the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
he instituted a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate Ans This consequence is so strong though the consequent be not ours to prove a Synedrie that Erastus shall never be able to refute it for that the Priests might teach the people they were to judge and governe the people and wâ—re to judge between the holy and prophane not onely that the Priests might informe the pâ—oples minds but that the Priests and Levites might 2 Chron. 9. 8 9 10. Deut. 17. 8 9 give judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroake and stroake being matters of controversie and hard to be judged by the inferiour judges these concerned not the instruction of the people as matters of opinion as Erastus imagineth but they concerned the governing of the people in justice that v. 12. the man that will doe presumptuously or will not hearken unto the Priest or the judge shall die the death Was not this to governe the people and to judge them Certainly Erastus in the same Chapter saith so to wit that there was one common Synedrim of civill judges Priests and Levites at Jerusalem that the Priests and Levites were Iudges in capitall matters and gave out the sentence of death de capite sanguine and he proveth page 270. 271. that the Priests were civill judges and did give sâ—â—tences of blood of life and dâ—ath Ergo the Priests did not discerne between the clean and the unclean between blood and blood onely that they might teach the people but that they might regulate their owne practise in judgement and govern the people yea that the Priests might pronounce some unclean and to be put out of the Campe so many dayes that they might debar out of the Sanctuary the unclâ—an the uncircumcised the strangers and Lev. 10. the end of judging and governing is expresly set down v. 10. and so a judicature and the other end v. 11. that they may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord hath spoken by the hand of Moses 2. From the Elders preaching the Word and dispensing the Sacraments simply we inferre no judicature at all farre lesse a politick judicature which we doe not ascribe to the Priests for Iohn Baptist both preached the Word and baptized and yet was no judge nor did he erect any Church judicature but from the power of the keyes given to the Church and exercised by the Church Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 15 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3. c. Revel 2. 1 2 3 c. we inferre a Church judicature we never placed a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate for it is no more the Magistrates place then to sacrifice is the place of the Magistrate Erastus J wonder that you seeke your Presbytery in Moses Law all yours say the Synedrie Christ speaketh of did rise after the captivity at least when the sword was taken from the Iewes They say David and Solomon did punish vices they approve August 39. quest in Deut. that Excommunication doth now what putting to death did of Old and deny any Excommunication to have beene in the Church of the New Testament Ans Erastus declares himselfe to be a childe not versed in Protestant Divines for we except Musculus Gualther Bullinger some except Aretius all our Protestant Divines goe the way Beza goeth 2. Let him produce any of ours who say that the Synedry that Christ speaketh of was Iewish and ours say that Christ alludeth to the Iewish Synedrie But all few excepted that Christ Mat. 18. speaketh of the Christian Church to be erected 3. The Kings of Israel punished scandals but that is not enough did they governe the Church pronounce who were clean or unclean or middle with the charge of Ecclesiastick Government committed to Aaron and his sonnes 4. We say with Augustine that some that were killed of old are to be Excommunicated now Augustine speaketh not of all and what is that against us Erastus Not any but your self Beza say that Moses speaketh of thâ—se same persons things and office Levit. 10. and Deut. 17. in Levit. 10. he speaketh onely of the Priesthood and Deut. 17. of the Iudges or Magistrats Ans Beza expoundeth the one place by the other but he saith not these persons things and office are in both places 2. Erastus onely contradicteth Beza and saith Moses speaketh of the Magistrates Deut. 17. But he is refuted by the Spirit of God 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. who repeating the very words of Deut. 17. saith the Iudges here were Priests Levites and heads of Families whom all men deny to be Magistrates Erastus You say Deut. 17. mention is made of blood of the cause of Pleas not because the Synedrie judged of the fact but because they answered the true sense of the Law I say whether they answered of the fact or of the Law they sentenced judicially of life and death so that there was no provocation from them to the civill judicature for he was put to death who would not stand to their sentence but you deny that any politick causes or matters of blood or death belongs to your Presbytery Ans 1. Beza said well the fact and the putting of the man to death which is the assumption and conclusion belonged to the civill judge not to the Priests But the questio juris the question of Law belonged to the Ecclesiasticall judicature of Priests Levites and Elders and it is evident that it was a case of conscience concerning a matter or an admirable cause that cannot be determined by the judges in the city they not being so well versed in the Law as the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge Mal. 2. 7. Therefore it is not a fact that may be cleared by Witnesses there is not such difficulty in facts except in adultery or secret Murthers the word commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire or to be separated from sense and reason Lament 1. 9. Gen. 18. 14. Is there any thing hard to or â—id from Jehovah 2. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causes or matters of contention Vatablus causa insolita difficilior Our translation hath it matters of controversie 3. It is said thou shalt come and inquire or diligently search out 4. The Priests and Levites shall shew thee the sentence of judgement so it is evident that the Priests and Levites did not so much judge as declare and resolve the law-part of which the inferiour judges did doubt for the difficulty of the question as Saul came to Samuel the Seer to aske concerning his fathers asses and it is true bloods and stroakes came under the cognizance of the Priests but as bloods comes before Lawyers and those that are expert in the civill Law in the Parliament of England and Scotland the Lawyers as Iudges put no man to death the King could say fall upon such an evill doer and kill him and the judges and Princes might put to death But
such Now this is against sense and reason and confoundeth all callings on earth but if Erastus grant that Moses judgeth as a civill judge and teacheth the people the Law of God as a prophet then to make this Sanedrim a mixt company both to judge civilly and to teach as spirituall men by office must all the Priests and Levites in this Sanedrim be both Priests and Levites and also civill Iudges And all the civill Iudges must be both civill judges and also Priests and Levites which is expresly against the Text that speakes Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Iudge as two distinct offices and so God must have chosen the Iudge no lesse then the Priest to minister before him So it is false that teaching and judging are copulatively ascribed to these same persons and to the same judicature as Erastus saith Erastus He saith Deut. 17. he shall die who standeth not to the sentence of the Priest or judge by way of disjunction in regard of divers times for the Princes or Iudges were not alwayes the same for often onely the Priests governed and for the same reason he saith not Deut. 17. ascend to Ierusalem but to the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse for the Arke was not alwayes in one place or city So Deut. 19. when he speaketh of the false witnesse he saith and they shall stand before the Lord that is before the Priests and Iudges that shall be at that time Who vvould thinke that there are here distinct and divers Iudicatures Ans It is a conjecture of Erastus that Moses speaketh Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Iudge by way of disjunction because of divers times not of divers and distinct Tribunals for all Moses his time and Ioshua's time and for the most part there were both Iudges and Priests and we had rather beleeve the Spirit of God then Erastus for 2 Chron. 19. under Iehoshaphat at one and the same time there were both civill Iudges and Priests and Levites and these two Judicatures had two different sorts of causes and two different Presidents if then at one and the same time the man was to be put to death who did not stand to the sentence of the Priest though he should stand to the sentence of the civill judge and so if hee was to be put to death who should stand to the sentence of the Priests and give an outside of obedience to the Ceremoniall Law if he should not stand to the sentence of the civill Judge then were there at the same time these two sentences in these two judicatures but the former is true by the expresse Law of God Ergo so is the latter when God saith Goe up to the place that the Lord shall chuse he meaneth Ierusalem and one determinate place at once and if Moses had said Goe up to the place that the Lord shall chuse or to some other place that the Lord shall not chuse then could I inferre well that at one and the same time they might have gone to either places or to both places having two sorts of causes as there be ever two sorts of causes in the Church some Civill some Ecclesiasticall 3. Erastus should have shewen a time when onely the Priest as the Priest did governe and there neither was a civill Iudge nor was that Priest who governed the civill judge If Erastus shew not this he sheweth nothing for his owne cause which is to make one confused Judicature of civill and Ecclesiasticall Iudges and causes which the Scripture doth carefully distinguish 4. In the place Deut. 19. nothing is said against us but that onely the civill Iudge put to death the false Witnesse which is much for us that though the false witnesse was to stand before the Priests and incurre an Ecclesiastick censure yet the Priest as Priest had no hand in putting him to death Erastus Sometime the Priest vvas president in this Sanedrim as Eli and Samuel vvithout a judge therefore vvhen it is said the chiefe Priest vvas â—ver them in all the matters of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings matters they made not tvvo different Iudicatures and the high Priest and Zebadiah vvere both over the same Iudicature Iosephus excellently versed in the Ievvish lavvs saith antiq lib. 9. c. 1. they vvere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellovves or companions then they vvere not in divers Senats The Levites vvere equally servants to both though it may be the Priests were more diligently to goe about the canses of God and the Iudges the causes of the King Ans Were Eli and Samuel presidents in the Sanedrim without a Iudge that is as much as to say Eli and Samuel who undoubtedly by the Testimony of the Spirit of God were civill Iudges of Israel 1 Sam. 4 18. and 7. 15. and 8. 1. 7. were Judges without Iudges I conceive Eli was both a Priest and a Judge and Samuel both a Prophet and a Iudge whether Samuel was a Priest or not let Erastus determine Samuel was of the Tribe of Ephraim not a Priest though he sacrificed by an extraordinary Priviledge nor was Moses a Priest 2. I see no reason to say Eli was a Priest without a Iudge more then to say he was a Iudge without a Priest for he was both But this may shew the Reader that Erastus alwayes confoundeth the office of the Priest and the Civill judge so as he maketh them not only subjectively one which God himself did in the person of Eli but also one formally for as I shew before Erastus must say Eli sacrificed as a Iudge and he condemned ill doers to die exercised the sword as a Priest Samuel prophesied as a Magistrate Samuel did judge Israel as a Prophet for the Magistrate as the Magistrate to Erastus doth both the part of a Iudge of a Priest and Prophet of old and now of a Pastor and Teacher 3. It is enough to us that Amariah and Zebadiah were over diverse causes in divers Courts and differenced 2 Chro. 19. in that the one was for the kings matters the other for Gods matters Erast saith right down they were both for these same matters But the one was to care more for the Kings matters the other more for Gods matters so Erastus is forced to make a difference But he maketh it in the comparative degree and the spirit of God maketh the difference in the positive degree But 1. Erastus saith without the Text Amariah was to care for the matters of the King but more for the matters of God The Text saith no such thing but the contrary he saith Zebadiah the Civill Magistrate was to care for the matters of God but more for the matters of the King 4. This is against Erastus his his way which is that the Magistrate hath a supreame principall and only care of Church-Government and the Priests and Levites and Pastors and Teachers only as the servants of the Magistrates A sub
he calls David his Prince a bloody murtherer and saith this evill is come on him for rising up against Saul his Master The Magistrate may not punish him with the Sword for railing against the Lords anoynted 2. And if the Magistrate ought not to strike with the sword any Prophet for preaching according to his conscience for that is persecution to this Author how shall the Prophets judge and condemne the Magistrate for those same decrees which he hath given out according to his conscience for this is a persecution with the tongue Mat. 5. 11. Iob 19. 22. and it is one and the same spirituall cause saith this Author 3. The same very Author and the Parliament do reciprocally judge and condemne one another for the Parliament make warre against Papists for drawing the King on their side and causing him make warre against the Lambe and his followers that is against godly Protestants Now suppose Priests and Iesuits preach this to the Queen and other Papists and they according to their conscience make warre against the flock of Christ and the Parliament according to their conscience make warre against them this Author sitteth downe and judgeth and condemneth both sides as bloody persecutors for point of conscience Now though the Author in his Bench with his penne condemneth and judgeth both according to his conscience yet if the Papists or possibly the Parliament had this Author in their fingers might not they reciprocally judge and condemne him I think he cannot deny how justly they should reciprocally judge the Author I cannot say 3. This Author would have a contradiction such as is to make East and West both one that one and the same man both sit in the Bench and stand at the barre that the Church judge the Magistrate and the Magistrate judge the Church But I hope contradictions were no more under the Old Testament to be admitted nor under the New Now in the Old Testament the King might put to death the Prophet who should prophecy blasphemies and again the Prophet might judge the King by denouncing the judgement of the Lord against the King let the Author say how the King both did sit in the Bench and stand at the baâ—â—e in divers respects I think Aâ—hab might judge and punish Micaiah unjustly for prophecying that he should dye at Ramoth Gilead and Micaiah might in prophecy give out the sentence of death justly against him but here be two contrary sentences the like may fall out in Synodicall constitutions 2. To answer to his reasons 1. It followeth not that in one and the same spirituall respect one and the same person judgeth on the Bench and is judged at the Bar for the Churches judging is in a spirituall respect as the officer ordained may promote the building of Gods House the Magistrates suppressing him is no spirituall respect but as it disturbeth the peace of the State that so unworthy a person is an officer in Gods House and is hurtfull to the Church of God in their ediâ—icatioâ— which the Magistrate is to promote not in spirituall but in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 3. That one judge on the Bench and the same stand at the Barre and be judged at divers and sundry times is not so impossible by farre as to reconcile East and West together Aâ—â—â—b may judge Naboath to be condemned and stoned for his vineyard to day and immediately after Elias the Prophet may arraigne him before the Barre and tribunall of God to be condemned and adjudged to dye in the portion of Iezreel where the dogs may lick his blood It is true Elias is not properly a judge but a declarer in a propheticall and authoritative way of the judgement of God but this is all the judiciall power which we ascribe to Church or Presbytery and Pastors they are meer Ministers or servants to declare the will and sentence of God When the Minister preacheth wrath against the King for his sins he judgeth the King in a Pastorall and Ministeriall way which is all we contend for in many officers united in a Church way and at that same time the King hath power after that to judge him for preaching treason for â—ound Doctrine if it be found to be treason by the Church and this reciprocation of judging we maintaine as consistent and necessary in Ministers of Gospel and Magistrates But such a distance betweene them as between East and West we see not The Author should have shewne it to us by his owne grounds The Church may excommunicate a Magistrate as a persecutor who cutteth off Idolaters for their conscience yet the godly Magistrate may judge and punish them with the sword for abusing the ordinance of Excommunication so as to excommunicate the godly Magistrate because he doth punish evill doing with the Sword Rom. 13. 4. 4. The Author infers that tumults and bloods do arise from these two But that will not prove these two to be inconsistent and contrâ—dictorious tumults and blood arise from preaching the Gospel what then Ergo the Gospel is a masse of contradictions â—â— followeth not The â—umulâ—s and blood have their rise from mens lusts who are impatient of the yoak of Christ not from these two powers to judge Ecclesiastically in the Church and to be judged civilly by the Magistrates The Author draweth his instance to the actuall judging of the same thing contradictory wayes for example the Church ordaineth one to be a preacher and this they do Ecclesiastically and the Magistrate actually condemneth the same man civilly as unworthy to be a preacher It is one thing to say that the Church hath power to judge righteously in an Ecclesiasticall way any matter and another that the Christian Magistrate hath power in a civill way to judge righteously the same matter and a â—ar other thing it is to say The Church hath a power Ecclesiastically to judge a matter righteously according to the word and the Magistrate hath power to judge the same matter civilly in a wrong and unjust way the former we say God hath given a power to the Church to ordaine Ecclesiastically Epaphroditus to be a preacher of the Gospel because these graces and gifts are in him that are requisite to be in a faithfull preacher and God hath also given a power to the Christian Magistrate to adde his civill sanction to the ordination and calling of the same Epaphroditus But we do not teach that God hath given to the Church a power to call Epaphroditus to the Ministery in an Ecclesiasticall way and that God hath given a power to the Christian Magistrate to anull this lawfull ordination of Epaphroditus Now the Author putteth such a supposition that Church and Magistrate have two lawfull powers toward contrary acts the one of them a power to give out a just sentence the other a power to give out an unjust sentence in one and the same cause which we teach not God gave to none either in Church
c. 12. Zozomen l. 7. e. 8. Theodoretus l. 5. c. 9. Historia tripartit l. 9. c. 14. say that the Emperor ordained him the Synod named him the truth is the Bishops were devided in judgement and its like they referred the matter to the godly Emperour In the mean time Athanasius Epist de solit vita Ambros l. 5. orat ad auxentium and l. 5. Epist 32. ad valentinianum Zozomen l. 6. c. 7. Concilium Toletanum III. Concilium milevitanum and divers others which I have cited elsewhere make the Emperor a Son of the Church not a Head and Lord intra Ecclesiam filium Ecclesiae non judicem non dominum supra Ecclesiam I might adde Augustin Epist 48. 50. 162. l. 1. de doctr Christ c. 18. Cyril Alexandrinus in an Epistle to the Synod of Antioch all Protestant Divines of note and learning CHAP. XXVII Quest 23. Whether the subjecting of the Magistrates to the Church and Pastors be any papal Tyranny and whether we differ not more from Papists in this then our adversaries The Magistrate not the Vicar of the mediator Christ The Testimonies of some learned Divines on the contrary answered IT is most unjustly imputed to us that we lay a Law upon the conscience of the Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church not inquiring into the Nature of the thing This Doctrine we disclaim as Popish and Antichristian It hath its rise from Bonifacius the III. who obtained from Phocas a bloody tyrant who murthered Mauritius and his Children as Baronius confesseth and yet he saith of this murtherer optimortum imperatorum vestigia sequutus he made an Edict that the Bishop of Constantinople should not be called Oecumenick nor universall Bishop but that this should be given only to the Bishop of Rome So Baronius yieldeth this tyranny was inlarged by Hildebrande named Gregorius the seventh a monster of tyrannicall wickednesse and yet by Papists he is sanctitate et miraculis clarus Baronius extolleth him these and others invaded both the swords Bishops would be civill judges and trample first upon the neck then upon the consciences of Emperors and make Kings the hornes of the beast and seclude them from all Church businesses except that with blind obedience having given their power to the beast as slaves they must execute the decrees of the Church Paul the III. the confirmer of the order of Iesuits who indicted the Councell of Trent as Onuphrius saith up braideth Charles the V. for meddling with Church businesse They write that Magistrates do not see in Church matters with their owne eyes but with Bishops eyes and that they must obey without examining the decrees of Councels and this they write of all subject to the Church Toletus in Instruct Sacerdâ—t l. 4. c. 3. Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum morâ—tur in credendo licet sit error Card. Cusanus excit l. 6. sermon obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino Ib. sententia pastoris ligat te pro tua salute etiam si injusta fuerit Envy cannot ascribe this to us Calvin Beza yea all our writers condemne blind obedience as brutish But our Adversaries in this are more Popish for they substitute King and Parliament in a headship over the Church giving to the King all the same power in causes Ecclesiastick that the Pope usurped 2. They make the King a mixed person to exercise spirituall jurisdiction to ordaine Bishops and deprive them and Mr. Prinne calleth the opinion of those who deny Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction legislative a high word proper to God only coercive power of Christian Emperors Kings Magistrates Parliaments in all matters of Religion what in fundamentall Articles of salvation Church-government Discipline Ceremonies c. Anti-monarchicall Anti-parliamentarie Anarchicall as holden by Papists Prelates Anabaptists Arminians Socinians c. It s that which Arminians objects to us and calleth the soul heart and forme of papall tyranny But that the Magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination whither they be right or wrong as Papists teach that the Magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience and submit his faith to them because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church doth erre or not is clear 1. Because if in hearing the word all should follow the example of the men of Berea not relying on the Testimony of Paul or any preacher try whether thâ—â— which concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no and accordingly receive or reject so in all things of Discipline the Magistrate is to try by the word whether he ought to adde his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick and a perverter of souls But the former is true the Magistrates practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing herericks concerneth his conscience knowing that he must do it in faith as he doth all his moral actions Ergo the Magistrate must examine what he practiseth in his office according to the word and must not take it upon the meer authority of the Church else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimaté on the authority of the Church not on the word of God which no doubt is Popery for so the warrant of the Magistrates conscience should not be Thus saith the Lord but Thus saith the Church in their decrees 2. The Magistrate and all men have a command to try all things Ergo to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good 1 Thes 5. 21. To try the spirits even of the Church in their decrees 1 Joh. 3. 1. 3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground that 1. The Church cannot erre in their decrees 2. It s against Scripture and reason that Magistrates and by the like reason all others should obey the decrees of the Church with a blinde faith without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees which is as good Popery as Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the Church beleeveth with an implicite faith so ignorance shall be the mother of Devotion who ever impute this to us who have suffered for non-conformity and upon this ground that Synods can erre refused the Ceremonies are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyall odious to Magistracy in that which we never thought â—ar lesse to teach and professe it to the world 4. Their chiefe reason is the Magistrate by our doctrine by his office is obliged 1. To follow the judgement of the Church and in that he is a servant or inslaved Qui enim
not a first converting ordinance yet a confirming one ibid. The Lords Supper presupposeth Faith and Conversion in the vvorthy Receiver in a Church-profession p. 523 c. The Magistrate subject to the Church p. 528 The Church a perfit society without the Magistrate p. 529 530 God efficacious by Preachers not by Magistrates p. 532 Differences between the Preachers and the Magistrate p. 532 c. The Magistrate cannot limit the Pastors in the exercise of their calling p 535 That Magistrates are more hot against the Churches punishing of sin then against sinful omissions argueth that they are unpatient of Christs yoke rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the Subject p. 536 c. Of the Reciprocation of the Subordinations of Magistrates and Church-Officers to each other ibid. Not any power or office subject to any but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons p. 538 A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate different p. 539 Two things in a Christian Magistrate jus authority aptitudo hability p. 539 c. Christianity maketh no new power of Magistracy p. 542 A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary upon which and the former distinction followeth ten very considerable assertions page 542 c. The Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth the exercise of the Ministerial power but not the spiritual and sincere manner of the exercise p. 544 Magistrates as godly men not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of Ministerial power p. 545 c. A twofold goodnesse in a Christian Magistrate essential accidential p. 548 The Magistrate as such commandeth onely in order to temporary rewards and punishments nor holdeth he forth commands to the conscience p. 549 c. Magistrates as Magistrates forbid not sin as sin under the pain of eternal wrath p. 550 Two sorts of Subordinations Civil Ecclesiastick p 553 Subordination of Magistrate and Church to each others p. 554 c. Church Offices as such not subordinate to the Magistrate ibid. What power Erastians give to Magistrates in Church matters p. 557 The minde of Arminians touching the power of the Magistrate in Church matters ibid. A threefold consideration of the Magistrate in relation to the Church p. 558 Reciprocation of subordinations between Church and Magistrate p. 560 The Ministers as Ministers neither Magistrates nor Subjects p. 564 c. The Magistrate as such neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator nor under Satan but under God as Creator ibid. The Prince as a gifted Christian may Preach and spred the Gospel to a Land where the Gospel hath not been heard before page 570 c. The King and the Priest kept the Law but in a far different way p. 572 c. The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another p. 574 c. God hath not given power to the Magistrate and Church to Iudge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause p. 577 Whether Appeals may ly from Church-assembles to the Civil Magistrate p. 578 Of Pauls appeal to Caesar ibid. Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in Causes Ecclesiastical p. 579 c. It is one thing to complain another thing to appeal p. 580 What an appeal is ibid. Refuge to the Magistrate is not an Appeal p. 581 A twofold appeal p. 582 The Magistrates power of punishing or his interest of faith proveth him not to be a Iudge in Synods p. 585 c. Pauls appeal proveth nothing against appeals for appeals from the Church to the Christian Magistrate p. 587 Paul appealed from an inferiour Civil Iudge to a superior Civil Heathen Iudge in a matter of his head and life not in a controversie of Religion p. 588 What power a conqueror hath to set up a Religion in a conquered Nation p 590 There were no appeals made to the godly Emperours of old p. 594 To lay bands on the conscience of the Magistrate to ty him to blinde obedience the Papists not our Doctrine p 595 Subjection of Magistrates to the Church no Papal tyranny p. 600 c. The Magistrate as a Magistrate cannot forbid sin as sin ibid. The Magistrate pomoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom ibid. The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediator Christ p. 601 The Adversaries in the Doctrine of the Magistrate Popish not we at all ibid. Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates in their whole Ministery by the Adversaries p. 603 c. Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiastical Administration p. 604 The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediatory Kingdom ibid. Heathen Magistrates as such are not oblieged to promote Christs mediatory Kingdom p. 606 Magistracy from the Law of Nations p. 608 The Adversaries must teach universal Redemption p 610 Magistrates as such not members of the Church p. 613 Christ mediator not a temporary King p 614 The Magistrat not the servant of the Church p. 616 The adequate and complete cause why the Magistrate is subject to the Church p. 617 That the Magistrate is subject to the Rebukes and censures of the Church is proved from the Word p. 618 c. The supreme and principal power of Church-affairs not in either Magistrate or Church p 620 Though the Magistrate punish Ecclesiastical scandals yet his power to Iudge and punish is not Ecclesiastical and spiritual as the Church censureth breaches of the second Table and yet the Churches power is not Civil for that p. 622 People as people may give power to a Magistrate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church to judge and punish offenders therein p. 625 A Governour of or over the Church a Governour in the Church a Governour for the Church different p. 628 The distinction of a Doctrinal or Declarative and of a Punitive part of Church-Government of which the former is given to Pastors the latter to the Magistrate a heedlessâ— and senselesse notion p. 629 c. That the Magistrates punishing with the sword scandalous persons should be a part of Church-government a reasonlesse conceit p. 631 There is neither coaction nor punishment properly so called in the Church p. 632 Bullinger not of the minde of Erastus p. 634 The Iudgement of Wolfâ—ag Musculus Aretius and Gualther p. 634 c. The Errour of Gualther to please the usurping Magistrate p. 638 Their minde different from Erastus p. 639 The Christian Magistrates sword cannot supply the place of Excommunication in the Church p. 640 The confessions of the Protestant Church for this way p. 642 c. The testimony of Salmasius p. 644 Of Simlerus p. 645 Lavater Ioan. Wolphius ibid. Of Râ—b Burhillus 646 The Contents of the Tractate or Dispute touching Scandal WHether things indifferent can be commanded Introduction p. 1 Indifferent things as such not the Matter of a Church-constitution Introd Actions are not indifferent because their circumstances are indifferent Introd Marrying not indifferent Introd Indifferency Metaphysical and Theological Introd Necessity of obeying the Church
any intention or purpose to adore therefore this externall Adoration is a false signe and signifieth not a thing as it is and so is no worship Ans That externall bowing is not true but false I distinguish it is not true Morally because it is a false signe and a sinfull abusing of worship for there ought to be a bowâ—d heart when there is a bowed knee but if the meaning be this externall bowing is not true metaphysically and partaketh not of the nature of Religious worshipping it is false for it is truly worship and the essence and definition of worship agreeth to it for from Religious bowing there resulteth by the nature of the externall Act which is of divine institution an honouring of that before which we do bow as before a proposed object what ever be the present purpose or intention of the bower else if I bow to an Idol intending and conveying in my heart-purpose all honour to God only I should not worship an Idol The three Children cast into the fiery Furnace did but refuse externall bowing to Nebuchadnezzar and would hazard upon burning quick before they should give that to the Image for the Kings commandment was not that all should give and convey in purpose of heart to that Image all divine glory but only Religious prostration before it yet the three Children say Dan. 3. Well be it known to thee O king that we will not serve thy Gods nor worship thy golden Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They expresly refuse knee-bowing the reason is because if ye bow your knee Religiously to a stock it is not in your power or free choice to stay the flux and motion of Religious honour off or from the stock but because Religious bowing doth not convey honour to the thing before which ye bow by your free will but by God and natures institution even as weeping naturally expresseth sorrow laughing gladnesse so doth Religious bowing signifie Religious honouring without any act of the free choice of the worshipped intervening It is impossible to adore God in and through an Image and give no Religious reverence to the Image at all as it is impossible to hear the word and tremble at it and yet none of that Religious trembling be bounded and terminated upon the Word as it is impossible to kneel to the Kings Ambassador conveying all and whole that civill honour to the King but some honour must redound to the Ambassador a father cannot love the Doctor for his sons cause but some love he must confer really upon the Doctor if not absolute yet relative for his sons cause Jacob could not kisse Joseph his sons coat and yet refer that whole expressed affection to Ioseph and nothing at all to the coat for then should there be no reason why he should kisse the coat rather then the skin of the beast supposed to be the devourer of his son if therefore the Communicant should kisse the Sacramentall Bread as he boweth Religiously before it as the object of his Sacramentall worship which he receiveth I hope it would be thought very like the kissing of the Calves of Samaria and a Religious expression of love to the bread and by the same case Religious bowing to God by the interveening of bread a representative object must be an expression of Religious honouring of Bread but no Religious honouring by Religious bowing can be expressed but Adoration of bread for as I have proved it is not in our free Election that Religious kneeling signifie what honour we please as if it were in our power that Religious kneeling signifie Religious or civill honour or more or lesse Religious honour but our will or thoughts cannot change the nature of things kneeling is essentially Religious as Iohannes Delugo defineth it Nota submission is internae 2. Suarez objecteth Adoration is a voluntary action proceeding from the will of the Adorer and therefore excluding this will it is not Adorations but only the materiall action of adoring also adoration is honouring but none can honour without an intention of honoring and therefore he who externally giveth signes of honour to an Idol without an intention to honour the Idol doth not truly honour and adore the Idol but only dissembleth Ans Qui bené distinguit benè solvit Our third distinction doth well answer this The naked materiall action of bowing Physically considered wanting all Religious will of adoring is not an honouring if a Carpenter bow before an Image to drive a naile in it he doth not worship the Image because that is an action In statu artis non in statu Religionis In a state of Art not in 〈◊〉 Religious state But the voluntary bowing before any thing in a state of worship or Religion as it s here is Adoration for there is voluntary bowing in a Religious way of a state but there is not required a particular intention to Adore the signe that is accidentall to the nature of worship Suarez objecteth The eâ—â—â—nce of Adoration requireth the intention of the Adorer therefore the adoring of this or that thing requireth a proportionable intention of adoring the thing Ans 1. The Antecedent is not universally true and is a begging of the question because externall adoring of an Idol may be without intention to adore an Idol 2. Though the Antecedent were true that an absolute Adoration of God requireth the intention of the doer as it is not true Lawfull and sincere Adoration indeed requireth the intention but not absolute adoration Though I say it were true yet it followeth not that a relative adoration requireth an intention of giving co-adoration or relative worship to the signe Suarez 3. Objecteth The honouring of one thing cannot properly be called the honouring of another thing different therefrom except that honouring be some way referred by the minde to that other thing or except they be partakers one of another but the Image and first samplar or prototype are different things therefore the honouring of the first samplar cannot be called the honouring of the Image except the honouring by the intention be referred to the Image I answer The Image and Samplar are one in a sinfull imagination as Jehovah and the Golden Calf are one but it followeth not that there must be two distinct intentions one in adoring the Prototype and in coadoring the Image another But he who intendeth to honour the King in his Ambassadors person needeth not two intentions one by which he intendeth to honour the King another whereby he intendeth to honour his Ambassador SECT II. Whether the Idolatrous Jevvs were charged with the crime of Idolatry because they adored the creature as such or because they adored the Godhead in with or under the creatures shape and whether or no do Papists commit Idolatry with them in this point LEt these considerations go before 1. That the Jews believed the Image to be God by vvay of representation not essentially or really they believed
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
brother that is a fornicator Erastus saith he forbiddeth no such thing 2. Though I think Christians may eat with heathens 1. Cor. 10. 27. and that Paul did eat with heathen yet it is no argument to say it is therefore lawfull to eat with one cast out of the Church because we may eat with heathens to gain them and we are not bidden abstain from heathens company that they may be ashamed of their religion though Christians are to use no heathens with intimate familiarity as we do our brethren in Christ But we are to eschew intire fellowship with a scandalous and cast out brother to gain him that he may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. and in this a scandalous brother is in worse case then a heathen But in other respects he is in better condition as being under the medicine of the Church 3. Though we may have commerce and buy and â—ell with heathens and neglect no dutieâ— of humanity to them as to receive them into our house and to be hospitall to them Heb. 13. 2. Iob 31. 32. Yet this will conclude intire fellowship with neither heathen or scandalous brethren Yea we are not to receive a false teacher into our house 2. Ioh. ver 10. Yet are we not forbidden to neglect duties of common humanity to false Teachers though we be forbidden intirenesse of Brotherly fellowship with them Erastus There is not the same reason of holy things and of private civill things for this not eating belongeth to private conversing with men not to publike Communion with them in the holy things of God One saith It is in our liberty Whether we converse familiarly with wicked men or not But it is not in our power Whether we come to the Lords Supper or not And Paul will not have us to deny any thing that belongeth to Salvation and therefore he saith 2 Thess 3. Admonish him as a Brother and none I hope can deny but the Sacraments are helps of godlinesse and Salvation Ans 1. It is true that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren hath in it something civill but it is a censure-spirituall and a Church-censure two wayes 1. Objectively in its tendency Respectu termini ad quem 2. Effectively in its rise and cause Respectu termini à quo it is a spirituall censure Objectively because it tendeth to make the party ashamed that he may repent and become a Brother with whom we are to converse and therefore is destinated for no civill use but for the good of his soul that is a member of a Church that he may return to what he was 2. This censure though one private Brother may exercise it upon another yea a woman on a man who yet hath no Authority over the man is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause a Church-censure 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemne another while first he rebuke him and if he be not convinced while he do the same before two or three witnesses and if he yet be not gained one private Brother may not after conviction before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen or complain of him before an Heathen Iudge as Erastus saith How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother by his own private Authority while he first be sentenced before the Church And the Church shall convince him to walk disorderly to cause divisions and offences to be a Fornicator a Covetous person and so to be unworthy of the intire Brotherly fellowship of another For if this order were not in the Church every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother and so break all bands of Religious Communion and Brotherly fellowship and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches Now certain it is These Texts Rom. 16. 17 18. 2 Thes 3. 11 12 c in the letter intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed as clear by other Scriptures we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother but after such an order Now the places in the letter except we expound them by other Scriptures do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother before we withdraw from him contrary to Levit. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother all Brotherly fellowship by these places then I am to esteem him as a Heathen and as a Brother in name not in reality 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I esteemed him a Brother and did keep Brotherly fellowship with him now this is materially Excommunication I do no more in this kinde to one who is formally Excommunicated yea I am not so strange to a Heathen Ergo This I must have done upon some foregoing sentence of the Church otherwise I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath nor can un-Church and un-Brother 3. Eschewing of Brotherly fellowship to any is an act of Government distinct from the Preaching of the Word tending to make a Brother that walketh disorderly ashamed that he may repent and of a Brother in name only may become a Brother in reallity 2 Thes 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Christian Magistrate for every Brother saith Erastus may exercise it toward his Brother Ergo here is Church-Government that the Magistrate hath no hand in contrary to the way of Erastus and not in the hands of Pastors for it is distinct from Preaching nor is it in a Colledge of Pastors Doctors and Elders for Erastus denyeth any such Colledge Ergo here every one must govern another the man the woman and the woman the man the son the father if he walk unorderly and the Father the Son this can be nothing but the greatest Confusion on Earth 4. To put any to shame especially publikely by way of punishment for publike sins must come from some Iudges or others armed with Authority Iudg. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apostles sense cannot be that every one hath power of himselfe without the Church or any authority there from to put his brother to shame for when a brother is not to eat with a scandalous brother he must be convinced by the Church to be scandalous and so cast our 1 Cor. 5. 11 12 13. as we have proved before and every man here should be his owne judge and party in his owne cause except he put his brother to some shame by an higher authority then his owne The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to put a publike note or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the offender So Stephanus So Piscator Nota ignominiosâ excommunicationis Pomponius laetus de Magistr Rom. â— 21. Censores quintoâ— quoque anno creari solebant hic prorsus cives sic notabantur ut qui Senator esset ejeceâ—etur Senatu qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet c. Mathaeus Harnish Gec Gabellus who adde to Zanchius his Commentary in 2
his businesse performe both doth Paul make exceptions of Magistrates and Potentates when he saith 1 Cor. 14. You may all prophecie Hence he must grant that the civill Magistrate now may both preach baptize and administer the Supper of the Lord and therfore not only hath the Church no Senate nor Ecclesiasticall court to punish faults and scandals with Ecclesiastick censures but there is no Presbytery of Elders to give their judgement in matters of doctrine for the Magistrates and all Christians may as well prophecy by ◠Cor. 14. as Ministers saith he yea the faculty of preaching is no more proper to the Ministers of the Church then to the Magistrates of the city Now by this nothing is proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate but to the Magistrate as a Christian and to all Christians But Erastus contendeth that the government of the Church and punishing of Scandals which we say belongeth to those that are over the people of God in the Lord and to Church Rulers doth belong to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii by vertue of his office so that if any Iew or Turke or any ignorant or extreamely scandalous should attempt to intrude himselfe upon the Seals the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii is to examine and judge if he be unworthy to debar him or as he findeth him worthy admit him to the Seals Now any seeth that it is but a deceiving of the Reader to say that one man may discharge both the place of the Magistrate and the Minister of God as Moses did and Ioshua David For let Erastus and his followers shew us roundly and down-right whether or no prophecying debarring the unworthy from the Seals and all acts of Church government not proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii And if so as indeed Erastus teacheth it is bu◠a poore shift to say that one and the same man may both exercise the part of a Magistrate and of a Minister Erastus Beza for ever shall not prove that there was a Church judicature that had power to punish scandalous men Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. ordained judges in all the fenced cities and admonished them of their duty 2. And did the same at Ierusalem 3. And ordained judges of Levites and Priests and heads of families for the judgement of the Lord and for every cause and Amaziah the High Priest was chiefe in the causes of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings causes This Synedrie at Ierusalem was the politick Magistrate they judged of stroaks servitude deaths But your Synedrie judgeth not between blood and blood it judgeth not of every cause as Deut. 17. Those that are not well versed in Scripture are to note two things 1. That the cause of the Lord where mention is made of judicatures is not onely a cause of Religion but any cause proposed in judgement especially the causes of the widdow the Orphan oppressed which the Lord saith he will avenge 2. The Levites Priests were no lesse civil judges then others it is known that onely the Levits were Magistrats in the cities of refuge there was need of men exercised in the Law of God that the judges might judge righteously Ans If you take punishing for inflicting Church-censure as we here take it then all the places that sayes the Priests pronounced the Leper clean or unclean to put out of the campe or take in to judge of the adulterous woman of the restitution made by those for whom they offered Sacrifices to judge between the clean and unclean to hold out of the Sanctuary the unclean the uncircumcised in heart and flesh Levit. 13. 3 4 c. and 20 22. and 21. 26 and 30. 44. and 31. 50. Ezek. 22. 26. and 44. 8 9 10. Num. 3. 6 and 5. 18 19. Deut 17. 12. say the Priests had power to punish for transgressing of Gods Lawes and where the Prophets complaine of the Priests mis-government and unjustice it is presupposed they were to govern justly according to the Law Ier. 5. 31. 2 King 12. 4. Ier. 26. 7 8 11. Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 44. 8 9 10. 2. For the place 2 Chron. 19. it is evident that Iehoshaphat doth reforme both Church and State and brought the corrupted Iudicatures to that which they should be by Law and v. 5 6 7. He set judges in the fenced cities of Iudah Here is the civill judicature And v. 8. Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levits and of the Priests and of the chiefo of the fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies when they returned to Ierusalem Now that this second is a Church judicature I am confirmed 1. Because Iehoshaphat appointed civill judges in all the fenced cities of Iudah Ergo Also in Ierusalem the prime fenced city Now this civill judicature was not tyed to a place but was in every city even all the fenced cities but the Synedrie of Priests Levites and Elders was onely at Ierusalem in the place that the Lord should chuse Deut. 17. 8. Hence a judicature tyed to no city but which is in every fenced city 2 Chron. 19. 5. Deut. 17. 8. and a judicature tyed to Ierusalem the place that the Lord did choose Deut. 17. 8. 2 Chron. 19. 8. must be two distinct judicatures but such were these 2. There is a moreover put to the Iudicature at Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levites c. This could not have been said if this had not been a judicature different from the former for if Iehoshaphat appointed Iudges in all the fenced cities Ergo He appointed them first at Ierusalem the Mother city and fountaine of justice now then he should say the same thing needlesly and with a moreover if this judicature at Ierusalem were not a judicature Ecclesiasticke and different from the judicature civill that he appointed at Ierusalem as one of the prime fenced cities which was common with the civill judicatures in other fenced cities 3. The persons in the judicatures are different for v. 5. the members of the court 2 Chro. 19. 5 6 7 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judges these could not be Churchmen for of these he speaketh v. 8. they are expresly distinguished from the Levites Priests and Elders v. 8. who are all Church-men for the fathers of the people were no other thing then our governing Elders and these were members of the other court v. 8. 4. The objects of these judicatures are very different The Spirit of God saith of the one ver 5. That they judge for the Lord ver 13. for all the Kings matters this must be all civill causes in which the King and inferiour judges under the King doe judge but the object of the other is higher The Priests and Levites are appointed by Iehoshaphat for the judgement of the Lord ver 8. And in every matter of
The Assumption is false Deut. 17 saith the contrary 3. Though we could not shew a place for the formall institution of an Ordinance yet if we show the thing instituted it is sufficient 4. Erastus much doubteth himselfe if Moses his government was altogether civill especially before the Lord separated Aaron his sons and the Tribe of Levi to teach and governe the people in an Ecclesiasticall way for Erastus said before that Moses prescribed Lawes to Aaron sacrificed and did that which was proper to the Priests though after that God forbad the Kings to usurpe the Priests office and punished Saul and Vzziah for so doing though I never read that Saul usurped the Priests office you may take it upon the word of Erastus and we all know that Moses was a Prophet of God Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren like unto thee Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet in Israel since like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face Heb. 3. 5. Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant Now those that will say Moses his government of the Church was all civill and politicall as a civill judge and King and that he acted not in the governement of the Church as in writing and delivering Laws and in doing many things yea in commanding the will of God as a Prophet to Aaron to his sons and the whole tribe of Levi to me speakes non-sense Erastus That judicature to the which the inferiours appealed as to the supreame is politick Ans It is denied they appealed to it as the supreme Ecclesiastick in point of Law and Conscience Ergo It was not politique all the rest are answered before yea Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. putteth this as a thing peculiar to the Priests v. 12. What cause soever shall come before you of your brethren between blood and blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord that is as Erastus yeeldeth ye shall teach them what is just and agreeable to and what is unjust and repugnant to the Law of God Civill judges lips were not to preserve knowledge as the lips of the Priests Mal. 2. 7. and Deut. 17. 11. According to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee and according to the judgement that they shall tell thou shalt doe Hence it is clear that this judicature in civill things was a teaching a telling a declaring and resolving judicature and that in blood they resolved of causes of blood of stroakes but judged not persons nor bloody men nor violent persons Erastus Moses and Iehoshaphat speake of one and the same judicature Moses doth not give teaching and commanding divisibly to some but joyntly to all the Synedrie Though the Priests were more skilled in the Law for Moses commandeth to teach the sense of the Law by judgeing as he saith himselfe Exod. 18. 16. I judge between one and another and I doe make them know the statutes of God and his lawes Moses putteth them all joyntly together they shall tell thee thou shalt doe what they shevv thee according to the Lavv that they shall teach thee shalt thou doe not declining to the right-hand or to the left-hand Ans 1. That Iehoshaphat speaketh of the same judicature that Moses speaketh of is clear 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 10. The very words of Moses Deut. 17. 8. are the same both the same judges and the same causes compared with v. 5 6 7. But Iehoshaphat maketh two judicatures as I have proved and Iehoshaphat reformed according to Moses his Lavv as Erastus granteth 2. I cannot be induced to beleeve that the judges here teached by judging it is spoken contrary to Theology The end of teaching is to informe the conscience and Teachers as Teachers watch for the soule and the end of civill and politick judging is a quiet and peaceable life 1 Tim. 2. 2. the vveapons of teachers are not carnall but spirituall 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. the weapons of civill Iudges are carnall for the civill Iudge beareth not the svvord in vaine Rom. 13. 4. then these same civill judges did not both teach and judge at once they taught not as civill judges but as Priests they judged not as Priests but as civill Iudges and therefore there is no ground to say that Moses ascribeth these same acts to civill judges and Priests and Levites as if they made one Synedry for in both Texts not one word of teaching which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ier. 2. 8. Hos 4. 6. is ascribed to the civill Iudge and not one word of judging and condemning to death which is proper to the civill Iudge Num. 35. 24. Deut. 22. 18 19 Deut. 17. 2. 3 4 c. and 21. 19 20. 1 King 21. 11. 2 Sam. 14. 15. 1 Kings 2. 28 c. Rom. 13. 4. Luke 12. 13. 14. c. is ascribed to the Priests and Levites but the Priest or the judge are set downe by way of disjunction Deut. 17. 12. which could not be if they made one and the same judicature and therefore Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. clearely distinguisheth them in two judicatures one v. 5 6 7. Another v. 8 9 10. having two sundry presidents and two sundry objects to treat about to wit the matters of Iehovah and the matters of the King 3. The place cited Exod. 18. 16. confirmeth much our opinion for Moses as a Iudge saith vvhen they have a matter they come unto me and I judge between one another This he spake as a civill Iudge and when he saith And I make them knovv the statutes of God and his lavves This he spake as a prophet for Moses was both a Iudge and a Prophet Now if all civill Iudges be such mixt persons as to teach the Stautes and Laws of God they doe this either as civill judges or as Prophets then there was reason why Malachie should have said the civill judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth for if a civill judge as a Iudge teach the people and watch for their souls what marvell then he beare the sword to preserve their bodies as a Prophet and not as a Iudge and if he beare the sword as a Prophet and Teacher all Teachers must beare the sword which is against reason and Scripture and what reason is there if Moses teach as a civill judge but he may as properly be obliged in conscience to teach and so he should sin if he imploy not his talent that way as he is obliged to exercise the sword as a judge and by the contrary a Prophet as a Prophet should be obliged in conscience as kindly and per se to exercise the Sword as to preach the Gospel for nothing agreeth more kindly to the subiect then that which agreeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under that reduplication as it is
Magistratibus as Vtenbogard speaketh from and under the Magistrate as the Vicars Deputies and Ambassadors of the Magistrate yea that Magistrates teach the people by the Pastors as by their Vicars then Zebadiah should more diligently care for the matters of God then Amariah as the Lord and Master should more care his own businesse then his servant should do 3. More or lesse doth not vary the nature of things then must the Magistrate Sacrifice Teach judge between the clean and the unclean minister before the Lord as the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi but lesse diligently But what calling hath he to any of these Acts at all Hath the Lord chosen the Tribe of Iudah or the Tribe of Levi to minister before him And by the same reason the Priests Levites should do these same things but more diligently And again Amariah is to use the sword and to condemne ill doers to death But lesse diligently these be pleasant dreams 5. The Priest and Judges are companions as Moses and Aaron Ergo the one is not Master and the other servant and Deputy â—â— Erastus dreameth and they are the rather of that in divers Senats 6. But how proveth Erastus That the Levites were common Servants both to Priests and Judges For though it were so this will never subject the Priests to the Civill Iudge nor confound these two Iudicatures David 1 Chron. 26. divided the Levites and set them in their courses for service Ergo They were King Davids servants as King it followeth not except Erastus prove David did not this as a Prophet and that the Lord did not choose the Tribe of Levi. But David did it as a King and so all Magistrates may appoint offices in the House of God and call men to the Ministry by vertue of the Magistrates place But David 1 Chro. 24. distributed the Priests as well as the Levites Ergo the Priests are servants to the King as well as the Levites But the Levites are expresly 1. Chron. 26. given by office to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord for the purifying the holy things for the shew bread for the fine flour for meat offerings and for the unleavened Cakes and that which is baked in the pan and for that which is fryed and for all manner of measures and size to praise the Lord at morning and night to offer all burnt sacrifices to the Lord c. In all which no man can say they were servants to the King For then the King sacrificed by them as by his servants no Divinity is more contrary to Scripture It is true 1 Chron. 26. 30. some of the Hebronites were Officers in all the businesse of the Lord and the service of the King But that is because ver 26. they had the oversight of the spoile that the King dedicated to the house of the Lord for the building of the Temple and that is called the Kings businesse Erastus Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. did not depart from Moses his Law But we read not that there were two distinct Iurisdictions commanded and instituted by God Ans If this be a good Argument all that David and Solomon did for and in the building of the Temple in the structure forme length breadth Cedars gold Altars c. of the Temple shall be without Warrant Solomon and David departed not from Moses But Moses spake nothing of the Temple and a thousand things of Divine institution in the Temple But this is our Argument Jehoshaphat did erect no new Iudicatures but restore those that had their Warrant from Moses his Law But so it is that Iehoshaphat reinstituteth two distinct Iudicatures Ergo The Lord by Moses at the beginning did institute these two distinct Iudicatures Erastus We are not anxiously to inquire what be the matters of God it is all one with what he said before ye judge not for men but for the Lord. The Rabbines the judgement of Capitall causes is the judgement of souls the scripture nameth all judgements most frequently the judgements of the Lord Deut. 1. Ye shall not fear men for the judgement is the Lords Exod. 18. The people come to me to inquire of God that is to seek judgement Therefore are the Judges Exod. 22. Psal 82. called Gods The matter of God is any cause expressed in the Law of God and proposed to the Judges to be judged and the Kings matter is that which properly belongeth to the King Ans Erastus his anxiety to inquire is little because he cannot Answer 1. The matter of the Lord cannot be all one with this Ye judge not for men but for the Lord For the matter of the King or a point of Treason to be judged is to be judged not for men but for the Lord. But the Text differenceth between the matters of Lord and the matters of the King 2. In the former 2 Chron. 19. 5. he speaketh of civill businesse but the matters of the Lord are such as concern the Law of God and the true sense and meaning thereof to be proposed to the conscience and 3. That is a common thing to all causes that in the manner of Iudging Iudges are to look that they do as men in the place of God so then as God if he were judging would do no iniquity nor respect persons nor take gifts as he saith ver 7. So neither should men do iniquity or respect persons in judgement and so is it taken Deut. 1. 17. Now this clearly is the manner of righteous judgement and Modus judicandi but the matter of Iehovah is Res judicata the thing to be judged which may be unjustly Iudged and this matter of Iehovah is not common to all causes but is contradistinguished in the Text from the matters of the King which in the manner of judging is no lesse to be judged according to the judgement of the Lord then the matters of Jehovah 4. The Chalde Paraphrast Vt inquir at instructionem Vatab. Vt consulat deum This is a false interpretation That to inquire of God is to seek judgement from God For it is to ask the Lords minde in doubtsome cases and this they asked from Moses as he was a Prophet not as he was a civill Iudge except Erastus will have the Magistrate of old to give responses and to have been Oracles by vertue of their Office which is a clear untruth Saul David Solomon Joshua though Kings did not give responsals and answers when they did go to War or were in doubtsome perplexities But did ask Counsell at the Priest and Oracle of God and the Ark 1 Sam. 15. 37. Iosh 9. 14. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 30. 8. and 23. 2. 4. And by this the Magistrate as the Magistrate should resolve all doubts of conscience now to perplexed consciences under the New-Testament 5. The Iudges are called Gods because they are under-Deputies in the room and place of the great God not because every judgement of
theirs is the judgement and very sentence of God and according to that the cause they judge is nothing but the cause of God for they are to judge the Kings matters no lesse then Gods matters 6. For what end Erastus speaketh of the Rabbines here I know not I think he knoweth not himself the man was ignorant of them and innocent of their language Erastus I am not against that the things of God be things belonging to the Worship of God and the matters of the Kings Civill businesse The Priest must especially take care that there be no error in Faith and Ceremonies and this belongeth also to the King as is clear Deut. 17. So Zebadiah is not excluded from Gods matters Nor Amariah from the Kings businesse Ans This interpretation is fully refuted Zebadiah is in the Text excluded from judging Ecclesiastically in the matters of God as a Priest Levite or Elder For if he must judge so he must either judge as a Priest or Levite which he was not or as a Civill Iudge if as a Civill Iudge then is he no lesse over the people in the matters of God then in the Kings matters Now the Text could not exclude him from these things which belongeth to his office and put him in another Sphere in the businesse of the King and put such a wide difference between the object of the two men as the Kings matters and the matters of the King of Kings The like I say of Amariah 2. The King Deut. 17. as King is to Iudge according to the Book of the Law that he may be a godly King and fear God and keep the words of the Law Ergo he is to teach the people no lesse then the Priest and to judge between the clean and unclean and that as King This no way followeth Erastus If you please by the matters of God to understand the causes of appeals and by the Kings matters other judgements I contend not And because the Priest was better accustomed with the Law of God then others therefore the High Priest was set over these yet so as Zebadiah was over the Kings businesse But I think the two first especially the first the best Exposition But 1 Chron. 26. These same persons are set over both the Kings and the Lords matters Ans Consider how dubious Erastus is in his three Expositions to elude the force of the place If it was the Magistrates place virtute officii by vertue of his office to command the Priests and to direct them as Erastus and Vtenbogard say in the internall and specifick acts of Sacrificing Iudging between the clean and the unclean teaching the people then the King and the Civill Iudge were by office to be more skilled in the Causes of God then the Priests because the Commander and the directer who may by his office exercise those same acts that he commandeth his servants yea and is by office to command him to do thus in these internall Acts and not thus he ought by his office to be more skilled in these then the servant I grant the King Commandeth the Painter all the morall equity requisite in Painting that he endamage not the Common-wealth by prosuse lavishing of Gold and in this it is presumed there is more Iustice and morall equity by office in the King Commanding then in the Painter Commanded But if the King should take on him to Command virtute officii that the Painter regulateth his actions of art thus and thus and direct and Command by his Royall office as King that the Painter draw the face of the Image with more pale and white and lesse red and incarnate colour in such a proportion according to art and not in such a proportion Then by office the King as King might paint Pourtraictâ— himself and behoved by office to be more skilled in Painting then the Painter Now Erastus presupposeth Whatever the Priests do as Priests in an Ecclesiasticall way he excepteth Sacrificing and burning incense but for a time that the King as King may do the same also so the King as King may teach give responses in matters of God and now under the new Testament Preach and dispense the Sacraments and judge as King whether Priests and Pastors do right or no and that not only in order to Civill but also to Ecclesiasticall punishments as deprivation from their offices and debarring from the Sacraments Hence it must follow that Zebediah should by office be better skilled in the matters of God then Amariah or any Priest and by office he should rather be over the matters of God then any Priest in the world 2. Now its clear that these same things to be over men in the matter of God and in the matters of the King 1 Chron. 26. proveth nothing except they be over these same matters by one and the same power of the Sword as Erastus saith Amariah the High Priest and Zebediah the Civill Iudge promiscuously were both of them without exclusion of either over the people in the matters of the Lord and in the matters of the King and in the same judicature by the same coactive power of the sword as Erastus saith Priests and Civill Iudges were in the same judicature by the same Civill power Iudges to give out joyntly in a judiciall way the sentence of a bloody death and to inflict a bloody death by the same power 3. It is Erastus his ignorance of the Originall Text to say these same words that are 2 Chron. 19. 11. are also 1 Chron 26. ver 30 32. for 2 Chron. 19. 11. it is said Amariah is over you in all the matters of the Lord Hence the matters of the Lord were the formall object of his judging But 1 Chron. 26. 30. the Hebronites were officers in the businesse of the Lord or to the businesse of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the service of the King Levites might have been imployed in both Ecclesiasticall and Civill businesse in the Temple and in the overseeing of those spoiles that David in Wars had taken from the Enemies and Dedicated for building the House of the Lord which are called the Kings businesse and the construction ver 32. is varied where it is said The Hebronites mighty men of valour and so fit for war were made by King David Rulers over the Reuâ—eniâ—es Gadites and the half Tribe of Manasseh for every matter not in every matter pertaining to God The affixum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here and the affaires of the King These Levites seem to be imployed in the war and are called valiant men which must be some extraordinary case But otherwise when God commanded to number the Children of Israel for War Numb 1. 3. 45. The Levites were not numbred God did forbid Moses to number them because they were appointed for another service ver 48 49 50. Yet it seemeth in Davids time when there were exâ—raordinary warres that they were not exempted from
Synedry was the Civill Magistrate Erastus When the Priest accused Jeremiah Chap. 26. of blasphemy he sate not amongst the Judges but stood as an accuser before the Magistrate So Beza Erastus replieth Your Synedry had no Civill jurisdiction because it is a dream 2. Should Pashut the Priest be both accuser and judge 3. In Ieremiahs time there was a Monarch in whose hand was all power in Christs time there was an Aristocracy the Government being in the hands of some chosen men Ans Certainly Ier. 26. 10. the Princes sate down in judgement but that the Priests sate with them we have not one word only the Priests accused him as worthy to die in the question of Law and so the people ver 8. Now the people undeniably cannot have been Iudges 2. Nor do we say the Priests were both judges Civill to condemn Ieremiah to die and accusers that doth not hinder but they in an Ecclesiasticall way were Iudges touching the question of Law whether he had spoken blasphemy or not and also Accusers before the Civill Iudges 3. It is to beg the question to say that all power even of Church-censuring was in the hand of the King 1. The King might exclude none of the Lepers out of the Camp the Priests only could by the Law of God do this and excluded Vzziah the King as a Leper out of the Congregation The King could not judge who were clean who unclean 2. That all power was in the hand of the Kings as if the Kings of Iâ—dah were by Gods Law absolute can never be proved but the contrary is evident Deut. 17. And that inferiour Iudges were essentially Iudges and the Lords immediate Deputies is clear by Scripture Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 5 6 7. Exod. 18. 21 c. Numb 11. â—6 17 18. Psal 82. 6 7. Rom. 13. 1 2. Erastus You ask how Caiaphas and the Priâ—sts had power against Iesus I ansvver 1. From God 2. From the Kings of Persia 3. From the permission of the Romans They apprehended him and bound him which was a part of Civill power nor was this some of the confusion under the Maccabees Hovv can this be proved Christ never rebuked it nor his Apostles the contrary is clear in Iosephus Ans A permissive power from God can prove no Law-power 2. Persians and Romans could not give to Priests and Levites the power of the sword to do what the Law of God had exempted them from doing they were not so much as numbred for the war but set apart for the service of Gods house Num. 1. 3. 45 c. they might in some extraordinary cases judge in civill businesse with the Civill Iudges in the same Iudicature but this was no standing Law 2. Erastus seeketh we would prove that the practise of bloody Pharisees was not against Law He knoweth it is his own Argument Affirmanti incumbit Probatio 3. Christ and the Apostles rebuked not particularly many other sins Pilate might have accused them for binding one of Cesars Subjects of whom he had said he found no fault in him 4. That Ioseph was a Priest or a Levite I reade not he was an Honourable Councellor some think of Pilates Councell 5. That they had any Law of God to apprehend Iesus or that Ioseph had any hand in either condemning or doing any thing in the Sanedrim but shewing his judgement as a Iudge in the question of Law what was blasphemy we must deny let Erastus prove it if so be Erastus make him either Priest or Levite Ioh. 18. 31. The Iews expresly deny the power that Erastus giveth them Pilate therefore said unto them take him and judge him according to your Law which was a salt mocking of them I knovv if you had povver you should not have brought him to me therefore if ye have povver use it The Ievvs therefore said unto him It is not lavvfull for us to put any man to death and the Evangelist addeth ver 32. That the saying of Iesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die that is God had taken power of life and death from the Iews in his admirable providence that Iesus might die a Roman death due for treason that is that he might be crucified Ergo the Iews had no power to put him to death It is weak and empty that Erastus saith They had not povver to put him to death for saying he vvas King because that was a civill crime But they had power to put him to death and to stone him for blasphemy for the Iews say universally without distinction of causes with two negations which in the Greek Language is a strong and universall negation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have not power to kill any man Ergo the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him because the Iews might kill no man you will say Hovv had they povver vvith svvords and staves to take the Kings free subject and binde him which yet they did I answer it was an usurped power for by Erastus his doctrine they had no more power to take him and binde him for Treason which was a civill crime then they had to kill him for Treason both was alike unlawfull by the Roman Lavv and Pilate being a man willing to please the people as the event of the businesse sheweth did not in a legall way challenge them for binding him but he durst not be answerable to his Prince Cesar if he had past by such a high point as their putting Christ to death But we desire any Law of God for practises especially of wicked men are no binding rule that Priests or Levites in the Old-Testament might either binde a Iew or put him to death and when Pilate did stand so much to put Christ to death they would have used their own power malice so necessitating them if they had had any and might well have said to Pilate It is lavvfull for us to put him to death for blasphemy but vve vvill not use our povver vve so love to be loyall to Caesar but they say the contrary We have no povver to put any man to death They say indeed that by their law he ought to die But that they had no power to put him to death for the Common people said that as may appear if we compare Ioh. 19. ver 5. with ver 12. with Matth. 27. 25. and with Act. 2. 36. Act. 3. 12. c. and yet Erastus will not say that the common people were Members of the Sanedrim or had power of life and death as the Civill Magistrate had Erastus Steven was stoned by the Sanedrim not by tumult for there vvere vvitnesses as the lavv required Act. 7. The vvitnesses vvho by the lavv vvere to cast the first stone at the man condemned vvere here therefore there vvas Lavv-povver to stone him though they did it unjustly Ans Beza meant that Steven was stoned by tumult that is without
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
29. Deut. 10. 8 18. Numb 1. 50. and 3. 9 12 41. and 8. 10. Psal 122. 5. In Jerusalem there were set thrones of judgement the thrones of the house of David Mat. 22. 21. Christ commanded to give to Cesar the things that are Cesars and he in his own person refused to usurpe Cesars place Luke 12. 14. Man who made me a Iudge and interdicted his Apostles thereof Luke 22 24 25 26. and yet appointed for them a Judicature of another kinde Mat. 18. 15. Mat. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 5. and if any should deny that the Civill Magistrate had another Court in which he judged the Scriptures will refute him 3. It is evident that Iehoshaphat did not institute but restore those two courts 2 Chron. 19. 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters never any Erastian could satisfie either themselves or others to shew us what were those two courts so distinguished by their two sundry Rulers Amariah and Zebadiah the one a Priest the other a Magistrate 2. By the different formall objects the matters of the Lord the matters of the King and confounded they must be if the King and Ruler be a judge in the matters of God except God make him both a civill judge and a Prophet as were Moses and Samuel which yet were differenced when the God of order established his Church in Canaan The Church convenes for a Church businesse Iosh 18. 1. to set up the Tabernacle but for a civill businesse to make war the State conveneth Iosh 22. 12. 15. 16. Iudg. 21. 12. and Ier. 26. 8. there is the Church judicature discerning that Ieremiah was a false Teacher and they first judge the cause and v. 16. The Civill Iudicature discerneth the contrary and under Zorababel Ezra and Nehemiah they indured different judicatures Iesus Christ was arraigned before Caiphas the High Priest for pretended blasphemie before Pilate the civill judge for treason but Caiphas was to determine onely by Law in questione juris whether it was blasphemie which Christ had spoken but he had no power by Gods Law to lead Witnesses or condemn Christ Nor is it true that the Priests had their government onely about Ceremonialls for they were to judge of Morall uncleannes also which even then debarred men from the holy things of God as is cleare Hag. 2. 12. Ezek. 44. 9. 10 23 24. and if any say that the Magistrate amongst the Iewes did judge of Ecclesiasticall things and reformed Religion We answer extraordinarily the Magistrate might prophecie and did prophecy as did Samuel David Solomon Why do not Erastians bring those examples to prove that Kings Provasts Iustices may now preach the Word and administer the Sacraments which yet is unlawfull to them by grant of Adversaries for the examples of the Kings amongst the Iewes is as strong for preaching as for governing and because Prophets did judge the people of old yet no Protestant Divine will say that now Pastors may also usurpe the civill Sword Now least any should object the case is not alike in the Jewish and Christian Church surely the King of the Church hath no lesse separated such men as Paul and Barnabas for the Ministery now then at that time Rom. 1. 1 2. Act. 2. And sent labourers to his vineyard Luk. 10. 2. Matth. 20. 2. 9. 37 38. And Ambassadors to Preach in his Name 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ministers of Christ and Stewarts of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. Men sent of God whose feet are pleasant for their good News as were the Prophets of old who were not only gifted to preach but instructed with Divine Authority as is clear Rom. 10. 14. 15. Isa 52. 7. 40. 9. Nahum 1. 15. Yea and men that feeds the flock not only by Preaching but also Govern the Church so that they must take heed that Ravening Wolves creep not into the Church who shall not spare the flock Act. 20. 28. 29. Men who must be obeyed because they watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. And can govern the Church as well as they are apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 5. 2. Men that labour amongst us and are over us in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. And men who are to call to the work other faithfull men that are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Such as are separated from the affairs of this life such as Magistrates are not 1 Cor. 6. 3. such as Rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. and are not to receive accusations but under witnesses and are to lay hands suddenly on no man not to call them to the holy Ministery till they be sufficiently tryed 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 22. all which import teaching and governing Now if all these directions be given to Timothy and other Pastors till the end of the world then must all these directions be principally written to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and these Epistles to Timothy agree principally to the Christian Magistrate and to Pastors and Doctors at the by as they be delegates and substitutes of the Magistrates and that by office the Emperour of Rome was to lay hands suddenly on no man and commit the Gospel to faithfull men who could teach others and was not to receive an accusation against an Elder and certainly if the Magistrate call to office those that are over us in the Lord and if those who watch for our soules especially be but the curates and delegates of the King and Parliament then the King and Parliament behoved in a more eminent manner to watch for our souls for directions and commandments of God in this kinde are more principally given to the Master Lord and chief Governour of the house of God if the Magistrate be such then to the servants delegates But where is there any such directions given to the Emperour King or Christian Magistrate by any shadow of ground in the Word It is not much to say The Magistrate was an heathen an enemy at this time and therefore those could not be written to him For 1. No force can strain these two Epistles to Timothy and the other to Titus which contain a form of Church-policy to any Christian Magistrate for then the qualification of the King if he be the supream Governour of the Church should far rather have been expressed then the qualification of a Bishop and a Deacon which is no where hinted at 2. All these directions notwithstanding this do and must actu primo agree to the Magâ—strate for his office who is chief governour what he should be is described in the Word 3. When Christ ascended on high he gave as a fruit of his ascension sufficient means for his intended end The perfecting of the Saints the gathering of his Body the Church and the edifying thereof even
till we all meet in the Vnity of the Spirit and the knowledge of the son of God unto a perfect man Eph. 4. Now neither in that place nor in any other place did Christ give a Magistrate for the edifying his Body the Church but only those that are but his Delegates Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers iâ— the Magistrate be the only Governour of the Church and he who sendeth into the Vineyard those who edifie the Body the King should have been first in this Role as the only supream gatherer edifier and builder of the Church It cannot be said The Ruling Elder then because he is omitted here should not be the gift of Christ given to Edifiâ— the Church and by this it must be denied that the King the Nurse father of the Church who is to take care that the Children be fed with the sincere milk of the Word is given of God to edfâ—ie the Church because he is not nameâ— here Ans Our Divines as Calvin Beza Marlorate do strongly gather from this place that because the Pope pretended to be the Catholick edifier of the Church is not here in this Text nor in any other scripture that therefore he is not the head of the Church and the King being pretended to be the only eminent gatherer of the Church and Supream Governour in all Causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall he should especially have been set down here he being a mixed person and more then half a Church-officer in the minde of the Adversary And there was no colour of reason why the supream and only Head and principall Governour of the Church should be omitted at least the Magistrate should be in some other Scripture as the only Church Governor seeing the Adversaries make Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons only the Delegates and Servants of the Magistrate 1. As God calleth the King to governe the people by the free election of the people so if the Magistrate be called of God to teach and govern the Church this calling of his should be in the Scripture as his calling to the Throne or Bench is Deut. 17. 14. 15 c. 1. 15 16. Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1 2. But in neither the Old nor the New Testament finde we any Prince or Ruler separated for the holy things of God to be ` Priest Apostle Pastor Prophet Teacher by vertue of his office as if he were a mixed person as the Adversarie say No David is called to Sacrifice no Constantine to preach and Administrate the Sacraments by vertue of the Magistrates place 2. If any Reply that the Christian Magistrate is a means ordained for that spirituall end the gathering and edifying the Church in regard the keepeth not only the second Table of the Law and so promoteth not only the Temporall good of the State in promoting mercy and Justice only but also in procuring spirituall good to the people in preserving the first Table of the Law I Answer That the Christian Magistrate doth both but 1. Not directly by being the intrinsecall means in actibus elicitis in elicite and intrinsecall acts promoting edification in both Tables of the Law of which the Scripture speaketh Eph. 4 11. but a far other way 1. In imperated and commanded acts extrinsecally as he doth command with the sword for Peaces cause in all callingâ— in sailing trading painting c. promoting it by carnall means by the sword which belongeth not to the officers of Christs Kingdom 2. Not necessarily as the Pastors and Elders without which Christ hath no externall visible Kingdom on earth whereas he hath had often hath a compleat flourishing externall visible Kingdom without Magistrates yea where Magistrates have been open enemies to the Gospel 3. Not directly the Magistrate doth this but in so far as he admitteth as Triglandius saith the Church of Christ within his State which he may and often doth refuse to do and yet be a compleat Magistrate and therefore the Magistrate may two wayes procure the spirituall good of the Church 1. By procuring that the Nurses give good and wholesome milk to the Church 2. Permodum removent is prohibens which is also a cause for he may save the flock from great temptations when by his sword he driveth away the Wolves from the flock But not any of these bringeth the Magistrate within the lisâ— of the number of these intrinsecall 2. Necessary 3. Spirituall gifts which Christ ascending on high gave for the Edifying of his Body the Church Two powers so different as spirituall and temporall 2. As powers carnall of this world and spirituall not of this world And 3. Both immediatly subject the one to God the creator the other to Christ the Redeemer and Head of the Church and so co-ordinate and supream both of them in their own kinde cannot be so subordinate as the temporall should be the supream in the same kinde the spirituall the inferiour and subordinate But these two powers are so different as spirituall and temporall carnall of this world spirituall not of this world the one subject as supream immediatly to God creator the other supream immediately subject to God the redeemer Ergo Those powers of Governing are not so subordinate as the Temporall should be supream the spirituall subordinate to it The Major is undeniable for it involveth a contradiction that two supreame co-ordinate powers should be two not Supreame but subornidate powers The same way I prove the Assumption 1. The Magistrates power is supreame from God Rom. 13. 1. The Powers that are be of God Prov. 8. By me Kings reigne for no Ecclesiasticall power nor any power on earth interveenes between God the Creator and the power of the civill Magistrates But God who giveth being to a society of men hoc ipso because they are a society of reasonable men hath given to them a power immediately from himselfe to designe such and such to be their Rulers Shew us any higher power above the Magistrates but God the creator making the civill power Never man dreamt that the Spirituall power of the Church doth interveen as an instrumentall cause of the politick power 2. By order of nature a politick power is first men are first men in naturall and politick society ere they be in a supernaturall pollicy or a Church and Christ did not make a spirituall power by the intervention of a civill power 2. The power of the two Kingdoms are distinguished by Christ Iohn 18. 36. Iesus answered my Kingdome is not of this World then the power thereof is not of this World if my Kingdome were of this World then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iewes The one power is coactive by the Sword the other free voluntary by the Word Erastus had no reason to infer thence that Christs Kingdome is onely internall and invisible not externall and visible because Christ opposeth his Kingdom to a fighting Kingdom using the sword to defend him from
King was to use the sword in defence of the Law and punishing Idolaters for 1. the King is neither commanded to teach Priests and people out of the booke of the Law Nor 2. rebuked for his neglect in this both these we may read of the Priests every where in the Prophets Deut. 33. 10. Mal. 2. 7. Lev. 10. 10 11. Ier. 2. 8. and 6. 13 14. Hos 4. 6 7 8. Deut. 17. 11 12. yea the booke of the Law is put in the keeping of the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 25. And Moses commanded the Levites which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord saying 26. Take this book of the Law and put it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord your God Now if the Priests had been onely the Kings servants immediately subordinate to the King and mediately onely to Iesus Christ the Arke all the holy things the booke of the covenant the burning of incense before the Lord had been principally and first injoyned to the King Ezra the Priest read the book of the Law not Nehemiah nor was it ever commanded that the King should read it in the hearing of the people and give the sense of it as the Priests were to doe by their office Hilkiah 2 Kin. 22. found the booke of the Law that was lost and Shaphan the Scribe read it before the King that they might see their Apostacie and Iosiah might accordingly reforme 2 King 22 9 10. Object 11. Isai 49. Kings shall be thy Nurse-fathers Ergo Kings were Fathers and heads of the Church Ans This text is brought for the Popes Supremacy but it is Isai 60. 10. Their Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall serve thee this is no dominion And the breasts of Kings which the Church is to suck is not the sincere milk of the Word which the King preacheth by himself or others but the externall strength dignity that the King shall adde by his Authority to the Church but the Tutor cannot â—ob the Pupil of the Law and priviledges of the inheritance 2. The Prince is not a father spirituall of the second birth of the Church as Paul was 1 Cor. 4. 15. Object 12. He for whom we are to pray that under him we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty and procureth the good of the Church as the Church to him as the supream Officer and Shepherd is the Church as the Church subject but the Magistrate is such 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo. Ans The Major is false and the Assumption untrue also and all that the conclusion can bring forth is that the Prince hath 1. An externall coactive care by way of dominion to procure the removall of Wolves from the fold 2. To procure the good of the Church in order to a naturall and civill good 3. To procure good to the Church as the Church in a coactive way by the sword in punishing Idolators 2. The Church as the Church is not subordinate to the Prince but as Subjects of the common wealth because he by a coactive power may procure the good of the Church as the Church for indirectly and by the sword the Magistrate defending godlines and procuring the good of souls doth not prove that his dominion and sword extendeth to their soules or that he watcheth for their soules as Heb. 13. 17. Obj. 13. The Kings of Israel and Iudah have reformed Religion Ans I cannot trouble the Reader to adde here what I have answered elsewhere but let the Reader see Triglandius Ant. Walens Gabel Iavius in the cited places they have in the defection of the Priests which is extraordinary Reformed Religion 2. They did many things as Prophets not as Magistrates 3. They have done much in Religion quoad actus imperatos non elicitos by their civill power commanding Priests to doe their dutie Object 14. It s true in severall respects he that is a Governour may be a subject but in one and the same spirituall respect to judge and to be judged to sit on the Bench and stand at the barre of Christ Iesus is as impossible as to reconcile the East and the VVest together so The Bloodie Tenent I demand if the Church be a Delinquent who shall judge It is answered the magistrate Again if the magistrate be a delinquent I ask who shall judge it It is answered The Church Whence I observe which is in most cases of the world monstrous that one person to wit the Church or the Magistrate shall be at one time the delinquent at the Barre and the judge upon the Bench for the Church must judge when the magistrate offends and yet the magistrate must judge when the Church offends whether she contemâ—â— civill authority in the Second Table for thus dealing with him or whether she hath broken the rules of the first table of which say they God hath made him a keeper and preserver what blood what tumults hath been and must be spilt upon these grounds Ib. so the Church calleth one of her members to office and ordaineth him an officer The Magistrate opposeth him as an unworthy officer and according to his conscience suppresseth him upon this the Church complaineth of the Magistrates violation of her priviledges and that he is turned persecutor and not prevailing with admonition She excommunicateth the Magistrate The Magistrate again not induring such violation of ordinances he cutteth off with the sword such prophaners of ordinances Ans All this is but wind devised against the Magistrates punishing of Idolaters and I shew the same followeth upon the Magistrates or Church erring the one in abusing civill authority or the other in prophaning ordinances or preaching the word for instance The Iudges of a land or of Ierusalem make grievous and bloody decrees against the poor the widdows and the Orphane A faithfull Isaiah a zealous preacher by authority from the Lord judgeth and condemneth according to his conscience these judges and cryeth out as Isai 10. 1 in the name of the Lord before all the Congregation Woe be to you who decree unrighteous decrees and write in the Bench grievousnesse to turne aside the needy from judgement and to take away right from the poore Now the Magistrate that decreed those decrees judgeth in his conscience they are righteous decrees and he according to his conscience noâ— induring that Isaiah or any preacher should thus abuse and prophane so holy an Ordinance of prophecying and preaching as to preach lies in the name of the Lord he proceedeth in his civill court and cuâ—teth off with the sword such false Prophets because they â—lander the Lords annoynted and preach lies of him is not here a reciprocation of judging in the same cause What will the Author say to this O saith he the Magistrate ought not to use his sword against those Prophets for they preach according to their conscience the truth of God But say that Shimei were a Prophet and
members of the Church and that they are to be cast out of the Church as he doth also he must either grant that Christian Magistrates cannot turn Apostates and Idolaters which is against Scripture and experience or that if they turn Apostates and Idolaters they remain no longer members of the Church but are to be excommunicated or then Christ must have made some speciall exception that Kings though Idolaters and Apostates do yet remain members of the Church and are not to be cast out of the Church which beside that Erastus cannot shew is contradictory to his words Hence it is clear the Magistrate if he turn as Saul did a wicked man he is to be excommunicated But 1. By whom by the Church Erastus will deny he can be judged by the Church because he is above the Church by himselfe that is against reason By other Magistrates he is the only supream in that Church and by what reason he is above the Church he is above the other Magistrates and other Magistrates are guilty of the same fault Obj. 5. The supream and principall power called Architectonica of governing the Church in externals either agree to the Magistrate or to the Church not to the Magistrate as they say if to the Church Then 1. The universall care and inspection over the Church is taken from the Magistrate and given to the Church Ergo 2. Then the Christian Magistrate not indirectly only but directly must be obliged to follow the judgement of the Church in ordaining depriving punishing of Ministers or of any excommunicated 3. The subjects must be obliged not to obey yea to disobey the Magistrate if he decern any thing contrary to the Church and the Magistrate as a lictor and servant must execute all Ans 1. There is no reason to say that the supream and principall power by way of royall dominion as the argument supposeth in Church matters should agree to either Magistrate on earth or Church it is a Rose of the Crown of him who is the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords and so the Major is false Nor is that care and inspection which is due to the Magistrate taken from him when we ascribe to Christ what is his due 2. Neither doth it follow that the Magistrate is directly obliged to follow the judgement of the Church except we did make the judgement of the Church supream and absolute and armed with such a dominion as the adversaries give to the Magistrate in which case it followeth that the Church is directly and absolutely obliged to follow the judgement of the Magistrate according to the way of the adversaries and that if this argument be good they must ascribe blind obedience either to the Church or Magistrate not to the Magistrate they say Ergo to the Church Nor can they take it off by saying that the Magistrates dominon is limited by the Word of God for they know that we teach that all the constitutions and decrees of Synods made by the Church as the Church is limited by the Word of God yet they cease not to object to us that we make the Magistrate a servant and a lictor to the Church and obliged by his place to give blind obedience to the Church and therefore they are obliged to answer the argument and remove papal dominion from their way according to their owne argument if they will be willing to take in to themselves with the same measure that they give out to others But if they give a ministeriall power of judging to the Church the argument is easily answered which they cannot give to the Magistrate except they make his office to oblige the conscience and his commands as magistraticall to be given out under the pain of the second death Now his sword is too short to reach to this I hope except you make the vengence that he executeth on evil doers Rom. 13. to be eternall fire and his sword to be no materiall nor visible sword but such as commandeth Devils and Hell which is absurd for the Magistrates power of judging and commanding is commensurable to his power of rewarding and punishing that is both is temporary within time on the body of this world The Pastors have a power of commanding though only ministeriall but free of all domination or externall coaction which is spirituall and the punishment is accordingly spirituall a binding in earth and heaven I borrow only the word of punishment it being no such thing properly Obj. 6. If the end of the Church be a spirituall and of the Magistrate be a temporall good and if the Magistrate have no spirituall power to attain to his temporall end no more then the Church hath any temporall power to attain to her spirituall end is not this a contradiction that the Magistrate should determine what the true Church and Ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword for the Magistrates power to judge and punish in spirituall causes must be either spirituall or civill or then he hath none and so acts without commission Now for civill power the Magistrate hath it only over the bodies and goods of men and hath it not over the soul nor can he have it say â— in soul cases It is confessed that the Magistrate hath no spirituall power to attain a temporall end and therefore those who provoke the Magistrate without either civill or spirituall power to punish or prosecute in spirituall causes are to fear that they come too near to those frogs that proceed out of the mouth of the Dragon and Beast and false Prophet who with the same argument stirre up the Kings of the earth to make war against the Lambe and his followers Rev. 17. Bloody Tenent Answ 1. All this argument is builded on a great mistake and a conseqence never proved except by this one word of the Author Therefore say I and it is this The Magistrate hath no civill power over the soul therefore say I he hath no power in soul matters and cannot judge and punish in spirituall causes Sir this is a non sequitur The learned Divine Rivetus saith well The Magistrates power in spirituall things to judge and punish is formaliter and in it self and intrinsecally civill but objective in regard of the object and extrinsecally it is spirituall 1. I ask when the Author and his take a professor into Church-communion they judge whether he be just mercifull and peaceable when they excommunicate any member for murther for unjustice in taking away the goods of his brother whether the Church doth judge and punish in the causes of justice mercy and peace which properly belongeth to the civill Magistrate not to the Church properly but only ratione scandali as they are offensive in the Church of God I ask I say if the Churches power in judging and punishing be civill or spirituall not civill for this Author will say that the Church hath no power over the lives and goods
of men those belong to the Magistrate and to his civill power Yet he cannot deny but the Churches power in judging and punishing here is formally spirituall and objectively and unproperly civill so say I the Mgaistrates power in spirituall causes is formally civill and objectivelâ— only spirituall and he neither hath nor needeth any spirituall power formally to attain his temporall end nor needeth the Church any power formally civill to attain her spirituall end The reason is because powers have their specification and nature from their formall object not from the materiall because the Magistrate punisheth hereâ—ies and false Doctrine as they disturbe the Peace of the civill State therefore his power is civill and because the Church censureth unjustice incest 1 Cor. 5 1 2. and sins against the second Table because they are scandalous in the Church and maketh the name of God to be ill spoken of though materially those sins be punishable by the Magistrate yet is the Churches power spirituall because it judgeth those as scandalous and offensive to God and therefore the power is spirituall because the object to wit as scandalous to the Church and as offensive to God is spirituall even as destructive to civill Peace is formally a civill object 2. The Magistrate without any spirituall power judges what is the true Church and true ordinances setteth them up by his sword he doth set them up only for a civill end because they conduce most for the peace and flourishing condition of the civill state whereof he is head not that the members of his state may attain life eternall for the Magistrate intendeth life eternall to his subjects in setting up a true Church and true Ordinances not as a Magistrate but as a godly man As the woman of Samaria brought out the Samaritanes that they might receive Christ in their heart by saith as she had done But as a Magistrate he intendeth not life eternall to his subjects so a Master as a Master hireth a man to serve who is a believer and as a Master he judgeth such a one will be most faithfull and active in his service now the Master judgeth him not to be a Saint that he may be a fit member of the Church The Church only as the Church is to judge so of this servant nor doth he judge him a believer that he may obtain life eternall nor doth he love and chuse him as his servant that he may obtain life eternall Christians as Christians judge and love one another that way So the Husband as a Husband doth chuse a believing woman for his Wife judging she will perform the duties of a Wife better then an unbelieving Wife he judgeth her to be a believer as a Husband and loveth her with a Husband-love as a Husband but if he love her because the image of God is in her and as an heir of life eternall then he loveth her as a Christian man not as a Husband and it is a Christian love he hath to her such as he hath to other godly women that are also co heirs with himself of life eternall and this is a lawfull and a Christian love But if this Husband should bear a Husband-love such as he doth to his own Wife to all other godly Wives it should be an adulterous and unlawfull love So the Magistrate as a Magistrate judges loves chuses and setteth up true Ordinances a true Church as means of a flourishing Kingdom and of externall Peace and pulleth down the contrary as means destructive to the peace and safety of his subjects But he judgeth not in a spirituall manner and with any spirituall power of the sword of those as fitting and conducing to life eternall and inward peace of conscience with God but as a justified and believing Saint he judgeth chuseth and loveth Ordinances and the true Church in this consideration and no wise as a Magistrate If those Relations of Magistrate and Christian had been considered by the Author he had not compared the Magistrate punishing idolatry to the Dragon and the godly Pastors who exhort the Magistrate to punish false teachers to the Beast and the false Prophet who maketh war with the Lambe For the godly magistrate who advanceth the throne of the Lambe is praise worthy he doth cut off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord Psal 101. 8. and doth this as a Magistrate that his Kingdome might have peace and well grounded prosperity but as a man according to Gods heart he doth it formally set on high the throne of the Lambe nor would he have compared those worthy and dear brethren of New England the Saints of the most high especially reverend Master Cotton to the frogs that proceeded out of the mouth of the false Prophet Rev. 17. 3. Nor do the Papists use this argument at all but another argument and for a contrary conclusion for the Pope as the Pope is an earthly Monarch and as Pope hath power to translate Crowns and Kingdoms and as Pope the Holy Ghost in him commandeth the Kings of the Earth to make war with the Lambe and his followers as Papists teach do we ascribe any such power be the Church or Churchmen are Malignants Prelates and Papists the followers of the Lambe Obj. 7. If the people may erect what government they will and seems most fit for their civill condition then governments by them so erected have no more power nor for no longer time then the civill power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with for people are not deprived of their naturall freedom by the power of tyrants And if so that Magistrates receive their power of governing the Church from the people Then a people as a people naturally considered of what Nature or Nation soever in Europe Asia Africa America have fundamentally and originally as men a power to govern the Church to see her do her duty to correct her to redresse to reform to establish c. And this is to subject God Christ heaven the spirit to naturall sinfull and unconstant men Indian and American governments are as true and lawfull governments as in the world and therefore their governours are keepers of the Church and of both Tables if any Church should arise or be amongst them and therefore if Christ have betrusted the civill power with his Church they must judge according to their Indian and American consciences for others they have not Ans 1. No doubt the power that makes Magistrates because of vertue and dexterity to govern may unmake them when they turn tyrants and abuse their power and upon the same ground as men create Magistrates so Christian men as Christian men act to chuse Christian and gracious Magistrates as if a Husband as a man chuse a Wife as grace perfumeth and spiritualizeth all the common actions of men so Christian men are to chuse Christian Wives Christian Masters Christian servants so is a Church to chuse a Christian not an American Magistrate