyte In what sence Peter saith Acts 10. 28. that a Jew might not keepe company or come unto one of another Nation That the Jewes did keep civill and familiar fellowship with Ger toschav or Gerschagnar the proselyte indueller or the proselyte of the gate who yet was uncircumcised and no member of the Jewish Church nor an observer of the Law of Moses but onely of the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah Which cleareth the reason why the Synod of the Apostles and Elders who would not impose circumcision nor any other of the Mosaicall ceremonies upon the believing Gentiles did neverthelesse impose this as a necessary burthen upon them to abstaine from blood and things strangled Christians are permitted by Paul to eate and drinke with them that believe not Further proofes that some uncircumcised Heathens had civill fellowship with the Jewes and some circumcised Hebrews had not Ecclesiasticall communion with the Jewes The Question decided out of Maimonides That these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican doe imply somewhat negative and somewhat positive The negative part is that he must not be worse used in civill things than an Heathen man or Publican that Excommunication breaketh not naturall and morall duties neither is any civill fellowship at all forbidden to be kept with an Excommunicate person except under a spirituall notion and for spirituall ends not qua civill fellowship The positive part is that he must be used in the same manner as an Heathen man and a Publican in Spirituall things and in Church-communion Heathens five waies excluded from communion with the Jewes in the holy things Let him be as a Publican implieth two things more then Let him be as an Heathen but exclusion from some Ordinances was common both to Heathens and scandalous Publicans That the Phraisees speech concerning the Publican who went up to the Temple to pray sheweth that he was not esteemed a prophane Publican CHAP. IV. A Confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Matth. 18. 15 16 17. as likewise of Dr. Sutcliffe his Glosse differing somewhat from theirs THe scope of this Scripture wholly spirituall concerning the gaining of a brother from sin not civill concerning the prosecuting of a personall injury Rebuke for sinne a common Christian duty Which is necessary in sinnes committed against God rather than in injuries committed against man That any sinne by which thou art scandalized is a trespasse against thee The Erastian Interpretation of Matth. 18. makes it lawfull for one Christian to goe to law with another before an unbelieving Judge and so maketh Paul contrary to Christ. The same Interpretation restricteth the latter part of the Text to those Christians onely who live under an unbelieving Magistrate while it is confessed that the former part belongeth to all Christians It is contrary also to the Law of Moyses They contradict themselves concerning the coercive power of the Sanhedrin The gradation in the Text inconsistent with their sence The Argument of Erastus to prove that the words as a Publican are meant of a Publican qua Publican and so of every Publican examined Their exception Let him be TO THEE c. not to the whole Church answered three waies CHAP. V. That Tell it unto the Church hath more in it then Tell it unto a greater number THe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never given to any lawfull assembly simply because of majority of number This Interpretation provideth no effectuall remedy for offences Kahal by the Hebrews and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecians often used for an assembly of such as had Jurisdiction and ruling power Whether the two or three witnesses Matth. 18. 16. be onely witnesses or assistants in the admonition or whether the intention be that they shall prove the fact before the Church forensically if need be and whether two or three witnesses must be taken when the offence is known to him onely that gives the first rebuke discussed This their Interpretation brings a brother under the greatest yoke of
allowed not onely to worship God apart by themselves but also to come into the Church and Congregation of Israel and to be called by the name of Jewes neverthelesse they were resâ—rained and secluded from Dignities Magistracies and preferments in the Jewish Republique and from divers marriages which were free to the Israelites Even as strangers initiated and associated into the Church of Rome have not therefore the priviledge of Roman Citizens Thus M. Selden who hath thereby made it manifest that there was a disâ—iuction of the Jewish Church and Jewish State because those Proselytes being imbodied into the Jewish Church as Church members and having a right to communicate in the holy Ordinances among the rest of the people of God yet were not properly members of the Jewish State nor admitted to Civill priviledges Whence it is also that the names of Jewes and Proselytes were used distinctly Acts 2. 10. CHAP. III. That the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the Civill I Come to the second point that there was an Ecclesiasticall government and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jews This distinction of the two Sanhedrins the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall is maintained by Zepperus de polit eccles l. 3. cap. 7. Iunius in Deut. 17. Piscator ibid. Wolphius in 2. Reg. 23. Gerhard Harm de pass cap. 8. Gâ—…dwin Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 1. Bucerus de gubern eccl pag. 61 62. Walaeus Tom. 2. pag. 9. Pelargus in Deut. 17. Sopingius ad bonam fidem Sibrandi pag. 261. et seq The Dutch Annotations on Deut. 17. 2 Chron. 19. Bertramus de polit Jud. cap. 11. Apâ—…llonii jus Majest part 1. p. 374. Strigelius in 2. Paralip cap. 19. The professours of Groning Vide Judicium facult Theol. academiae Groninganae apud Cabeljav def potest Eccl. pag. 54. I remember Raynolds in the Conference with Hart is of the same opinion Also M. Paget in his defence of Church government pag. 41. Besides divers others I shall onely adde the Testimony of Constantinus L'Empereur a man singularly well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities who hath expressed himselfe concerning this point both in his Annotations upon Bertram pag. 389. and Annot. in Cod. Middoth pag. 187 188. The latter of these two passages you have here in the Margin expressing not only his opinion but the ground of it And it is no obscure footstep of the Ecclefiasticall Sanhedrin which is cited out of Elias by D. Buxtorf in his Lexicon Chald. Talmud Rabbin p. 1514. The first institution of an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin appeareth to me to be held forth Exod. 24. 1. where God saith to Moses Come up unto the Lord thou and Aaron Nadâ—… and Abihu and seventy of the Elders of Israel It is a controversie among Interpreters who those seventy Elders were Tostatus maketh it cleare that they were not the seventy Elders chosen for the government of the Common-wealth Num 11. Nor yet the Judges chosen by the advice of Iethro Exod. 18. Nor yet any other Judges which had before time Judged the people These three negatives Willet upon the place holdeth with Tostatus Not the first for this was done at Mount Sinai shortly after their comming out of Egypt But on the twenty day of the second moneth in the second yeere they tooke their journey from Sinai to the Wildernesse of Paran Num. 10. 11 12. and there pitched at Hibroth-hattaavath Num. 33. 16. where the seventy Elders were chosen to relieve Moses of the burthen of Government So that this election of seventy Exod. 24. was before that election of seventy Num 11. Not the second for this election of seventy Exod. 24. was before that election of Judges by Iethros advice Exod. 18. Iethro himselfe not having come to Moses till the end of the first yeere or the beginning of the second yeere after the comming out of Egypt and not before the giving of the Law which Tostatus proves by this argunent The Law was given the third day after they came to Sinai but it was impossible that Iethro should in the space of three daies heare that Moses and the people of Israel were in the wildernesse of Sinai and come there unto them that Moses should goe forth and meet him and receive him and entertaine him that Iethro should observe the manner of Moses his government in litigious judgement from morning till evening and give counsell to rectifie it that Moses should take course to helpe it how could all this be done in those three daies which were also appointed for sanctifying the people against the receiving of the Law Therefore he concludeth that the story of Iethro Exod. 18. is an anticipation Lastly he saith the seventy Elders mentioned Exod. 24. could not be Judges who did judge the people before Iethro came because Iethro did observe the whole burthen of government did lie upon Moses alone and there were no other Judges Now it is to be observed that the seventy Elders chosen and called Exod. 24. were also invested with authority in judging controversies wherein Aaron or Hur were to preside vers 14. They are joyned with Aaron Nadad and Abihu and are called up as a Representative of the whole Church when God was making a Covenant with his people T is after the Judiciall lawes Exod. 21. 22. 23. and that 24 Chapter is a transition to the ceremoniall lawes concerning the worship of God and structure of the Tabernacle which are to follow Neither had the seventy Elders of which now I speake any share of the Supreme civill Government to judge hard Civill causes and to receive appeals concerning those things from the inferiour Judges for all this did still lie upon Moses alone Num. 11. 14. Furthermore they saw the glory of the Lord and were admitted to a sacred banquet and to eat of the Sacrifices in his presence Exod. 24. 5 10 11. and were thereby confirmed in their calling All which laid together may seem to amount to no lesse then a solemne interesting and investing of them into an Ecclesiasticall authority The next proofe for the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedâ—in shall be taken from Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11 12. where observe 1. T is agreed upon both by Jewish and Christian Expositors that this place holds forth a supreme civill Court of Judges and the authority of the civill Sanhedrin is mainly grounded on this very Text. Now if this Text hold forth a superior civill Jurisdiction as is universally acknowledged it holds forth also a superior Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction distinct from the Civill For the Text carrieth the authority and sentence of the Priests as high as the authority and sentence of the Judges and that in a disjunctive way as two powers not one and each of them binding respectively and in its proper sphere 2. The Hebrew Doctors tell us of three kinds of causes which being found difficult were transmitted from the inferiour Courts to those at Ierusalem 1.
capitall causes 2. mulcts 3. leprosie and the judgement of clean or unclean Now this third belonged to the cognizance and judgement of the Priests Yea the Text it self holdeth forth two sorts of causes and controversies some forensicall between blood and blood some ceremoniall between stroke and stroke not onely Hierome but the Chaldee and Greek readeth between leprosie and leprosie Grotius noteth the Hebrew word is used for leprosie many times in one chapter Lev. 13. Plea and plea seemeth common to both there being difference of judgement concerning the one and the other 3. Here are two Iudicatories distinguished by the disjunctive Or V. 12. which we have both in the Hebrew Chaldee Greek and in our English Translation so that vers 9. and is put for or as Grotius noteth expounding that verse by vers 12. And as the Priests and Levites are put in the plurall V. 9. the like must be understood of the Iudge whereby we must understand Iudges and so the Chaldee readeth V. 9. even as saith Ainsworth many Captains are in the Hebrew called an head 1 Chron. 4. 42. And so you have there references of difficult cases from inferior Courts to the Priests or to the Judges at Ierusalem 4. There is also some intimation of a twofold sentence one concerning the meaning of the Law according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee V. 11. and this belonged to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. for the Priests it s not said the Judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth Another concerning matter of fact and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt do Grotius upon the place acknowledgeth a udgement of the Priests distinct from that of the Judges and he addâ—th a simile from the Roman Synod consisting of seventy Bishops which was consulted in weighty controversies But he is of opinion that the Priests and Levites did onely end avour to satisfie and reconcile the dissenting parties which if they did well if not that then they referred the reasons of both parties to the Sanhedrin who gave forth their decree upon the whole matter The first part of that which he saith helpeth me But this last hath no ground in the Text but is manifeâ—ly inconsistent therewith V. 12. The man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge even that man shall die Which proves that the judgement of both was supreme in suo genere that is if it was a controverâ—e ceremoniall between leprosie and leprosie or between clean and unclean Lev. 10. 9 10 11. Ezech. 22. 26. or dogmaticall and doctrinall concerning the sence of the Law and answering de Jure when the sence of the Law was controverted by the Iudges of the Cities then he that would not stand to the sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin whereof the high Priest was preâ—dent was to die the death But if the cause was criminall as between blood and blood wherein the nature or proofe of the fact could not be agreed upon by the Judges of the Cities then he that would not submit to the decree of the civill Sanhedrin at Iâ—…rusalem should die the death And thus the English Divines in their late annotations give the sence according to the disjunction V. 12. While the Priest bringeth warrant from God for the sentenee which he passeth in the cause of man Ezech. 44. 23 24. he that contumaciously disobeyeth him disobeyeth God Luke 10. 16. Matth. 10. 14. The cause is alike if the just sentence of a competent Judge be contemned in secular effaires In the third place we read that David did thus divide the Levites at that time eight and thirty thousand foure and twenty thousand of them were to set forward the work of the house of the Lord foure thousand were porters and foure thousand praised the Lord with instruments and six thousand of them were made some schoterim Officers and some schâ—…phtim Judges 1 Chro. 23. 4. Some understand by Schoterim Rulers or those who were over the charge To speak properly schophtim were those that gave sentence schoterim those that lookt to the execution of the sentence and to the keeping of the law like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Craecians for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another So 1 Chro. 26. 29. Chenaniah and his sonnes were for the outward businesse over Israel foâ—… Officers or Rulers or over the charge and Judges that is they were not tied to attendance and service in the Temple as the Porters and singers and those that did service about the Sacrifices Lights Washings and such like things in the Temple but they were to judge and give sentence concerning the law and the meaning thereof when any such controversie should be brought before them from any of the Cities in the Land They were not appointed to be Officers and Judges over the rest of the Levites to keepe them in order for which course was taken in another way but to be Rulers and Judges over Israel saith the Text in the outward businesse which came from without to Ierusalem in judging of which peradventure they were to attend by course or as they should be called If any say that all those Levites who were Judges did not sit in judgement at Ierusalem but some of them in severall Cities of the Land that there might be the easier accesse to them I can easily grant it and I verily believe it was so and it maketh the more for a Church government in particular Cities which was subordinate to the Ecclesiasticall Sanh dâ—in at Ierusalem However the Levites had a ruling power and Deut. 31. 28. those who are schoterim in the originall the Septuagints call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome Doctores because their Teachers were Officers over the charge and had a share in Government Now no man can imagine that there were no other Officers over the charge not Judges in Israel except the Levites onely for it followeth in that same Story â— Chro. 28. 1. And David assembled all the Princes of Israel the Princes of the Tribes and the Captains of the Companies that ministred to the King by course the Captains over the thousands c. Nor yet wil any man say that the Levites were Officers over the charge and Judges of the same kind in the same manner or for the same ends with the civill Rulers and Judges or the military Commanders or that there was no distinction between the ruling power of the Princes and the ruling power of the Levites Where then shall the difference lie if not in this that there was an Ecclesiasticall Government besides the Civill and Military I grant those Levites did rule and judge not onely in all the businesse of the Lord but also in the service of the King 1 Chro. 26. 30 32. But the reason was because the Jewes had no other civill
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex amicorum numero praeposuit Amasiam Sacerdotem ex Judae tribu Zebadiam saith Iosephus antiq l. 9. cap. 1. Erastus confesseth pag. 273. that both of them were Presidents set over the Sanhedrin and pag. 275. Si Sacerdotem in Dei nomine Zebadiam autem Regis praesedisse affirmetur non refragabor He confesseth also that the one was more especially to take care of the Lords matters the other of the Kings matters What then He saith they were Presidents both of them to the whole Sanhedrin not the one to one number and the other to another Yet in this he yeeldeth also p. 273. Quanquam non peccet forte qui Senatores hos per officia distributos diâ—…at ut alii magis haec alii magis illa negotia tractarint Whosoever denieth that that place proveth two distinct Courts he may be convinced from this one reason and I shall say to him in the words of Bildad Joâ—… 〈◊〉 8. Enquire I pray thee of the former age and prepare thy selfe to the sâ—…arch of their fathers and in the Prophets words Ierem. 2. 10. Passe over the Isles of Chittim and see and send unto Kedar and consider diligently and see if there be such a thing Where was it ever heard of that a Priest was President of a Couâ—t and that in sacred things and causes that a civill Magistrate was president of a Court and that in civill causes and yet not two Courts but one Court If both Courts had materially consisted of the same members of the same Priests and of the same fathers of Israel which yet cannot be proved this very diversification of the Presidents and of the subject matter if there were no more will prove two Courts formally distinct Even as now among our selves the same men may be members of two or three or foure or more Courts but the distinction of Presidents and of the subject matter maketh the Court distinct 6. Here were also Ecclesiasticall Officers vers 11. also the Levites shall be officers before you As before 1 Chro. 23. 26. some of the Levites were schophtim Judges to give sentence others schoterim officers to see that sentence put in execution and to cause those that were refractory to obey it so doe the Hebrews distinguish these two words so it was here also some of the Levites appointed to judge V. 8. some to doe the part of Officers in point of execution of Ecclesiasticall censures for they could not nor might not compell men by the civill Sword The same name is given to military Officers who prosecute the commands of authority Iosh. 1. 10. And so much of this fourth The fifth place which I take to hold forth that distinction of Courts and Jurisdictions is Ierem. 26 where first the Prophet is taken into the Court of the Priests and Prophets for which the Chaldee readeth Scribes whose office it was to be Doctors of the law and to resolve the difficult cases and in that capacity they were members of Ecclesiasticall councels Matth. 2. 4. To the same sence saith Diodati that the Prophets here spoken of were such as were learned in the law and had been bred in the Schooles and Colledges of the chiefe Prophets and in Jeremiahs time were present at Ecclesiasticall judgements and assemblies 2 Kings 23. 2. as in Christs 〈◊〉 Scribes and Doctors of the Law used to be who were somewhat like these Prophets Menochius and others expound it as the Chaldee doth In this Court Ieremiah was examined and judged as a false Prophet V. 8. 9. yet though they had judged him worthy to die the Court of the Princes acquitteth him as a Prophet of the Lord who had spoken to them in the name of the Lord V. 10 11 16. That Ieremiahs cause was twice judged in two distinct Courts and two different sentences upon it hath been asserted by divers of the Erastian party to prove appeales from Ecclesiasticall to Civill courts to which argument I have elsewhere spoken Onely I take here what they grant that there were two Courts and two sentencâ—s given and so it was The sentence of the Court of the Priests as themselves explaine it V. 11. was this This man is worthy to die or as the Hebrew hath it the judgement of death is for this man The Chaldee thus a sinne of the judgement of death is upon this man For say they he hath 〈◊〉 so and so and he that speaketh against this City and against this holy place is worthy to die But the sentence â—f the Court of the Princes is V. 16. This man is nâ—…t worthy to die for he hath spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God They doe not say to the Priests Who did put any jurisdiction or authority to judge in your hands but they acquit him in point of fact whom the Court of the Priests had condemned in point of right as if they had said to the Priests if Ieremiah were a false Prophet you had reason to call for justice upon him even unto death but your judgement hath runne upon a false supposition in point of fact which we doe not finde proved but know to be false Wherefore from this place these two things may appeare 1 That the Court of the Priests had not power of capitall punishments for if they had certainly Ieremiah had been put to death as Hierom noteth 2. Yet they had a power to judge of a false Prophet and judicially to pronounce him to be a false Prophet and such a one as ought to be punished so and so according to the Law That they had such a power appeareth 1. from V. 8 9. where they doe not take him to lead him to the Court of the Princes and there to â—ccuse him but they take him so as to give forth their owne sentence against him as against a false Prophet Thou shalt surely die say they why hast thou prophesied in the name of the Lord c. Why didst thou dare to pretend the name of God as if God had sent thee to preach against the Temple and holy City 2. Iâ—…remiah doth not in all his differences alledge that the Priests and Scribes had not power to judge of a false Prophet or to give sentence against one in such a case Nor yet did the Princes object this as hath been said yet this had been as strong an exception as could have been made against the Priests if they had assumed a power and authority of judgement which was without their Sphere and did not at all belong unto them 3. If you compare the sentence of the Priests with the sentence of the Princes the former is in suo genere no lesse judiciall authoritative and peremptory than the later onely that was affirmative this was negative Finally let us take for a conclusion of this Argument that which M r. Prynne himselfe in his fourth part of The Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes pag. 144. tels
us out of vindiciae contra Tyrannos with an approbatory and encomiastick close of his citation Ieremy being sent by God to denounce the overthrow of the City Jerusalem is for this first condemned citing in the Margin Ierem. 26. by the Priests and Prophets that is by the Ecclesiasticall Judgement or Senate after this by all the people that is by the ordinary Judges of the City to wit by the Captains of thousands and hundreds at last by the Princes of Judah that is by 71 men sitting in the new porch of the Temple his cause being made known he is acquitted The sixth place which intimateth an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin is Ierem. 18. 18. where the adversaries of Ieremiah say among themselves Come and let us dâ—…vise devices against Jeremiah for the Law shall not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise nor the word from the Prophet Come and let us smite him with the tongue The force of their argument as not onely our Interpreters but Maldonat also and Sanctius following Aquinas and Lyra tell us stands in this those who are of greatest authority in the Church the Priests Prophets and Elders with whom are the Oracles of truth doe contradict Ieremiah therefore he is a false Prophet But what was the ground of this consequence surely the ground was that which Bullinger and the late English Annotations doe observe namely the Popish error was also their error the Church cannot erre But let us yet follow the argument to the bottome How came they to thinke the Church cannot erre or what was that Church which they thought infallible No doubt they had respect to the Law of the Sanhedrin Deut. 17. 10 11 12. And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall â—…hoose shall shew thee and thou shalt observe to doe according to all that they enforme thee According to the senâ—…ence of the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt 〈◊〉 thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand or to the left And the man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Judge even that man shall die From this Scripture misapplyed they drew an argument against Ieremiah Wherein their meaning could not be this that the doctrine of every individuall Priest or of every individuall Scribe is infallible for as the Law now cited did speak of the Sanhedrin not of individuall Priests so neither the Jewes of old nor the Papists after them have drawn the conceited infallibility so low as to every particular Priest But they mean collectively and point at an assembly or councell of Priests Wise-men and Prophets which as they apprehended could not erre and whose determination they preferred to the word of the Lord by Ieremiah for the Law that is saith Menochius the interpretation of the Law can not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise Now this was an Ecclesiasticall not a civill Sanhedrin which may appeare thus First they doe not make mention of the Judge mentioned Deut. 17. where the Priest the Judge are distinguished onely they mention the Priest the Prophet for which the Chaldee hath Scribe which is all one as to the 〈◊〉 argument for we finde both Prophets and Scribes in Ecclesiasticall assemblies as was said before and the wise By the wise are meant those that were chiefe or did excell among the Scribes or Doctors of the Law So Grotius annot in Matth. â—3 34. and it may be collected from Ierem. 8. 8 9. This is certâ—ine that these wise men were Church-officers for as they are 〈◊〉 from the Judges Esay 3. 2. so Jesus Christ speaking of 〈◊〉 and other Ministers of the Gospel whom he was to send forth expresseth himselfe by way of allusion to the Ecclesiasticall Ministers of the Jewes Matth 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets and Wise men and Scribes which Luke ch 11. V. 49. hath thus I will send them Prophets and Apostles Secondly the civill Sanhedrin at this time did so far as we can finde contradict Ieremiah but when his cause came afterward before them Ierem. 26. they shew much favour and friendship to him Thirdly that which is added come and let us him smite with the tongue may be three waies read and every way it sutâ—th to the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin whether themselves be the speakers in the Text or whether the people be the speakers of it as of that which they would deâ—ire and move the Sanhedrin to doe in the name of them all either thus Let us smite him for the tongue that is for an Ecclesiasticall cause for false Doctrine Or thus Let us smite him in the tongue so the Septuagint and Arias Montanus that is Let us smite him with an Ecclesiasticall censure and silence him and discharge him to preach any more to the people Or thus Let us smite him with the tongue that is with an Ecclesiasticall sentence or declaration smite him not with the Sword which belonged onely to the civill Magistrate but with the tongue by declaring him to be a false Prophet and by determining the case de jure what ought to be done with him according to the Law Seventhly consider another place Ezech. 7. 26. Then shall they seek a vision of the Prophet but the Law shall perish from the Priest and counsell from the ancients Here againe these are to be lookt upon collectively and conjunctly not diâ—tributively and severally and this I prove from the Text it selfe not onely because the counsell here sought for was not to be given by one ancient but by the ancients yea iâ— was a principall part of the curse or judgement that counsell could not be had from an assembly of ancients or Elders suppose it might be had from some individuall Elders here or there but also because the Antithesis in the Text intimateth a disappointment in that thing which was sought after They shall seeke a vision from the Prophet or as the Chaldee hath it discipline from the Scribe This they shall not finde and why because the Law shall perish from the Priest and counsell from the Ancients It was therefore Consistoriall or Synedricall counsell Judgement or Disscipline which should be sought but should not be found So that though a Prophet of the Lord shall peradventure be found who can reveale the councell of the Lord in a time of generall defection like Micaiah contradicting the 400 Prophets yet an Ecclesiasticall counsell of Prophets Scribes Priests and Elders sometime Israels glory shall turn to be Israels shame and that assembly which did sometime respondere dâ—… jure and pronounce righteous judgement and give light in difficult cases shall doe so no more the very light of Israel shall be darknesse the law and counsell shall perish from them that is they
Diodati citing Ier. 26. 7. Secondly they shall not so much as come into the computation or numbring of the people as members of the Church of Israel 3. Nay they shall not be permitted to dwell in the holy Land or to returne thither from their captivity they shall not have so much favour as strangers had who might come into the holy Land and sojourne there In the first branch the word translated assembly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sod which properly signifieth a secret and is used for counsell because counsell ought to be secret or for the place of counsell or assembly of Counsellers Pagnin in his Thesaurus p. 1761. readeth this place with Hierome in consilio or otherwise saith he in concilio Vatablus in concilio populi mei non erunt The Septuagints read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is those Prophets shall have no hand in the Discipline of my people The same word they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea by both these put together Prov. 20. 19. where for the Hebrew sod the Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that revealeth the secret counsels in the Sanhedrin and it cohereth well with the preceding Verse where they mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governments Sometime they expound the word by an Episcopall I mean not Prelaticall inspection Iob 29. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was an overseer of my house So that so far as the Septuagints authority can weigh that place Ezek. 13. 9. must be understood of the secluding of those Prophets from the Sanhedrin not from the Civill in which the Prophets were not members but from the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin In the twelfth and last place the new Testament holds out to us an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin Whether the civill Sanhedrin was wholy taken away by Herod and another civill Sanhedrin not substitute in the place of that which he took away but the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin onely remaining as some hold or whether both did then continue though not so clearely distinct as others hold This we finde that there was an Ecclesiasticall government in the hands of Church-officers for 1. there was a councell of the Priests and Elders and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. 16. 21. 21. 23. 26. 57 59. 27. 1. 12. Marke 14. 43. Luke 22. 66. Acts 4. 5. The Centurists say that those Elders were joyned with the Priests in the government of the Church with Ecclesiasticall persons in Ecclesiasticall affaires Which hath been rightly taken for a president of our ruling Elders 2. That Councell is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22. 66. Acts 22. 5. the Presbytery or Eldership the very name which Paul gives to that assembly of Church-officers who ordained Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 14. is it credible that the Apostle would transfer the name of a civill Court to signifie an Assembly which was meerely Ecclesiasticall and not Civill The very use of the word in this sence by the Apostle tels us that in his age the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was taken in an Ecclesiasticall notion onely 3. This Councell did examine Iesus concerning his Disciples and his doctrine and received witnesses against him and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy Matth. 27. 57. Marke 14. 53 55. Ioh. 18. 19. Hence Protestant writers draw an argument against Papists to overthrow their infallibility of Councels unto which argument Bellarmine deviseth foure answers But it came not once into his thoughts to reply that this councell was civill not Ecclesiasticall which had been his best answer if any probability for it It hath been supposed both by Protestant and Popish Writers that it was an Ecclesiasticall Councell such as the controversie is about otherwise our Argument had been as impertinent as their answer was insufficient 4. Our opposites have no evasion here but that which Bilson Saravia and others of the Prelaticall party did answer in opposition to ruling Elders namely that the Jewish Elders were Judges or Magistrates But the reply which served then will serve now the Elders are plainly distinguished from Judges Rulers and Princes Ios. 8. 33. 23. 2. Deut. 5. 23. Iud. 8. 14. 2 Kings 10. 1 5. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. Tâ—…status on Deut. 21. 2. 22. 15 16. observeth the same distinction of Judges and Elders Pelargus on Deuâ—… 21. 2 3 4. observeth the like That which I say concerning the distinction of Judges and Elders may be confirmed by Halichoth Olam Tract 1. cap 3. The Judges of Soura M. Houna and D. Isaac The Iudges of Phoumbeditha M. Papa the sonne of Samuel c. The Elders of Soura M. Houna and M. Hisda The Elders of Phoumbeditha Ena and Abimi the sonne of Rahba And thus we are taught how to under and thâ—se Gemarick phrases of the Judges of such a place and the Eldâ—rs of such a place that we may not mistake them as if they were one 5. Some have also drawne a patterne for the constitution of Synods from that Councell Acts 4. 5 6. where we finde assembled together Rulers 〈◊〉 Elders Scriâ—es according to which patterne we have in our Synods 1. the civill 〈◊〉 to preside in the order of proceedings for preventing tumults injuries disorders and to assist and protect the Synod 2. Pastors of Churches 3. Doctors from universities answering to the Scribes or Doctors of the Law 4. Ruling Elders who assist in the Government of the Church 6. After that Iudaea was redacted into a Province and the Romans having keptin their owne hands not only the power of life and death Iohn 18. 31. but all judgement in whatsovever civill or criminall offences falling out among the Jews meant by matters of wrong or wicked leudness Acts 18. 14. And having left to the Jewes no government nor any power of judgement except in things pertaining to their religion onely Ib. verse 15. These six things considered it is very unprobable if not unpossible that the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes mentioned so often in the New Testament should be no Ecclesiasticall Court but a temporall and civill Magistracy The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. reckon that Councell for an Ecclesiasticall Court distinct from civill Magistracy and they propose these two to be distinctly treated of Acta coram Pontificibus seu Magistratu Ecclesiastico and here they bring in the councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes And Actio coram Pilato seu magistratu politico I know Erastus lib. 3. cap. 2. aud lib. 4. cap. 4. though he confesse plainly that the Jewish Sanhedrin mentioned in the Gosspell and in the Acts of the Apostles had onely power of judging causes belonging to Religion and that the Romans did leave them no power to judge of civill injuries yet he holdeth that in these causes of Religion the Sanhedrin had power not onely of imprisoning and scourging but even of death it selfe And so endeavours to make it a temporall or civil Magistracy which
that is that he who unjustly excommunicateth another shall be himselfe excommunicated So the excommunicating of the one man for a civill injury was declared null and the excommunicating of the other for his unjust act of excommunication was ratified Which doth not onely prove what I have said of private or extrajudiciall excommunication but also confirme what I asserted before concerning the causes of excommunication that it was not for personall or civill injuries but for matter of scandall And that pecuniary mulcts and excommunication were not inflicted for the same but for different causes And so much for the authority The effects of excommunication were these He might not be admitted into an Assembly of ten persons He might not sit within foure cubits to his neighbour He might not shave his hair nor wash himself It was not lawfull to eat nor drinke with him He that dyed in excommunication got no Funerals nor was there any mourning made for him but a stone was set over him to signifie that he was worthy to be stoned because he did not repent and because he was separated from the Church An excommunicate person might not make up the number of ten where there were nine The reason was because he might not be acknowledged for a Church Member or one who could make up a lawfull Assembly Drusius de tribus sectis Judaeorum lib. 3. cap. 11. draweth two consequences from that excommunication of the Cuthites before mentioned 1. That it was not lawfull for a Jew to eat bread with a Samaritan 2. That the Samaritans were cut off from the Jewish Church and that without hope of regresse being Shammatized It is more disputable how farre forth Excommunication did deprive a man of the liberty of accesse into the Temple The Talmudists hold that of old an Excommunicate person might enter into the Temple yet so as he might be known that he was Excommunicate It is said in Pirke Rabb Elieser cap. 17. that Solomon built two Gates one for Bride-grooms another for Mourners and Excommunicated persons and when the Children of Israel sitting between these two Gates upon the Sabbath-dayes and Holy-dayes did see a Bride-groome come in they knew him and did congratulate with him but when they saw one come in at the doore of the mourners having his Lips covered they knew him to be a mourner and said He that dwells in this house comfort thee But when they saw one come in at the doore of mourners with his Lips not covered they knew him to be Excommunicated and spake to him on this manner He that dwells in this house comfort thee and put into thy minde to hearken unto thy Neighbours The like you have in codice Middoth cap. 2. Sect. 2. where it is said that ordinarily all that came into the Temple did enter upon the right hand and they went out upon the left hand those excepted to whom some sad thing had befallen and when it was asked of such a one why dost thou enter upon the left hand he either answered that he was a mourner and then it was said to him He that dwells in this house comfort thee or he answered because I am Excommunicate so readeth Buxtorf or quia ego contaminatus rejicior so readeth l' Empereur and then it was said to him He that dwells in this house put into thy minde to hearken to the words of thy companions that they may restore thee The same thing is cited e libro Musar by Drusius praeter lib. 4. in Jo. 9. 22. His opinion is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were separate and excommunicate by the lesser excommunication were admitted into the Temple in the manner aforesaid but that they were not admitted into the Synagogue because it s added in libro Musar which I finde also added in the fore-mentioned place of Pirke R Elies that after the temple was destroyed it was decreed that Bride-grooms and Mourners should come into the Synagogues and that they in the Synagogue should congratulate with the one condole with the other Behold saith Drusius no mention here of excommunicate persons for they did not come into the Synagogues Peradventure every Excommunicate person had not accesse to the Temple neither but he that was extrajudicially or by private persons excommunicate as those words might seeme to intimate He that dwells in this house put into thy mind to hearken to thy neighbours or companions that they may restore thee Or if you take it to extend to judiciall excommunication then Hen. Vorstius doth expound it animad in Pirke p. 169. so as it may be understood onely of the lesser excommunication when there was still hope of repentance and reconciliation So Io. Coch. ubi supra pag. 149. thinks that an excommunicate person was not altogether cast out of the Synagogue but was permitted to heare and to be partaker of the Doctrine but otherwise and in other things he was separate and not acknowledged for a Church Member and this he saith of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 menudde of him that was simply excommunicate by the lesser excommunication or Niddui But he saith otherwise of him that was excommunicate with Cherem Non docet non docetur He is neither permitted to teach nor to be taught Grotius on Luke 6. 22. tells us that excommunicate persons under Niddui came no otherwise to the Temple than Heathens did that is had no liberty to come into the Court of Israel However such as were excommunicate by Cherem were not permitted to come neere the Temple saith Master Weemse in his Christian Synag p. 138. An excommunicate person of the first sort Niddui when he came to the Temple or Synagogue you see by what hath been said he was there publikely bearing his shame and looked upon as one separate from the Communion of the people of God And so much for the effects The end of Excommunication was spirituall that a sinner being by such publike shame and separation humbled might be gained to repentance and thereby his soule saved which is the end of Church Discipline not of civill censures The Court waited 90. dayes upon his Repentance and did not proceed to Cherem except in case of his continuing impenitency when all that time he gave no signe of repentance nor sought absolution From all that hath been said I hope it 's fully manifest that the Jewish excommunication was an Ecclesiasticall censure and not as Master Prynne would have it a civill excommunication like to an outlary at Common Law I conclude with a passage of Drusius de Tribus Sectis Judaeorum lib. 4. cap. 22. concerning the Essaeans who did most religiously retaine the Discipline of Excommunication Jus dicturi inter se congregantur centum viri qui eos quos deprehenderint reos improbos expellunt e caetu suo These words he citeth out of Salmanticensis Being to Judge or give sentence among themselves a hundreth men are gathered together who doe
of baptizing thus I baptize thee in the name of Iesus Christ. But I spake of the action not of the expression even as in the other instance I gave our assembling together is in the name of Christ though we do not say in terminis We are now assembled in the name of Christ. In baptisme Christ doth not command us to say either these words I baptize thee in the Name of Christ or these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost but we are commanded to do the thing both in the name of Christ as Mediator and in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost But in different respects A minister of Christ doth both preach and baptize in the name of Christ as Mediator that is vice Christi in Christs stead and having authority for that effect from Christ as Mediator for Christ as Mediator gave us our commission to preach and baptize by Mr. Husseys confession So that to preach and baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we find both of preaching Luk. 24 47. and of baptizing Act. 2. 38. comprehendeth a formall commission power and authority given and derived from Christ I say not that it comprehendeth no more but this it doth comprehend But when Christ biddeth us baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto or into or in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. this doth relate to the end and effect of baptisme or the good of the baptized if we understand the words properly not the authority of the baptizer as if a formall commission were there given him from the Father Son and holy Ghost So that to baptize one in or unto the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost is properly meant both of sealing the parties right and title to the enjoyment of God himself as their God by covenant and their interest in the love of God the grace of Christ and the communion of the holy Ghost and of dedicating the party to the knowledge profession saith love and obedience of God the Father Son and holy Ghost I return The next branch of my Argument was that we excommunicate in the name of Christ 1 Cor. 5 5. Mr. Hussey pag. 22. saith I make great hast here deliver to Sathan saith he is not to excommunicate c. But grant that it were excommunication c. the decree was Pauls and not the Corinthians What is meant by delivering to Sathan belongs to another debate Call it an Apostolicall act or call it an Ecclesiasticall act or both yet it was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the like whereof we find not in Scripture of any act of the civil Magistrate Why doth he not attend to the drift of the Argument And as to his exceptions they are no other then Prelats Papists and Socinians have made before him and which are answered long agoe That the Apostle commandeth to excommunicate the incestuous man is acknowledged by Mr. Prynne That he who is excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Sathan is undeniable for he that is cast out of the Church whose sins are retained on whom the Kingdom of heaven is shut and locked whom neither Christ nor his Church doth owne is delivered to Sathan who reignes without the Church That this censure or punishment of excommunication was a Church act and not an Apostolicall act onely may thus appear 1. The Apostle blameth the Corinthians that it was not sooner done he would not have blamed them that a miracle was not wrought 2. He writeth to them to do it when they were gathered together not to declare or witnesse what the Apostle had done but to joyne with him in the authoritative doing of it vers 4. 5. again he saith to them vers 7. Purge out therfore the old leaven vers 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within vers 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked person 3. It was a censure inflicted by many 2. Cor. 2. 6 not by the Apostle alone but by many 4. The Apostle doth not absolve the man but writeth to them to forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. Lastly the Syriack maketh for us which runneth thus vers 4. That in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you all may be gathered together and I with you in the Spirit with the power of our Lord Iesus Christ vers 5. That you may deliver him to Sathan c. But now at last Mr. Hussey comes home and gives this answer to my third Argument A thing may be said to be done in the name of Christ or of God when men do any thing in confidence that God will assist us so Psal. 20 5. In the name of our God will we set up our banners in confidence God will assist us Thus I hope the Parliament and other Christians may undertake the businesse in the name of Christ c. Secondly In the name of Christ a thing is said to be done that is done in the authority room and place of Christ c. So he pag. 24. seeking a knot in the rush In the first part of his distinction he saith nothing to my Argument neither saith he any more of the Parliament then agreeth to all Christians the poorest and meanest for every Christian servant every Christian Artificer is bound to do whatsoever he doth in the name of Christ Colos. 3. 17. But what is that to the Argument Come to the other member of his distinction The Ministers of Christ do act in the name of Christ that is in the authority room and place of Christ We are Ambassadors for Christ and we preach in Christs stead 2 Cor. 5. 20. This he doth not nor cannot denie which makes good my Argument Why did he not shew us the like concerning Magistracy I suppose he would if he could this is the very point which he had to speak to but hath not done it My fourth Argument against the Magistrates holding of his office of and under and for Christ that is in Christs room and stead as Mediator shall be that which was drawn from Luk. 12. 14. The Jewes were of the same opinion which Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hussey have followed namely that civil government should be put in the hands of Christ which they collected from Ier. 23. 5. He shall execute justice and judgement in the earth and such other Prophecies by them mis-understood And hence it was that one said to Christ Master Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me Our Lords answer was Man who made me a Judge or a divider over you Whatsoever act of authority is done by a Deputy or Vicegerent as representing his Master and Soveraigne may be done by the King himself when personally present If therefore the Magistrate judge civil causes and divide inheritances as the Vicegerent of Christ and of Christ as Mediator then Christ himself when present in the dayes of his flesh had power as Mediator to
this were Matth. 7. 6. 2 Thess. 3. 6 14 15. 1 Cor. 11. 27 to the end of the Chapter compared with Iude vers 23. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Another proofe added by the Assembly was this There was power and authority under the Old Testament to keep unclean persons from holy things Levit. 13. 5. Num. 9. 7. 2 Chro. 23. 19. And the like power and authority by way of analogy continues under the new Testament for the authoritative suspension from the Lords Table of a person not yet cast out of the Church Now that which was the strength of the Assemblies proofes of the proposition M r Prynne hath almost never touched but run out upon other particulars Thirdly observe that he disputes all along whether any Minister can suspend one from the Sacrament But this no body that I know asserts The power is given not uni but unitati to the Eldership not to any one either Minister or Elder Fourthly that which in the Preface of his Queres he undertakes to prove is that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacrament being a matter of great moment and much difficulty is to be handled and established with great wisdom caution and moderation And his result in the close is concerning a limited jurisdiction in Presbyteries As these things are not denied by any that I know so himselfe manifestly acknowledgeth by these expressions the thing it selfe for the substance which yet the current of his debate runneth againstâ— and onely questioneth concerning the bounds cautions and limitations God forbid that Church-officers should ever claim an unlimited power their power is given them to edification and not to destruction and we can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth 2 Cor. 13. 8 10. The power of censures must not be in the power of any one man nor in the power of any who are themselves scandalous and worthy of censure There must be no sentence of Excommunication or suspension upon reports surmises suspitions but either upon the confession of the offence or proofe thereof by two witnesses at least None must be excommunicated nor suspended for money matters debts and such like civill causes which are not of Ecclesiasticall cognizance but are to be Judged by the civill Judge It must not be for those peccata quotidianae incursionis such sinfull infirmities as all the godly in this life are guilty of though on the other side the scandalous sinnes meant of in this controversie must not be restricted to such sinnes onely as can not stand with the state of grace These and such like limitations we doe not onely admit of but desire to be put Fifthly he goeth about to cleare the state of the question out of Aretius and citeth him for what himself now undertaketh to prove Whereas Aretius holds Excommunication to be an ordinance of God both in the Old and New Testament and that it was wanting through the injury and corruption of the times the abuse of it in Popery having made the thing it self hatefull and the most part in those places where he lived loving carnall liberty so well and taking upon them the protection and defence of prophane ones and being so unwilling to be brought under the yoke of Christ. For these and the like reasons he thought it not expedient to have that discipline of Excommunication erected at that time in those parts as himselfe gives the reasons and he professeth withall that he doth not despaire of better times when men shall be more willing to submit to that discipline So that this is the question if it shall be stated out of Aretius Whether Excommunication being an Ordinance of God ought to be setled where prophanesse and licentiousnesse abounds and where the better party is like to be oppressed by the greater party or whether we should wait till God send better times for the setling of it Sixthly the Author of those questions maketh a parallel between that power of censures now desired to be setled in Presbyteries and the Prelaticall tyranny as if this were the very power which heretofore was declaimed against in denied to and quite taken away from the Prelates Yea in the close he makes this power now desired to be setled in Presbyteries to be such as our very Lordly Prelates never durst to claime Yet Ecclesiae Anglicanae politeia in tabulas digesta authore Richardo Cousin Tab. 5. tels me that the Episcopall Jurisdiction did exercise it selfe in these censures which were common both to Lay-men and Clergy-men as they were called 1. Interdictio divinorum 2. Monitio 3. Suspensio vel ab ingressu Ecclesiae vel a perceptione Sacramentorum 4. Excommunicatio 5. Anathematisinius c. Neverthelesse there is a truth too in that which M r Prynne saith I confesse the Prelates never durst desire that which this learned and pious Assembly hath desired in this particular He hath said it The Prelats never durst indeed take upon them to suspend all scandalous persons from the Sacrament for if they had it had been said unto most of them Physitian cure thy selfe besides the losing of many of their party And moreover the very Lordly Prelates never durst make themselves to be but members of Presbyteries nor to be subject to the admonitions and censures of their brethren which every Minister now must doe The Lordly Prelate did contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ make himselfe Pastor of many Congregations even of his whole Diocesse and did assume sole and whole power of Government and Church censures to himself and his underling officers which were to execute the same in his name And as the appropriating of Jurisdiction to the Lordly Prelate so the manner and kind of his Government and his proceedings in Ecclesiasticall censures came neither from Christ nor from the purest antiquity but from the Popes Canon Law What then hath Presbytery to doe with Prelacy as much as light with darknesse or righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse He that would see more of the differences between Presbyteriall and prelaticall Government let him read a Book Printed in the Prelates times entituled The Pastor and the Prelate And the cleere Antithesis between Presbytery and Prelacy Printed at London anno 1644. See also what I have said before Book 2. Chap. 3. 7. It is evident by his fourth Question that he states the case as if Ministers meant to know the secrets of all mens hearts and to be so censorious and peremptory in their Judging as to quench the smoaking Flax or to break the bruised Reed Thereupon he askes whether the Sacrament may be denyed to a man if he desires to receive it in case he professe his sincere Repentance for his sinnes past and promise newnesse of life for the time to come God forbid we be censorious peremptory and rigid in our judging of mens spirituall Estate where there is any thing of Christ it s to be cherished not quenched But again God forbid that we shut our eyes to
Amici vitia si feras faeias tua And whereas the Erastian take much hold of the words against thee If thy Brother trespasse against thee I have before answered that any sinne against God which is committed in my sight hearing or knowledge and so becommeth a scandall or stumbling Block to me is a trespasse committed against me because he that ought to edifie me doth scandalize me So that the words against thee are added to signifie not a civill injury bnt rather a spirituall injury or scandall Augustine regul 3. in fine Tom. 1. applieth the rule and method of proceeding mentioned Mat. 18. to lascivious or adulterous behaviour which one Brother observing in another ought to admonish him first secretly then to take witnesses then to tell the Church and if he be contumacious de vestra societate projiciatur let him be cast out of your society saith he and the context carrieth it to any scandall whereby one Brother scandalizeth another whereof much was spoken in the preceding part of the Chapter Erastus pag. 154. Scopus Christi est in hoc capite docere quantum malum sit scandalum The scope of Christ is in this Chapter to teach how great an evill scandall is Wherefore I adhere to the resolution of Tostatus in Math. 18. quaest 84 sive sit peccatum directè contra deum sive contra proximum si fit nobis scientibus fit contra nos cum nos scandalizet Both Chrysostome and Theophilact upon Math. 18. 15. observe this cohesion that Christ having before spoken against those that give scandall now he gives a rule to the person scandalized Thirdly that exposition which now I argue against tendeth to make one Scripture contradict another and to make that lawfull by one Scripture which another Scripture makes unlawfull even some of themselves being Judges They so expound Matth. 1 S. that they make it lawfull and as such allowed by Christ himself for a Christian to pursue his Brother for a civill injury before Infidell or Heathnish Judges even as he would pursue an Heathen or Infidell if such an one had done him the in ury Erast saith freely yet foully that if a Congregation of the faithfull be under the Turke or the Pope one of them may pursue another for an injury when the offender will not hearken to his own Assembly before those Judges who are aliens and Enemies to the true Religion His exposition of Matth. 18. doth plainly lead hereunto So saith Bishop Bilson a great follower of Erastus in this debate upon Matth. 18. in the place before cited let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a publican that is pursue him in those courts where thou wouldest a Pagan and Publican that should do thee wrong But how doth this agree with 1 Cor. 6. the place which Erastus thes 41. conceiveth to be a Commentary upon Matth. 18. doth not the Apostle expressely condemne it as being utterly a fault that one brother went to Law with another for the things of this life or civill causes before the unjust and unbeleevers Nay let us heare Bishop Bilson himself in that very place Paul saith he by no means permitted them to pursue their Brethren at the Tribunals of Infidels What then will they set Paul against Christ or will they make 1 Cor. 6. contrary to Matth. 18. As for that whereby Erastus would reconcile this difference it is as good as nothing He saith pag. 183. that Paul requireth them to referre to arbitrators within the Church it self only the smallest matters and things pertaining to this life but not crimes or weighty matters which he would reserve to the Magistrates otherwise he had detracted much from those to whom he every where commandeth to give obedience And so saith he that which Paul saith is nothing but what Christ saith Tell the Church Besides Paul himself appealed to Cesar. let all men judge saith he whether the Apostle would make it unlawfull to other wronged persons which he thought lawfull for himself I answer 1. If it was a shame and foule scandall for Christians to pursue one another for smaller matters pertaining to this life how much more for crimes and weightier matters for then the unbeleevers might cast the heavier load of reproaches upon the Christian religion 2. This might have opened a door to elude that which the Apostle so earnestly presseth for one would be ready to say this cause of mine is a weighty one it is an injury and crime that can not be born therefore I am free to pursue it before unbelievers Whereas the Apostle saith Why do ye not rather take wrong why doe ye not rather suffer your selves to be defrauded 3. The judging of the smallest matters and of the things pertaining to this life is by the Apostle opposed not to weighty civill injuries but to the judging of the world and of Angells as is manifest by the Antithesis in the Text. But he maketh no intimation of the least distinction of civill injuries as if some might be pursued before unbeleiving Judges some not he speaketh generally vers 1. Dare any of you having a matter against another vers 4. If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life vers 7. Why doe ye not rather take wrong 4. If that which Paul saith be the same with that which Christ saith Tell the Church and if it was Pauls mind that he who would not hearken to chosen arbitrators among the Saints might be pursued before the unbeleiving Judges as Erastus tells us both here and Thes. 47. then Tell the Church cannot be meant of telling the Magistrate of the same religion for Paul sends them to no Christian Magistrate because there was none such then and there but to arbitrators chosen among the Saints T is most strange to me that so acute a disputant could expound the Telling of the Church Matth. 18. by the reference to arbitrators 1. Cor. 6. and yet understand the Church Matth. 18. to be the civill Magistate 5. There might be subjection and obedience to the Heathen Magistrates although the Saints should not go to Law one against another before them 6. Paul did but appeal from Caesars Deputy to Caesar himself He was drawne by the Jewes before the Tribunall of Festus wherein Paul was a sufferer and finding Festus unjust and partiall and that he endeavoured to deliver him to the Jewes who had a mind to have him put to death thereupon he appealeth from Festus to Caesar. So that if Erastus had made the paralell right all that he could conclude from Pauls example had been this that when a Christian is drawne and compelled by his accusers and Enemies not being Christians before the Tribunall of an inferiour Heathen Judge if he there find himself in danger of his life he may appeale in his just defence to an higher Heathen Judge Wherefore I yet conclude that by the Erastian principles Christ and Paul cannot be reconciled These three Arguments doe
militate not onely against Erastus and Bilson but likewise against Sutlivius de Presb. Cap. 9. where he gives this sence of Matth. 18. 15 16 17. that we ought to take heed we give no scandall in the pursuing of injuries and for that end ought to give admonition first privately then before witnesses and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury to tell the Rulers of the Church meaning the Prelates and if he will not hear them then to go to Law with that Brother as with an Heathen or Publican The other Arguments which are to follow the last excepted strike not at his Interpretation but at those other Glosses of Erastus Bilson and Master Prynne Fourthly this Erastian exposition makes these words but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican to be applicable onely to such Christians as live under unbelieving Magistrates and not to all Christians This consequence Erastus foresaw that it would needs follow from his Interpretation therefore he plainly owneth it Thes. 47. He confesseth that the former part concerning rebuking and seeking to gaine the offending Brother belongs to all Christians What a boldnesse is here to rent asunder this passage of Scripture which was uttered as it were with one breath And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians Must Christians that live under an Infidell Magistrate have more effectuall meanes and wayes to use towards an offending Brother and may they go a step further in putting him to shame or in humbling him then those Christians can doe who live under a Christian Magistrate How well doth this hang together I should have thought the ballance must rather fall to this hand But to make the condition of those who live under a Christian Magistrate to be more privative and the condition of those who live under an Infidell Magistrate to be more cumulative is too great a paradoxe for me Sixthly Whereas they say that the way prescribed by Christ Matth. 18. is such as is agreeable to the Law of Moses and they understand by Tell the Church Tell the Magistrate I aske what Magistrate If the Judges and Magistrates of the Cities as Bishop Bilson thinkes then he who did not hearken to those Judges might appeale to the great Sanhedrin at Hierusalem or the Judges themselves might referre and transmit the case thither so that the man was not to be straight way accounted as an Heathen man and a Publican But if by the Church they understand the great Sanhedrin it self he that would not hearken to it was to be put to death by the Law Deut. 17. So that it had not been agreeable to the Law of Moses to teach that he who will not hearken to the great Sanhedrin is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican for this supposeth that he shall not dye but be suffered to live Seventhly the Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves For both Erastus Bishop Bilson and Master Prynne hold that he Jewish Sanhedrin in Christs time was a temporall Magistracy and a civill Court of justice which had power to scourge imprison torture and outlaw offenders yea to put to death as the first two doe positively averre How then can it be said If he neglect to heare the Church c. that is if he neglect to heare the civill Magistrate who hath power to imprison scourge torture outlaw yea to put him to death Surely if he neglect to heare the Church doth intimate that the Church hath not used nor cannot use any externall coercive power Erastus findes himselfe so mightily puzled with this difficulty that to make out his interpretation of Matth. 18. he confesseth Thes. 53. and confirm Thes. lib. 2. cap. 2. the Jewish Sanhedrin had no power under the Romans to judge of civill causes and injuries but of things pertaining to their religion onely so that at that time saith he a man might impune without punishment contemne the judgement of the Sanhedrin in civill things And thus while he seeketh a Salvo for his Glosse upon Matth. 18. he overthroweth the great argument by which he and his followers endeavour to prove that there was no other Sanhedrin in Christs time but a civill Court of justice because say they that Sanhedrin had the power of the Sword and other temporall punishments Eighthly observe the gradation in the Text 1. a private conviction or rebuke 2. Conviction before two or three witnesses 3. Conviction before the Church and the Churches declaring the thing to be an offence and commanding the offender to turn from his evill way 4. If he will not heare the Church which implieth that the Church hath spoken and required him to doe somewhat which he refuseth to doe then Let him be as an Heathen man and a Publican This last is heavier then all that went before and is the punishment of his not hearing the Church now this gradation is in consistent with the Interpretation which Erastus giveth for by his owne confession the Sanh drin of the Jewes at that time had not power to judge of civill causes nor to punish any man for a civill injury but for a matter of religion onely yet they are not matters of Religion but civill trespasses which he understands to be meant Matth. 18. Here is an intercision in the third step of the gradation And if it were an offence in the matter of religion it had not been a greater punishment but a greater ease to the offender to draw him before the Roman tribunals for the Romans cared for none of those things of which the Jewish Sanhedrin was most zealous The gradation in the Text is as inconsistent with M r Prynnes interpretation for imagine the offender to be after previous admonitions publiquely accused and convict before the Church that is in his opinion the civill Court of justice which had power to imprison scourge torture and outlaw offenders if not to condemne and put to death what should be done with such an one can we goe no higher yes thus it is in M r Prynnes sence He that will not submit to the Magistrate and cannot be reduced by stripes and imprisonment torturing and outlawing yea peradventure by condemnation to die the death let this be the last remedy for such an one Let him be unto thee as an beathen man and a Publican that is withdraw familiar civill company from him Ninthly that interpretation of Erastus leaneth to a false supposition namely that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Publican are meant universally of all Publicans good or bad or whatever they were To prove this he takes an argument pag. 189 190 195. from the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for with the Grecians saith he the Article being joyned to the predicate noteth the nature and consequently the universality of the thing whence he concludeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth
In the old Testament the originall giveth the name Kahal Church which is the word used in the Hebrew Evangel of Matthew published by Munsterus chap. 18. vers 17. and the Septuagints the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Elders and Rulers of Israel as 1 Chro. 13. 2. 4. 29. 1. 2 Chro. 1. 3. and in other places And that which is said of the Elders Deut. 19. 12. Iâ—…sh 20. â— is said of the Congregation or Church Num. 35. 24. Ios. 20. 6. So Exod. 12. 3. compared with vers 21. The Septuagints also render Kahal by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 26. 26. It was not therefore to any assembly but to an assembly of rulers that causes were brought in the old Testament If we turne to the Heathen Grecians among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had a power of jurisdiction to judge and determine causes as is manifest from Acts 19. 38. 39. There 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was of two sorts as Suidas Budaeus Stephanus and others have observed 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lawfull set fixed assembly which met at ordinary diets which is meant in that place of the Acts last cited It was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the jurisdiction and ruling power which was seated in it Wherein I am confirmed by this passage of Aristotle polit lib. 3. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the assembly saith he hath the government or arbitrement of all such things He is speaking of the choosing of Magistrates and of craving an account of their administration 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was indicted and called pro re nata upon some urgent extraordinary cause and it was concio magnatum sâ—…ve optimatum in which the people were not present as in the other It was therefore rightly noted by Passor that Demosthenes useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro concione magnatum Afterward the Roman Senate was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an adjection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore among the Heathen Grecians from whom the word came was not any assembly but an assembly which had a jurisdiction or ruling power It shall not be in vaine to adde that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appeale to a superiour Ruler commeth from the same originall verbe from which commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. The Church mentioned Matth. 18. 17. hath a forensicall or juridicall power as appeareth by that of the two or three witnesses vers 16. which relateth to a Juridicall proceeding in the trying and punishing of offences as M. Prynne hath observed Peradventure some man will say that the two or three witnesses here are brought in onely to be witnesses to the admonition or to make the admonition the more effectuall and the more to be regarded but not as if any use were to be made of these witnesses to prove the fact or offence it selfe before the Church if there be occasion I answer either it must be supposed here that the trespasse was seen or knowne onely by him that gives the first rebuke privately or that it was also seen or known by those two or three witnesses If the former it is much disputed among Schoolmen whether he that rebukes his offending brother be to proceed any further than a private rebuke for a private offence or whether he is to stop at private rebukes and not to take witnesses with him which divers thinke to be unfit and disallowed as being an officious and unnecessary irritation of the offending brother by the spreading of his shame a making of a private sinne to become scandalous to others as likewise an engaging of witnesses to assist in the admonition and rebuke by a blinde and implicite faith for my part I shall not need here to dispute this point for what ever ought to be done or ought not to be done in this case when the trespasse is known to one onely yet in the other case when besides him that rebukes there are two or three more which can be witnesses of the fact or trespasse committed the trespasse being yet not publiquely divulged it can not be denied that these witnesses of the fact are to be brought unto and confronted with the offender when he cannot be gained by private rebuke and if need be prove it afterward before the Church Which I have before noted out of Durand And Aegidius de Coninck tels us in whatsoever other case witnesses are to be taken or are not to be taken in this case all doe consent that witnesses are to be taken Concerning the taking of witnesses when the trespasse is known to me alone there are three different opinions 1. That when I have rebuked the offender privately and cannot gaine him I am to proceed no further but have done my duty and must leave the event to God 2. That when a secret admonition is not effectuall witnesses are to be taken in case the offender so admonished continue in his sinne or in case his relapse be feared and expected that the witnesses may observe such continuing or relapse in sinne and then assist and joyne in rebuking him and if need be that is in case of his contumacy to prove the fact before the Church 3. That even when his continuance or relapse in sinne can not be observed and so can not be afterward proved by witnesses yet the second admonition is to be given before witnâ—sses when the first admonition given privately hath not gained the offender Of these let the Reader judge T is enough for the point now in hand that when witnesses can be had to prove the trespasse committed they ought to be brought first before the offender and then if he continue obstinate before the Church to prove the fact and they must be three or two at the least which I doe not see how it can be thought necessary if we suppose that the sinne is not known to any but to me alone who give tho first rebuke for if there must be a witnesse of my second admonition why may not one witnesse joyn with me as well as two when I can not have two but one onely willing and ready to â—oyn with me But now a necessity of precept lies on me that I must have two witnesses at least which cannot be otherwise understood but in reference to a forensicall proceeding afterwards if need be 5. That interpretation which now I speak against while it goeth about to avoyd a power of Jurisdiction and Censure in this Text it doth subject him that is reproved by another to a heavier yoke and brings him into a greater servitude For though a man be not disobedient nor contumacious unto any Court Civill or Ecclesiasticall yet if he doth not hearken to such a number as the party offended shall declare the case unto being a greater number then two or three he must be by and by esteemed and avoyded as
was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or it was a white stone by which they did loose remit and absolve and that stone was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the thing that Tully calleth Solvere crimine So where it is said her iniquity is pardoned Isa. 40. 2. the 70 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her iniquity is loosed And because there is usually some kind of expiation before a loosing and remitting of sinnes which expiation being performed the loosing follows therefore the Graecians called such necessary and râ—quisit expiation by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is loosing and they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they expiatory Gods who did chiefly take care of those expiations That in Scripture the power of binding is judiciall and authoritative is cleared by my Reverend and Learned Colleague Maâ—er Rutherford in The Divine right of Church Government pag. 234. 235 I adde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto which Grotius sends â—s is â—sed for that binding or incarceration which is an act of 〈◊〉 authority as Gen. 40. 3. Gen. 42. 16. 19. 24. Num. 15. 34 Levit. 24. 12. 2 Kings 17. 4. Isa. 42. 7. Jer. 40. 1. Ezek. 3. 25. It is also used for an authoritative prohibition Num. 11. 28. my Lord Moses forbid them Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interdictum a decree forbidding somewhat Dan. 6 7 8 9. As binding and loosing are Acts of authority and power such as doth not belong to any single person or brother offended so the binding and loosing mentioned Matth. 18. 18. are Acts of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall authority belonging to the Kingdom and Government of Christ in his Church but not belonging to the civill Magistrate And as the authority is Ecclesiasticall and spirituall so it is more than Doctrinall it is a power of inflicting or taking off Church Censures These two things I will endeavour to prove 1. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers 2. That this power is juridicall or forensicall and not Doctrinall onely that is that Church-Officers are here authorised to bind with censures or to loose from censures as there shall be cause In both which we have Antiquity for us Which I doe the rather observe because Erastus and Grotius alledge some of the Antients for their exposition of Math. 18. 18. that this binding or loosing is by the offended brother That which Augustine Origen and Theophylact say of one brother his binding or loosing is but spoken tropologically and not as the literall sence of the Text yea Theophylact in that passage cited by Erastus and Grotius doth distinguish between the Ministeriall or Ecclesiasticall binding and loosing and the party offended his binding and loosing Non enim solùm quae solvunt sacerdotes sunt soluta sed quaecunque nos c. Theophylact doth also find excommunication in that Text Illam autem Ecclesiam si non audierit tunc abjiciatar ne suae malitiâ—… participes faciat alios I further appeal to Augustine himself Epist. 75. where speaking of Excommunication and Anathema he distinguisheth it from corporall punishment and after he hath spoken of the temporall sword he addeth Spiritualis autem paena qua fit quod scriptum est Quae ligaveris in terra erunt ligata in caelo animas obligat But the spirituall punishment by which that thing is done which is written What thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven doth bind soulâ—… Againe in his sixth Tome lib. 1. contra adversarium legis prophetarum â—…ap 17. he doth most plainly interpret Math. 18. 18. of Church discipline and binding by Censure Hierome both in his Commentary upon Matth. 18. and in his Epistle to Heliodorus speaketh of this power of binding as a judiciall forensicall power belonging to the Ministers or Officers of the Church by which they judge and censure offenders But to save my self the labour of more citations I take help from Bishop Bilson of the perpetuall Government of Christs Church cap. 4. where though he expound the binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. to be Acts of the Magistrate yet he acknowledgeth hat the Antient writers leane vere much another way and understand that Text of the ministeriall and spirituall power of Excommunication for which he citeth Chrysost. de sacerdotio lib. 3. Ambros. de paenitent lib. 1. c. 2. Hierom. in Matth. cap. 18. Hilar. in Mat. can 18. Vnto these I also adde Isidorus Polusiota in the third Book of his Epistles Epist. 260. where he applieth this Text Matth. 18 19. to this sence that impenitent finners are to be bound and penitent sinners loosed and thence argueth against the absolving of a perjured person who had not declared himself penitent but had purchased his absolution by a gift Nor can I passe Chrysostome upon this very Text where he tells that Christ will have such a one to be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both with a present Chastisement and with a future punishment or both in earth and in heaven and would have the offender to fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 casting out of the Church He addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cuts not off immediately but after admonitions I will now proceed to a further confirmation of the two propositions afore mentioned Touching the first That this binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. belongeth nei her to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers I clear it thus There are two things by which as Schoolemen observe mens soules and consciences are bound 1. They are bound by their sinnes Prov. 5. 22. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself he shall be holden with the cords of his sins Act. 8. 23. thou art in the bond of iniquity 2. Men are bound by precepts Matth. 23. 4. They bind heavy burthens and grievous to be born and lay them on mens shoulders This binding by precept or law some take to be meant Ezech. 3. 25. O Sonne of man behold they shal put bands upon thee shall bind thee with them that is thou shalt in vision see thy self bound with bands upon thee to signifie that I have forbidden thee to be a reprover to the rebellius house So the Chaldee paraphrase But thou a Sonne of man behold I have put my word upon thee as a band of cords with which they bind and thou shalt not goe forth into the midst of them Now in both these respects the Scripture elsewhere doth ascribe to Church-Officers a power of binding and loosing 1 In respect of sinne Io. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sin s ye retaine they are retained It is spoken to the Apostles and their successors in the Ministery of the Gospell Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalâ—… bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Where the power of binding and loosing is given to the Apostles Grotius upon the place cleareth it from 2. Cor. 5. 19. 20. God hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ. So that we find in Scripture Church Officers inabled and authorised ex officio as the Heraulds and Ambassadours of the King of Zion to loose from the bands of sinne all repenting and beleiving sinners and to bind over to eternall justice and wrath the impenitent and unbeleevers 2 They are also authorised dogmatically and authoritatively to declare and impose the will of Christ and to bind his precepts upon the shoulders of his peeple Matth. 28. 20. as likewise to loose them and pronounce them free from such burthens as men would impose upon them contrary or beside the word of God 1 Cor. 7. 23. An example of both we have Act. 15. 28. The Synod of the Apostles and Elders bindeth upon the Churches such Burthens as were necessary by the Law of love for the avoiding of scandall but did pronounce the Churches to be free and loosed from other burthens which the Judaizing Teachers would have bound upon them Now therefore if we will expound Matth. 18. 18. by other Scriptures it being the onely surest way to expound Scripture by Scripture it is manifest and undeniable that Church-Officers are by other Scriptures inabled and authorised to bind loose in both those respects afore-mentioned But we no where find in Scripture that Christ hath given either to all private Christians or to the civill Magistrate a Commission and Authority to bind or loose sinners I know a private Christian may and ought to convince an impenitent brother and to comfort a repenting brother ex charitate Christiana But the Scripture doth not say that God hath committed to every private Christian the word of reconciliation and that all Christians are Ambassadours for Christ nor is there a promise to ratifie in heaven the convictions or comforts given by a private Christian No more then a King doth ingage himself in verbo principis to pardon such as any of his good Subjects shall pardon or to condemne such as any of his good Subjects shall condemne but a King ingageth himself to ratifie what his Ambassadours Commissioners or Ministers shall doe in his name and according to the Commission which he hath given them to pardon or condemne Besides all this if Christ had meant here of the brother to whom the injury was don his private binding or loosing not condemning or forgiving then he had kept the phrase in the singular number which Erastus observeth diligently all along the Text vers 15 16 17. But he might have also observed that vers 18. carries the power of binding and loosing to a plurality VVhatsoever ye bind c. As for the Magistrate it belongeth to him to bind with the cords of corporall or civill punishments or to loose and liberat from the same as he shall see cause according to law and justice But this doth n t belong to the spirituall Kingdome of Jesus Christ for his Kingdome is not of this world neither are the weapons thereof carnall but spirituall And beside the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth bind on punishment when the soule is loosed in Heaven and the sinne remitted Again the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth loose and absolve from punishment when a mans soule is impenitent and sinne is still bound upon his conscience There is no such promise that God will forgive whom the Magistrate forgiveth or condemne whom the Magistrate condemneth Neither hath God any where in Scripture committed to the Magistrate the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven or the word of reconciliation as to the Ambassadours of Christ. Binding and loosing in the other sence by a dogmaticall authoritative declaration of the will of Christ is not so principally or directy intended Matth. 18. 18. as that other binding and loosing in respect of sinne Howbeit it is not to be excluded because the words preceding Vers. 17. mention not onely the execution of Excommunication Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican but also the Churches judgement and determination of the case if he neglect to heare the Church which words implie that the Church hath declared the will of Christ in such a case and required the offender to doe accordingly but he shewing himselfe unwilling and contumacious as it were saying in his heart I will breake their bands asunder and cast away their cords from me thereupon the promise reacheth to this also that what the Church hath determined or imposed according to the will of Christ shall be ratified and approved in Heaven Now Christ hath no where given a Commission either to every particular Christian or to the Magistrate to teach his people to observe all things which he hath commanded them and authoritatively to determine controversies of faith or cases of conscience As in the old Testament the Priests lips did preserve knowledge and they were to seeke the law at his mouth Mal. 2. 7. so in the new Testament the Ministers of Christ have the Commission to make known the counsell of God My second proposition that the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. is juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall Censures this I will make good in the next place against M r Prynne who to elude the argument for Excommunication from Matth. 18. answereth two things concerning the binding and loosing there spoken of 1. That these words have no coherence with or dependence upon the former 2. That this binding and loosing is meant onely of preaching the Gospell Touching the first of these I confesse if by the Church vers 17. be meant a civill Court of Justice and by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen c. be meant no more but keepe no civill fellowship with him which is his sence of the Text I cannot marvell that he could finde no coherence between vers 17. and vers 18. yet if there be no coherence between these verses the generality of Interpreters have gone upon a great mistake of the Text conceiving that Christ doth here anticipate a great objection and adde a great encouragement in point of Church discipline for when the offender is excommunicated that is all the Church can doe to humble and reduce him put the case he or others despise the censures of the Church What will your censure doe saith M r Hussey To that very thing Christ answereth It shall be ratified in Heaven and it shall doe more then the binding of the offenders in fetters of Iron could doe But let us heare what M r Prynne saith against the coherence of Text because saith he that of binding and loosing is spoken onely to and of Christs disciples as is evident by the parallel Text