of his Passion this was the onely point of his accusation which was confessed and avouched by himselfe was most aggravated prosecuted and driven home by the Iewes was prevalent with Pilate as the cause of condemning him to die and was mentioned also in the superscription upon his crosse And although in reference to God and in respect of satisfaction to the Divine justice for our sinnes his death was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of redemption yet in reference to men who did persecute accuse and condemne him his death was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Martyrs Testimony to seale such a truth This Kingly Office of Iesus Christ as well as his Propheticall is administred and exercised not onely inwardly and invisibly by the working of his Spirit in the soules of particular persons but outwardly also and visibly in the Church as a visible politicall ministeriall body in which he hath appointed his own proper Officers Ambassadours Courts Laws Ordinances Censures and all these administrations to be in his own name as the onely King and Head of the Church This was the thing which Herod and Pilate did and many Princes Potentates and States doe looke upon with so much feare and jealousie as another Government co-ordinate with the civill But what was darke upon the one side to them hath been light upon the other side to those servants of Iesus Christ who have stood contended and sometime suffered much for the Ordinance of Church-Government and Discipline which they looked upon as a part of Christs Kingdome So Bucer So Parker So M. Welseh my countreyman of precious memory who suffered much for the same truth and was ready to seale it with his blood Beside divers others who might be named especially learned Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cap. 1. and throughout I am not ignorant that some have an evill eye upon all government in a Nation distinct from civill Magistracy and if it were in their power they would have all Anti-Erastians and so consequently both Presbyterians and Independents lookt upon as guilty of Treason at least as violaters of and encroachers upon the rights and priviledges of Magistracy in respect of a distinct Ecclesiasticall government And indeed it is no new thing for the most faithfull Ministers of Iesus Christ to be reproached and accused as guilty of Treason which was not onely the lot of M. Calderwood and as hath been now shewed of M. Welsch and those that suffered with him but of M. Knox before them as likewise of many Martyrs and confessors and of the Apostles themselves Yet if we will judge righteous judgement and weigh things in a just ballance we doe not rob the Magistrate of that which is his by giving unto Christ that which is Christs We desire to hold up the honour and greatnesse the power and authority of Magistracy against Papists Anabaptists and all others that despise dominion and speake evill of dignities We doe not compare as Innocentius did the civill and the ecclesiasticall powers to the two great lights that to the Moone this to the Sunne We hold it is proper to Kings Princes and Magistrates to be called Lords and Dominators over their Subjects whom they governe civilly but it is proper to Christ onely to be called Lord and Master in the Spirituall government of the Church and all others that beare office therein ought not to usurpe Dominion therein nor be called Lords but onely Ministers Disciples and Servants We acknowledge and affirme that Magistracy and civill Government in Empires Kingdomes Dominions and Cities is an Ordinance of God for his owne glory and for the great good of mankind so that whoever are enemies to Magistracy they are enemies to mankind and to the revealed will of God That such persons as are placed in authority are to be beloved honoured feared and holden in a most reverend estimation because they are the Lieutenants of God in whose seat God himselfe doth sit and judge We teach that not onely they are appointed for civill policy but also for maintenance of the true Religion and for suppressing of Idolatry and superstition whatsoever We confesse that such as resist the supreame power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge doe resist Gods Ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltlesse And further we affirme that whosoever deny unto them their ayd counsell and comfort whilest the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their Office that the same men deny their help support and counsell to God who by the presence of his Lieutenant doth crave it of them We know and believe that though we be free we ought wholly in a true faith holily to submit our selves to the Magistrate both with our body and with all our goods and endeavour of mind also to performe faithfulnesse and the oath which we made to him so far forth as his government is not evidently repugnant to him for whose sake we doe reverence the Magistrate That we ought to yeeld unto Kings and other Magistrates in their owne stations feare honour tribute and custome whether they be good men or evill as likewise to obey them in that which is not contrary to the Word of God It being alwaies provided that in things pertaining to our soules and consciences we obey God onely and his holy Word We believe that God hath delivered the Sword into the hands of the Magistrates to wit that offences may be repressed not onely those which are committed against the second Table but also against the first We doe agree and avouch that all men of what dignity condition or state soever they be ought to be subject to their lawfull Magistrates and pay unto them Subsidies and Tributes and obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the word of God Also they must poure out their prayers for them that God would vouchsafe to direct them in all their actions and that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life under them with all godlinesse and honesty We teach that it doth belong to the authority and duty of the Magistrate to forbid and if need be to punish such sinnes as are committed against the ten Commandements or the Law naturall as likewise to adde unto the Law naturall some other lawes defining the circumstances of the naturall Law and to keepe and maintaine the same by punishing the transgressors We hold that the lawes of the Realme may punish Christian men with death for heynous and grievous offences And that it is lawfull for Christian men at the command of the Magistrate to beare Arme and to serve in just warres All these things we doe sincerely really constantly faithfully and cheerfully yeeld unto and assert in behalfe of the civill Magistrate So that the cause which I now take in hand doth not depresse but exalt doth not weaken but strengthen Magistracy I doe not plead against
capitall causes 2. mulcts 3. leprosie and the judgement of clean or unclean Now this third belonged to the cognizance and judgement of the Priests Yea the Text it self holdeth forth two sorts of causes and controversies some forensicall between blood and blood some ceremoniall between stroke and stroke not onely Hierome but the Chaldee and Greek readeth between leprosie and leprosie Grotius noteth the Hebrew word is used for leprosie many times in one chapter Lev. 13. Plea and plea seemeth common to both there being difference of judgement concerning the one and the other 3. Here are two Iudicatories distinguished by the disjunctive Or V. 12. which we have both in the Hebrew Chaldee Greek and in our English Translation so that vers 9. and is put for or as Grotius noteth expounding that verse by vers 12. And as the Priests and Levites are put in the plurall V. 9. the like must be understood of the Iudge whereby we must understand Iudges and so the Chaldee readeth V. 9. even as saith Ainsworth many Captains are in the Hebrew called an head 1 Chron. 4. 42. And so you have there references of difficult cases from inferior Courts to the Priests or to the Judges at Ierusalem 4. There is also some intimation of a twofold sentence one concerning the meaning of the Law according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee V. 11. and this belonged to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. for the Priests it s not said the Judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth Another concerning matter of fact and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt do Grotius upon the place acknowledgeth a udgement of the Priests distinct from that of the Judges and he addâ—th a simile from the Roman Synod consisting of seventy Bishops which was consulted in weighty controversies But he is of opinion that the Priests and Levites did onely end avour to satisfie and reconcile the dissenting parties which if they did well if not that then they referred the reasons of both parties to the Sanhedrin who gave forth their decree upon the whole matter The first part of that which he saith helpeth me But this last hath no ground in the Text but is manifeâ—ly inconsistent therewith V. 12. The man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge even that man shall die Which proves that the judgement of both was supreme in suo genere that is if it was a controverâ—e ceremoniall between leprosie and leprosie or between clean and unclean Lev. 10. 9 10 11. Ezech. 22. 26. or dogmaticall and doctrinall concerning the sence of the Law and answering de Jure when the sence of the Law was controverted by the Iudges of the Cities then he that would not stand to the sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin whereof the high Priest was preâ—dent was to die the death But if the cause was criminall as between blood and blood wherein the nature or proofe of the fact could not be agreed upon by the Judges of the Cities then he that would not submit to the decree of the civill Sanhedrin at Iâ—…rusalem should die the death And thus the English Divines in their late annotations give the sence according to the disjunction V. 12. While the Priest bringeth warrant from God for the sentenee which he passeth in the cause of man Ezech. 44. 23 24. he that contumaciously disobeyeth him disobeyeth God Luke 10. 16. Matth. 10. 14. The cause is alike if the just sentence of a competent Judge be contemned in secular effaires In the third place we read that David did thus divide the Levites at that time eight and thirty thousand foure and twenty thousand of them were to set forward the work of the house of the Lord foure thousand were porters and foure thousand praised the Lord with instruments and six thousand of them were made some schoterim Officers and some schâ—…phtim Judges 1 Chro. 23. 4. Some understand by Schoterim Rulers or those who were over the charge To speak properly schophtim were those that gave sentence schoterim those that lookt to the execution of the sentence and to the keeping of the law like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Craecians for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another So 1 Chro. 26. 29. Chenaniah and his sonnes were for the outward businesse over Israel foâ—… Officers or Rulers or over the charge and Judges that is they were not tied to attendance and service in the Temple as the Porters and singers and those that did service about the Sacrifices Lights Washings and such like things in the Temple but they were to judge and give sentence concerning the law and the meaning thereof when any such controversie should be brought before them from any of the Cities in the Land They were not appointed to be Officers and Judges over the rest of the Levites to keepe them in order for which course was taken in another way but to be Rulers and Judges over Israel saith the Text in the outward businesse which came from without to Ierusalem in judging of which peradventure they were to attend by course or as they should be called If any say that all those Levites who were Judges did not sit in judgement at Ierusalem but some of them in severall Cities of the Land that there might be the easier accesse to them I can easily grant it and I verily believe it was so and it maketh the more for a Church government in particular Cities which was subordinate to the Ecclesiasticall Sanh dâ—in at Ierusalem However the Levites had a ruling power and Deut. 31. 28. those who are schoterim in the originall the Septuagints call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome Doctores because their Teachers were Officers over the charge and had a share in Government Now no man can imagine that there were no other Officers over the charge not Judges in Israel except the Levites onely for it followeth in that same Story â— Chro. 28. 1. And David assembled all the Princes of Israel the Princes of the Tribes and the Captains of the Companies that ministred to the King by course the Captains over the thousands c. Nor yet wil any man say that the Levites were Officers over the charge and Judges of the same kind in the same manner or for the same ends with the civill Rulers and Judges or the military Commanders or that there was no distinction between the ruling power of the Princes and the ruling power of the Levites Where then shall the difference lie if not in this that there was an Ecclesiasticall Government besides the Civill and Military I grant those Levites did rule and judge not onely in all the businesse of the Lord but also in the service of the King 1 Chro. 26. 30 32. But the reason was because the Jewes had no other civill
M r Prynne also doth vindic page 4 5. yet he speaketh dubiously of their power of capitall punishments But this is confuted by the reasons which I have given Whereunto I further adde these few animadversions 1. The strongest proofe which Erastus brings out of Iosephus antiq lib. 20. cap. 8. which as he alledgeth puts the thing out of all controversie is a very weake and insufficient proof Iosephus tels us in the close of that Chapter that after the death of Herod and A chelaus this was the Jewish Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This he citeth page 177. and page 178. to prove that the Sanhedrin in Christs time was a civill Magistracy having power of the Sword But I may with a great deale more probability argue contrariwise from these words Iosephus tels us the Constitution and forme of the Jewish policy or Government was at that time Aristocraticall but it was an Ecclesiasticall Aristocracy the government was in the hands of the chiefe Priests Or thus if you will the Jewes at that time had a bare name of an aristocracy they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Optimates Primates or Rulers but it was titulo tenus all power of civill government being taken from them by the Romans and the government that was was Ecclesiasticall That very Chapter gives us a better argument to prove that the Romans did not permit to the Jewes capitall Judgements for Iosephus there records that Ananus the high Priest taking the opportunity after the death of Festus while Albinus the Successour of Festus was but yet on his journey toward Iudea did call a Councell of Judges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before whom he presented Iames the brother of Christ and some others who were as guilty of impiety condemned to be stoned Which mightily displeased all such as did observe the Laws Albinus at that time comming from Alexandria being enformed of the thing and that it was not lawfull for Ananus to doe any such thing without the Roman Governour wrote a chiding and threatning letter to Ananus And further the thing being secretly signified by some to King Agrippa who did also beseech the King to command Ananus to doe no such thing againe he having trespassed in this Whereupon Agrippa was so highly offended that he tooke away from Ananus the high Priests place and gaue it to Iesus the sonne of Damneus 2. Whereas Erastus argueth from the imprisoning beating or scourging yea taking counsell to kill the Apostles Acts 4 5. the stoning of Steven Acts 7. Pauls letters from the high Priest for biuding and bringing to Ierusalem the Disciples of the Lord Acts 9. 1 2. also the imprisoning and condemning to death the Saints Acts 26. 10. Unto all this I answer out of Iosephus that in that degenerate age the high Priests and such as adhered to them did use a great deale of violence whereby they did many things for which they had no just nor lawfull power So that the Letters and Warrants given out to Saul and the execution of the same by a cruell and bloody persecuting of the Saints can not prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power and authority which was allowed to the Sanhedrin but onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the present prevalent power of the high Priest and his faction in that confusion of affaires and their extreame malice against the Saints to have been such as made them to doe things for which they had no legall power nor warrant And this one Animadversion breakes all the strength of M r Prynnes argument vindic page 5. that the Councell of the Jewes had power which no meere Ecclesiasticall consistory can doe to scourge imprison torture and out-law offenders if not to câ—…ndemne put to death Where he citeth divers Texts none of which proveth either torturing or out-lawing and the most of which prove not so much as that the Councell of the Jewes at that time had authority to scourge or imprison as Matth. 5. 22. 10. 17. Mark 13. 9. Acts 6. 12 13 14. 24. 20. 25. 15. The imprisonment of the Apostles was not without the authority of the Captaine of the Temple Acts 4. 1 3. This captaine of the Temple is thought by the best interpreters to have been the Captaine of the Garrison which the Romans placed in the caâ—tle Antonia hard by the Temple and that to prevent tumults and uproares when the people came to the Temple especially at the solemne feasts in great multitudes But that the Captaine of the Temple was a civill Magistrate of the Jewes or one d puted with authority and power from the Sanhedrin will never be proved When the Councell thought of slaying the Apostles Acts 5. 33. it was in a sudden passion being cut to the heart at that which they heard But Gamaliel tels them Verse 35. Ye men of Israel take heed to your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 warning them as Interpreters take it of their own danger from the Romans if they should put any one to death The putting of Steven to death was upon pretence of Iudicium zeli or Ius zelotarum as Grotius thinks dâ—… Jure belli aâ—… pacis lib. 2. cap 20. sect 9. If so it was an extraordinary act I am sure it was done most tumultuously disorderly and furiously before either himselfe was heard speake out or any sentence was given against him as is manifest Acts 7. 54 57 58. 3. Erastus his glosse upon Iohn 18. 31. It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death meaning saith he for making himselfe a King against Caesar the cause for which they did chiefly accuse him to Pilate So likewise Bishop Bilson a great follower of Erastus of the perpetuall government of Christs Church cap. 4. But marke the words Then said Pilate unto them Take ye him and judge him according to your Law The Jewes therefore said unto him It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death Pilate durst not have refused to judge a man who made himselfe a King against Caesar nor durst he have put it over upon the Jewes to have judged one in that which concerned Caesars crowne Nay as soone as the Jewes objected If thou let this man goe thou art not Caesars friend for whosoever maketh himselfe a King speaketh against Caesar. Pilate when he heard that went in againe and sate down on the Judgement seat Iohn 19. 12. 13. Therefore when Pilate said to the Jewes take ye him and judge him according to your law he spake it of matters of their Law The Councell of the chiefe Priests Elders and Scribes had given sentence against Christ de juâ—…e that he was guilty of blasphemy and thereupon not having power to put any man to death they led him to Pilate Matth. 26. 65 66. with Matth. 27. 1 2. Marke 14. 63 64. with Marke 15. 1. Luke 22. 71. with Luke 23. 1. Pilate unwilling to meddle against Christ waves the businesse in the
Judgement-hall I perceive would he say that this man is accused of such things as concerne your Law and your Religion therefore take him and judge him according to your Law They reply in reference to that which Pilate did drive at It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death If they had meant for causes which concerned Caesars Crown it had been not onely an impertinent reply but a yeelding to Pilates intention for he might have said I doe not meane that ye shall judge him for that which concerneth Caesar but for that which concerneth your owne Law and Religion Therefore certainely the answer which the Jewes made to Pilate did reply that though they had power to judge a man in that which concerned their Law and Religion yet they had no power to put any man to death no not for that which concerned their Law 4. There are severall passages in the story of Paul which shew us that though the Jewish Sanhedrin might judge a man in matters of their Law yet they were accusers not Judges in civill or capitall punishments I meane when a man was accused as worthy of bonds or of death though it were for a matter of their Law they had no liberty to judge but onely to accuse The Jewes drew Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio even for a matter of their law This fellow say they to Gallio perswadeth men to worship God contrary to the Law Acts 18. 13. If they had intended onely an Ecclesiasticall censure their recourse had been either to the Sanhedrin or at least to the Synagogue but because they intended a corporall temporall punishment which neither the Sanhedrin nor the Synagogue had power to inflict therefore they must prosecute Paul before Gallio whose answer was to this purpose that if it had been a matter of wrong or wicked leudnesse it had been proper for him to have judged it but that since it was no such thing he would not meddle in it knowing also that the Jewes had no power to doe it by themselves Againe Acts 23. 28 29. Claudius Lysias writeth to Faelix concerning Paul thus and when I would have knowne the cause wherefore they accused him I brought him forth into their Councell Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their Law but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds That which made Lysias interpose in the businesse and rescue Paul from the hands of the Jewes was the Jewes designe to put Paul to death under colour of judging him according to their Law which was the pretence made by Tertullus Acts 24. 6. Now in that which was to be punished either by death or so much as by bonds Lysias conceives the Jewes to be no competent Judges therefore he brings Paul into the councell of the Jewes not to be judged by them but to know what accusation they had against him For the same reason Paul himselfe did decline going to Ierusalem to be judged there no not of matters concerning the Religion and Law of the Jewes that accusation being so far driven on as to make him worthy of death His accusers saith Festus to King Agrippa brought none accusation of such things as I supposed but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition and of one Iesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive And because I doubted of such manner of questions I asked him whether he would goe to Ierusalem and there be judged of these matters Acts 25. 18 19 20. This Paul had declined vers 10. I stand at Caesars judgement seat said he where I ought to be judged And why but because his accusation was capitall even in that which concerned the Law of the Jewes and he knew the Jewes at that time had no power of capitall judgements Some have alledged this example of Paul for appeales from Presbyteries or Synods to the civill Magistrate by which argument themselves grant that the Jewish Sanhedrin then declined by Paul was a Ecclesiasticall not a civill Court 5. Besides all this Erastus his opinion is strongly confuted by that which Constantinus L'Empereur Annot. in remp Jud. pag. 404. to 407. proving that the Jewes after the thirtieth yeere of Christ had no power of punishing with death for proofe hereof citeth a passage of Aboda zara that forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin which had in former times exercised capitall judgements did remove from Hierusalem quum viderent se non posse judicia capitalia exercere when they perceived that they could not exercise capitall judgements they said let us remove out of this place lest we be guilty it being said Deut. 17. 10. according to the sentence which they of that place shall shew thee whence they collected that if they were not in that place they were not obliged to capitall judgements and so they removed And if you would know whe ther he tels us out of Rosch Hasschana they removed from Hieru salem to Iabua thence to Ousa thence to Scâ—…aphrea c. He that desires to have further proofes for that which hath been said may read Buxtorf lexic. Chald. Talmud rabbin pag. 514 515. He proves that Iudicia criminalia criminall judgements did cease and were taken away from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple This he saith is plaine in Talmud Hierosol in lib. Sanhedrin cap. 7. in Talmud Babyl in Sanbedrin fol. 41. 1. in Aboda zâ—…ru fol. 8. 2. in Schab fol. 15. 1. in Iuchasin fol. 51. 1. Majenâ—…on in Sanhedrin cap. 14. sect 13. He cites also a passage in Berachos fol. 58. 1. concerning one who for a hainous crime even for lying with a beast ought to be adjudged to death but when one said that he ought to die it was answered that they had no power to put any man to death And this saith D r. Buxâ—…orf is the very same which the Jewes said to Pilate John 18. 31. Now this power being taken from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City which was in the 71 yeere of Christ his death being in the 34. Hence he proveth that this power was taken from the Jewes neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. And I further make this inference that since the Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Hierusalem forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple for which see also Tzemach David edit Hen. Vorst pag. 89. and so about three yeeres before the death of Christ it must needs follow that the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes mentioned so often in and before Christs passion was not a civill Magistracy nor the civill Sanhedrin but an Ecclesiasticall Sanâ—edrin Whence also it follows that the Church Matth. 18. 17. unto which Christ directs his Disciples to goe with their complaints was not the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes as M r Prynne takes it for that
civill Courts of Justice c. There was a chiefe Scribe who waited upon the King and wrote unto him a coppy of the Book of the Law according to that Deut. 17. 18. Such a Scribe was Sheva 2 Sam. 20. 25. Shaphan 2 Kings 22. 3. 8. Baruch Jer. 36. Such a Scribe had Joash 2 Kings 12. 10. There were divers other Scribes for the house of the Lord and for the people whose office it was to write and to read the Law 1 Chro. 2. 55 Psal. 45. 1. Ier. 8. 8. 13. Object But neither in the old Testament nor in the Talmudists can there be found any Ecclesiasticall Excommunication properly so called Answ. I deny both yea I have disproved both Moreover as touching the Excommunication used in the Jewish Church I shall adde here these following Testimonies of Mâ—…imonides In libro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tract Talmud Torah Cap. 6. sect 10. He that revileth a wiseman though after his death shall be excommunicated by the Sanhedrin by whom also after repentance he shall be absolved Ib. sect 11. He who is excommunicated in his own Town ought also to be esteemed in all other Cities and Towns as a person excommunicated Answerable hereunto were the ancient Canons which did appoint that a person excommunicated in his own Church should not be received to communion in another Church The 24. causes of excommunication above mentioned he there reckoneth forth from sect 13. to the end of that Chapter Again Cap. 7. sect 2. What is the manner of a simple excommunication or Niddui He that doth excommunicate saith Let that person N. be in or under an excommunication or separation If the person excommunicated be present they who doe excommunicate say unto him Let this person N. be separated or excommunicated And when Cherem or the greater excommunication is inflicted what is the manner They say Let N. be devoted and accursed let an execration adjuration and separation be upon him But how doe they loose the person excommunicated and how doe they free him from the separation or the curse they say Be thou loosed be thou pardoned If the guilty party be absent they say Let N. be loosed and let him be pardoned In the same Chapter sect 8. Neither is there any certain space of time predetermined before which the bond of the excommunication inflicted may not be loosed For immediately and at the same time when excommunication is inflicted it may be loosed if the guilty party doe immediately repeâ—…t and come to himselfe Which doth further set forth the great difference between the nature and scope of Excommunication and the nature and scope of corporall or civill punishments For how soon soever an excommunicat person giveth good signes of true repentance he is to be loosed from the bond of excommunication But he that is punished in his body or estate for any crime is not freed from the punishment because he is known to be penitent The repentance of a criminall person is no supersedeas to civill Justice Thereafter Maimonides proceedeth thus Yet if it seem good to the Sanhedrin that any man shall be left in the state of excommunication for how many yeeres shall be be left in excommunication The Sanhedrin will determine the number of yeers and space of time according to the haynousnesse of the trespasse So likewise if the Sanhedrin will it may devote and subject to a curse first the party himself who is guilty of the crime and then also every other person whosoever eateth or drinketh with him or sitteth neere unto him unlesse at foure cubits distance that so by this means the heavier correction may fall upon the sinner and there may be as it were a hedge put about the law which may restrain wicked men from transgressing it Whence observe 1. It was from the Jewish Church that the ancient Councels of the Christian Church took a pattern for determining and fixing a certaine number of yeeres to the separation of some haynous offenders from the Sacrament and sometimes from other Ordinances also Though I doe not approve this thing either in the Jewish or Christian Church for at what time soever a scandalous sinner doth give evident signes of repentance the Church ought to receive him againe into her bosome and fellowship 2. From the Jewish Church also was the patterne taken for that ancient Discipline in the Christian Church that he who keepeth company and communion with an excommunicated person should fall under the same censure of excommunication Which thing must be well explained and qualified before it can be approved 3. Compare also this passage of Maimonides with 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one no not to eate 2 Thes. 3. 14. have no company with him that he may be ashamed Which Texts doe fitly answer to that which the Hebrew writers say of a person excommunicated 4. The excommunication of an offender among the Jewes was intended not onely for the offenders humiliation and amendment but for an ensample to others that they might heare and feare and do no more any such thing it was therefore a publique and exemplary censure And so much of Sect. 8. In the 9. and 10. Sections Maimonides sheweth us that though a wise man was allowed to prosecute unto the sentence of excommunication one that did revile or calumniat him yet it was more praise-worthy and more agreeable to the example of the holy men of God to passe in silence and to endure patiently such injuries Then followeth Sect. 11. These things which have been said are to be understood of such reproaches and contumelies as are clandestine For if railers doe put a publike infamy upon a wise man it is not lawfull to him to use indulgence or to neglect his honour and if he shall pardon as to the punishment him who hath hurt his fame he himselfe is to be punished because that is a contempt of the law He shall therefore avenge the contumely not suffer himselfe to be satisfied before the guilty party hath craved merey Here is the true object or if you will the procuring and meritorious cause of Excommunication viz. not a private personall or civill injury which a man may passe by or pardon if he will but a scandalous sinne the scandall whereof must be removed and healed by some Testimony or Declaration of the sinners repentance otherwise he must fall under the censure and publique shame These Testimonies of Maimonides and the observations made thereupon beside all that hath been said in this preceding Book will make it manifest that the Spirituall censure of excommunication was translated and taken from the Jewish Church into the Christian Church Furthermore beside all the Scriptural proofs already brought I shall desire another Text Nehem. 13. 1 3. to be wel weighed After the reading of the law Deut. 23. 3. that the Ammâ—…nite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever it came to passe saith the Text when they heard
are for impenitent contumacious offenders but the Magistrate doth and must punish offenders when the course of Justice and law so requireth whether they appear penitent or impenitent Fourthly The Magistrates power of punishing offenders is bounded by the law of the land What then shall become of such scandalls as are not crimes punishable by the law of the land such as obscene rotten talking adulterous and vile behaviour or the most scandalous conversing and companying together though the crime of adultery cannot be proved by witnesses living in known malice and envie refusing to be reconciled and thereupon lying off it may be for a long time from the Sacrament and the like which are not proper to be taken notice of by the civil Judge So that in this case either there must be Church-censures and discipline exercised by Church-officers or the Magistrate must go beyond his limits Or lastly Scandalls shall spread in the Church and no remedy against them Far be it from the thoughts of Christian Magistrates that scandalls of this kind shall be tolerated to the dishonour of God the laying of the stumbling blocks of bad examples before others and to the violation and pollution of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ who hath commanded to keep his ordinances pure A second Argument may be this In the old Testament God did not command the Magistrates but the Priests to put a difference betwixt the prophane and the holy the unclean and the clean Levit. 10. 10. Ezech. 22. 26. Ezech. 44. 23 24. Deut. 21. 5. 2 Chron. 23. 18 19. And in the new Testament the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Ministers of the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. but no where to the civil Magistrate It belongeth to Church-officers to censure false doctrine Revel 2. 2. 14. 15. to decide controversies Acts 16. 4. and to examine and censure scandalls Ezech. 44 23 24. which is a Prophecy concerning the ministery of the New Testament And Elders judge an Elder 1 Tim. 5. 19. or any other Church-member 1 Cor. 5. 12. Thirdly The Scripture holdeth forth the civil and Ecclesiastical power as most distinct insomuch that it condemneth the Spiritualizing of the civil Power aswell as the Secularizing of the Ecclesiastical power State Papacy aswell as Papal-State Church-officers may not take the civil sword nor judg civil causes Luke 12. 13 14 and 22. 25. Matth. 26. 52. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. So Uzzah might not touch the Ark nor Saul offer burnt offerings nor Uzziah burn incense I wish we may not have cause to revive the proverb which was used in Ambrose his time That Emperors did more covet the Priesthood then the Priests did covet the Empire Shall it be a sin to Church-officers to exercise any act of civil government and shal it be no sin to the civil Magistrate to ingrosse the whole and sole power of Church-Government Are not the two powers formally and specifically distinct Of which before Chap. 4. It is to be well noted that Maccovius and Vedelius who ascribe a sort of Papal power to the civil Magistrate to the great scandall of the Reformed Church do notwithstanding acknowledge that Christ hath appointed Church discipline and censures and the same to be dispenced by Church-officers onely And that the Magistrate as he may not preach the Word and administer the Sacraments So he may not exercise Church-discipline nor inslict spiritual censures such as excommunication Though Erastus pag. 175. hath not spared to say that the Magistrate may in the New Testament though he might not in the old exercise the ministeriall function if he can have so much leisure from his other employments Fourthly The power of Church discipline is intrinsecall to the Church that is both they who censure and they who are censured must be of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. 13. They must be of one and the same Corporation the one must not be in the body and the other out of the body But if this power were in the Magistrate it were extrinsecall to the Church For the Magistrate quatenus a Magistrate is not so much as a Church-member far lesse can the magistrate as magistrate have jurisdiction over Church-members as Church members even as the minister as minister is not a member of the Common-wealth or State far lesse can he as minister exercise jurisdiction over the Subjects as Subjects The Christian magistrate in England is not a member of the Church as a magistrate but as a Christian. And the minister of Jesus Christ in England is not subject to the magistrate as he is a minister of Christ but as he is a member of the Common-wealth of England He was both a learned man and a great Royallist in Scotland who held that all Kings Infidel as well as Christian have equal authority and jurisdiction in the Church though all be not alike qualified or able to exercise it Io. Wemius de Reg. primat pag. 123. Let our opposites loose this knot among themselves for they are not of one opinion about it Fifthly Church-officers might and did freely and by themselves dispence Church-censures under Pagan and unbeleeving magistrates as is by all confessed Now the Church ought not to be in a worse condition under the Christian magistrate then under an Infidel for the power of the Christian magistrate is cumulative not privative to the Church He is a Nursing Father Isa. 49. 23. not a Step-Father He is keeper defender and guardian of both Tables but neither Judge nor Interpreter of Scripture Sixthly I shall shut up this Argumentation with a convincing dilemma The Assemblies of Church-officers being to exercise discipline and censure offences which is supposed and must be granted in regard of the Ordinances of Parliament either they have power to do this Iure proprio and virtute officii or onely Iure devoluto and virtute delegationis such authority being derived from the magistrate If the former I have what I would If the latter then it followeth 1. That where Presbyteries and Synods do exercise spirituall Jurisdiction not by any power derived from or dependant upon the civil Magistrate but in the name and authority of Iesus Christ and by the power received from him as in Scotland France the Low-Countries c. there all Ecclesiastical censures such as deposition of Ministers and Excommunication of scandalous and obstinate persons have been are and shall be void null and of no effect Even as when the Prelaticall party did hold that the power of ordination and jurisdiction pertaineth onely to Prelats or such as are delegate with commission and authority from them thereupon they were so put to it by the Arguments of the Anti-Episcopall party that they were forced to say that Presbyters ordained by Presbyters in other Reformed Churches are no Presbyters and their excommunication was no excommunication 2. It will follow that the Magistrate himself may excommunicate for nemo potest aliis
this were Matth. 7. 6. 2 Thess. 3. 6 14 15. 1 Cor. 11. 27 to the end of the Chapter compared with Iude vers 23. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Another proofe added by the Assembly was this There was power and authority under the Old Testament to keep unclean persons from holy things Levit. 13. 5. Num. 9. 7. 2 Chro. 23. 19. And the like power and authority by way of analogy continues under the new Testament for the authoritative suspension from the Lords Table of a person not yet cast out of the Church Now that which was the strength of the Assemblies proofes of the proposition M r Prynne hath almost never touched but run out upon other particulars Thirdly observe that he disputes all along whether any Minister can suspend one from the Sacrament But this no body that I know asserts The power is given not uni but unitati to the Eldership not to any one either Minister or Elder Fourthly that which in the Preface of his Queres he undertakes to prove is that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacrament being a matter of great moment and much difficulty is to be handled and established with great wisdom caution and moderation And his result in the close is concerning a limited jurisdiction in Presbyteries As these things are not denied by any that I know so himselfe manifestly acknowledgeth by these expressions the thing it selfe for the substance which yet the current of his debate runneth againstâ— and onely questioneth concerning the bounds cautions and limitations God forbid that Church-officers should ever claim an unlimited power their power is given them to edification and not to destruction and we can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth 2 Cor. 13. 8 10. The power of censures must not be in the power of any one man nor in the power of any who are themselves scandalous and worthy of censure There must be no sentence of Excommunication or suspension upon reports surmises suspitions but either upon the confession of the offence or proofe thereof by two witnesses at least None must be excommunicated nor suspended for money matters debts and such like civill causes which are not of Ecclesiasticall cognizance but are to be Judged by the civill Judge It must not be for those peccata quotidianae incursionis such sinfull infirmities as all the godly in this life are guilty of though on the other side the scandalous sinnes meant of in this controversie must not be restricted to such sinnes onely as can not stand with the state of grace These and such like limitations we doe not onely admit of but desire to be put Fifthly he goeth about to cleare the state of the question out of Aretius and citeth him for what himself now undertaketh to prove Whereas Aretius holds Excommunication to be an ordinance of God both in the Old and New Testament and that it was wanting through the injury and corruption of the times the abuse of it in Popery having made the thing it self hatefull and the most part in those places where he lived loving carnall liberty so well and taking upon them the protection and defence of prophane ones and being so unwilling to be brought under the yoke of Christ. For these and the like reasons he thought it not expedient to have that discipline of Excommunication erected at that time in those parts as himselfe gives the reasons and he professeth withall that he doth not despaire of better times when men shall be more willing to submit to that discipline So that this is the question if it shall be stated out of Aretius Whether Excommunication being an Ordinance of God ought to be setled where prophanesse and licentiousnesse abounds and where the better party is like to be oppressed by the greater party or whether we should wait till God send better times for the setling of it Sixthly the Author of those questions maketh a parallel between that power of censures now desired to be setled in Presbyteries and the Prelaticall tyranny as if this were the very power which heretofore was declaimed against in denied to and quite taken away from the Prelates Yea in the close he makes this power now desired to be setled in Presbyteries to be such as our very Lordly Prelates never durst to claime Yet Ecclesiae Anglicanae politeia in tabulas digesta authore Richardo Cousin Tab. 5. tels me that the Episcopall Jurisdiction did exercise it selfe in these censures which were common both to Lay-men and Clergy-men as they were called 1. Interdictio divinorum 2. Monitio 3. Suspensio vel ab ingressu Ecclesiae vel a perceptione Sacramentorum 4. Excommunicatio 5. Anathematisinius c. Neverthelesse there is a truth too in that which M r Prynne saith I confesse the Prelates never durst desire that which this learned and pious Assembly hath desired in this particular He hath said it The Prelats never durst indeed take upon them to suspend all scandalous persons from the Sacrament for if they had it had been said unto most of them Physitian cure thy selfe besides the losing of many of their party And moreover the very Lordly Prelates never durst make themselves to be but members of Presbyteries nor to be subject to the admonitions and censures of their brethren which every Minister now must doe The Lordly Prelate did contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ make himselfe Pastor of many Congregations even of his whole Diocesse and did assume sole and whole power of Government and Church censures to himself and his underling officers which were to execute the same in his name And as the appropriating of Jurisdiction to the Lordly Prelate so the manner and kind of his Government and his proceedings in Ecclesiasticall censures came neither from Christ nor from the purest antiquity but from the Popes Canon Law What then hath Presbytery to doe with Prelacy as much as light with darknesse or righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse He that would see more of the differences between Presbyteriall and prelaticall Government let him read a Book Printed in the Prelates times entituled The Pastor and the Prelate And the cleere Antithesis between Presbytery and Prelacy Printed at London anno 1644. See also what I have said before Book 2. Chap. 3. 7. It is evident by his fourth Question that he states the case as if Ministers meant to know the secrets of all mens hearts and to be so censorious and peremptory in their Judging as to quench the smoaking Flax or to break the bruised Reed Thereupon he askes whether the Sacrament may be denyed to a man if he desires to receive it in case he professe his sincere Repentance for his sinnes past and promise newnesse of life for the time to come God forbid we be censorious peremptory and rigid in our judging of mens spirituall Estate where there is any thing of Christ it s to be cherished not quenched But again God forbid that we shut our eyes to
his calling to minde those words in the rule of Prayer even as we forgive those who trespasse against us Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers 19. Againe I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth supposing that agreement and consequently forgiving of injuries is necessary to make our Prayers the more effectuall for my part I think it not improbable that whatever the occasion of the Question was vers 21 beginneth a new and distinct purpose Which I take to be the reason why the Arabik here makes an intercision and beginneth the eight and fiftieth Section of Matthew at those words Then came Peter and said Lord how oft c. 4. And if vers 21. have a dependence upon that which went before it may be conceived thus Christ had said If thy Brother trespasse against thee goe tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone which supposeth a continuance of the former Christian fellowship and fraternall familiarity and that we must not cast off a scandalous Brother as lost or as an Enemy but admonish him as a Brother This might give occasion to Peter to aske Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me that is scandalize me by his sinne against God for even in Luk. 17. 3. 4. that of forgiving one that trespasseth against us is added immediately after a Doctrine of scandals and I forgive him that is as Grotius expounds it restore him to the former degree of friendship and intimate familiarity to deale with him thus as with a Brother Which he well distinguisheth from that other forgiving which is a not revenging And so much of Master Prynnes first reason His second reason is because the Mention of two or three witnesses vers 16. relateth onely to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes as murders and the like before the civill Magistrates of the Jewes c. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories of which we find no president Answ. 1. If this hold then the Text must not be expounded indefinitely of civill injuries as he did before but of civill capitall injuries whereas Erastus takes the meaning to be of smaller offences onely and not of Capitall crimes 2. The Law concerning two or three witnesses is neither restricted to Capitall crimes nor to civill Judicatories I appeale to the Ordinance of Parliament dated Octo. 20. 1645. The Elder-ship of every Congregation shall judge the matter of scandall aforesaid being not Capitall upon the Testmiony of two credible Witnesses at the least That Law therefore of witnesses is alike applicable to all causes and Courts Ecclesiasticall and civill Deut. 19. 30. One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sinne in any sin that he sinneth at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established 3. And the same Law is in the new Testament clearly applied to proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Cor. 13. 1. again 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against the Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses which is not spoken to any civill Magistrate but to Timothy and others joyned with him in Church Government His third reason doth onely begge what is in Question that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiasticall but a civill Court of the Jewes He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jewes had civill Courts If he could but cite one place to prove that they had no Ecclesiasticall Courts this were to the purpose Not that I grant that at this time the Jewes had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin in the opinion of many learned men the Jewes had no more any civill Jurisdiction Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministery Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death How ever he cannot prove that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church the Jewes had any civill Court of Justice which did exercise either Criminall or Capitall Judgements I have in the first Book shewed out of Buxtorf L'Empereur Casauhon and I. Coch. who prove what they say from the Talmudicall writers that 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and so before Christ said Tell the Church the Court of civill Justice at Hierusalem did cease If Master Prynne make any thing of this Glosse of his he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes I have before proved that that Councell of the Jewes in Christs time was an Ecclesiasticall Court though he conceives it was meerely civill 2. That a private civill injury might not then nor may not now be brought before a civill Court except after severall previous admonitions despised 3. That Chists Rule Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased when a civill Court of Justice among the Jewes ceased If he say that the same rule continueth for telling the civill Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition then I aske â— how will he reconcile himself for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice among the Jewes 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of Ierusalem and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to goe to then the Pagan Magistracy must passe under the name of the Church for they had no other civill Court of Justice to goe to One thing I must needs take notice of that whereas he would prove here that Tell the Church is nothing but tell the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes commonly called the Councell saith he or Sanhedrin he doth hereby overthrow all that he hath been building for the Jewish Sanhedrin at that time had not power to judge civill nor criminall and least of all Capitall offences but onely causes Ecclesiasticall The Romans having taken from them their civill Government and left them no Government nor Jurisdiction except in matters of Religion I hope Master Prynne will not in this contradict Erastus And if so how shall his Glosse stand that this Text is to be understood of civill injuries yea and of these onely for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ sends his Disciples to the Jewish Sanhedrin How sweetly doe his Tenents agree together His fourth reason is that those words let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican cannot signifie excommunication because Heathen men being never members of the Church could never be excommunicated or cast out of it being uncapable of such a censure As for publicans those of them who were members of the Jewish Church though they were execrable to the Jewes by reason of their Tax-gatherings and oppressions yet we never read in Scripture that they were excommunicated or cast out of their Synagogues but
suffer sinne upon him Where the Marginall paralell in the English Bibles is Mat. 18. 15. Yea Erastus himself lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 154. confesseth that Christ doth in Matth. 18. interpret that Law Lev. 19. So Prov. 28. 4. Such as keep the Law contend with the wicked We ought to hate and abhorre sinne by which God is dishonoured and consequently to expresse our zeale against it by rebukes when it is committed in our sight hearing presence privity or knowledge as much yea much more then if it were a private and personall injury against our selves Psal. 97. 10. Amos 5. 15. Rom. 12. 9. Psal. 139. 21 22. Hence it is that the Apostle exhorteth Christians to warne them that are unruly or disorderly 1 Thess. 5. 13. Wherefore it is justly and truly maintained by Augustine Regul 3 infine Tomi primi Durandus lib. 4. dist 19. Quaest. 3. Tostatus in Math. 18. Quaest. 29. and divers thers that to admonish and rebuke a Brother committing sinne is a necessary Christian duty commanded by the word of God whereunto Christians are obliged by the love of God and their Neighbour for which see also Aegidius de Coninck de actib supernat disp 28. dub 2. 4. And if the offender be not reduced by more private admonitions and rebukes the same Law of spirituall love bindeth his Brother that knoweth his sinne and impenitency to tell the Church as Ioseph told his Father of his Brethrens faults Gen. 37. 2. and Joseph brought unto their Father their evill report that is their scandalous sinnes which made them to have an evill report It is well noted by Pareus upon the place that the thing which Ioseph did complaine of to his Father was not his Brethrens hatred against himselfe nor any personall injury done to himself because their hatred of Ioseph was the effect not the cause of the information which he gave to his Father of their faults but it was their sinne and scandalous life by which they brought an evill name upon themselves and the family of their Father Wherein he doth upon good reason justifie what Ioseph did because he told not his Brethrens faults to an Enemy but to a Father nor for their evill but for their good It was also declared unto the Apostle by them of the house of Cloe that there were contentions among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. 11. So it is collected from 2 Thess. 3. 11. that some in the Church of Thessalonica gave notice to the Apostle of such as walked disorderly And as he that spares the Rod hates the Child so he that neglects to rebuke an offending Brother or when that cannot amend him neglects to tell the Church doth hate his Brothers soule in so farre as he suffers sinne upon him If these things be acknowledged for truths we will be easily induced to believe that the scope of Jesus Christ Math. 18. 15 16 17. is to teach us not what he permits the party injured to doe toward the party injuring but what he commands every one that loves the soule and salvation of his Neighbour to doe for reducing his Neighbour from a sinne wherewith he is overtaken Which fitly agreeth with that which Drusius praeter lib. 1. on Mat. 18. 15. citeth e libro Musar Besides both Fathers Schoole-men Casuists Commentators Popish and Protestant when they handle the Questions de correptione fraterna they make Brotherly rebukes to be a common duty of love which one neighbour oweth to another and ever and anon they cleare what they hold from Mat. 18. I verily believe it is one of the wiles yea depths of Sathan in perverting that Text with the Erastian Glosses to throw out of the Church and to drown in desuetude and oblivion a great and necessary duty which every Christian by the law of love oweth to the soule of his Brother with whom he converseth which were it conscionably practised I dare say it should be a most powerfull and effectuall meanes by the blessing of Christ upon his owne ordinance to purge the Church of scandals to gaine soules and to advance holinesse Now he that can neither be reduced by more private reprehensions nor by publike Ecclesiasticall conviction Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man saith Christ let him be esteemed as one that hath no part in the communion of the Saints in Church-Membership in the holy things in the common-wealth of Israel in the Covenants of promise more then an Heathen man Which is a spirituall not a civill separation according to that Gal. 2. 15. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles My second Argument shall be this That which Christ saith generally of any sinne whereby one Brother scandalizeth another Brother the Erastians restrict to private or personall injuries And whereas Christs rule tendeth to the rescuing and saving of a sinner their Glosse runnes upon a mans particular interest in the resarclating of a private injury If thy Brother trespasse against thee that is Cum quis coram aliquo peccaverit saith Munsterus when any brother sinneth in the presence of some other Are we not oblidged to rebuke an offending Brother in Christian love and to endeavour to bring him to repentance and to save his soule whether he hath done to us any particular injury or not May we suffer sinne upon his soule because that sinne is not an injury to us Let it be well observed the thing here aimed at is the salvation of the offending Brother and his turning from sinne as Grotius rightly noteth from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Erastus also confesseth from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for in that sence is the same word used 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. that I might gain them that are under the Law c. and 1 Pet. 3. 1. they may be wonne by the conversation of the wives This saith Grotius James doth explain Ch. 5. v. 20. he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soule from death and shall hide a multitude of sinnes If this then be the meaning of Christs words thou hast gained thy Brother then it concerneth all sinnes whereby we know our Brothers soule and salvation to be in hazard Wherefore though Grotius understand private injuries to be that case which the Text putteth yet saith he it is the manner of the Law of God by one particular and more remarkable kind of things to intimate what ought to be done in other things according to the rule of just proportion And it holds more true in other sinnes then in the case of private injuries This rebuking is necessary as well in sins which are committed against God as in those which are committed against man and by so much the more its necessary in sinnes which are committed against God by how much they are heavier then sinnes which are committed against man saith Tostatus in Mat. 18. quest 93. And Grotius himself citeth out of Mimus
kind can make the Sacrament a converting Ordinance 3. We must distinguish even in conversion between gratia praeveniens subsâ—…quens operans co-operans excitans adjuvans or rather between habitual and actual conversion Habitual conversion I call the first infusion of the life and habits of grace actual conversion is the souls beginning to act from that life and from those habits The first or habitual conversion in which the sinner is passive and not at all active it being wholy the work of preventing exciting quickning grace is that which never is to be looked for in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is enough to overthrow that opinion that scandalous impenitent sinners having an external formal profession but known by a wicked abominable conversation to be dead in sins and trespasses in whom the holy Ghost hath never yet breathed the first breath of the life of grace may be admitted to the Lords Supper if they desire it not being excommunicated upon hopes that it may prove a converting Ordinance to them As for gratia subsequens co-operans adjuvans by which the sinner having now a spiritual life created in him and supernatural habits infused in his soul is said actually to convert repent and beleeve I consider even in this actual conversion repenting beleeving these two things 1. The inchoation 2. The progresse of the work Where the work is begun if it were but faith like a grain of mustard seed and where there is any thing of conversion which is true and sound the Sacrament is a blessed powerful means to help forward the work But I peremptorily deny that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is appointed or instituted by Christ as a regenerating converting Ordinance as well as the word or as a means of beginning actual much lesse habitual conversion 4. When I hold the Lords Supper not to be a converting but a sealing Ordinance the meaning is not as if I beleeved that all who are permitted to come to the Lords Table are truly converted or that they are such as the seals of the Covenant of Grace do indeed and of right belong unto for we speak of visible Churches and visible Saints But my meaning is that Christ hath intended this Sacrament to be the childrens read onely though the hired servants of the house have other bread enough and to spare and he alloweth this portion to none but such as are already converted and do beleeve and that they who are the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God ought to admit none to this Sacrament except such as are quallified and fit so far as can be judged by their profession knowledge and practice observed and examined by the Eldership according to the rules of the Word no humane court being infallible to have part and portion in the communion of Saints and to receive the seals of the Covenant of Grace at least that they may not dare to admit any man whose known and scandalous wickednesse continued in without signes of repentance saith within their heart that there is no fear of God before his eyes These things premised which are to be remembred by the Reader but need not be repeated by me as we go along I proceed to the Arguments which prove my assertion that the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance And thereafter I shall answer Mr. Prynns Arguments brought to the contrary CHAP. XIII Twenty Aâ—guments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance First THat which is an institute significant signe to declare and testifie the being of that thing which is thereby signified is not an operating cause or mean which makes that thing signified to begin to be where it was not But the Sacrament is an instituted signe to declare and testifie the being of that thing which is thereby signified Ergo This is an Argument used by Protestant writers against Papists The Sacraments being by their definition Signes are not causes of that which they signifie neither are the things signified the effects of the Sacraments Wherefore the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a signe of our spiritual life faith union with Christ and remission of sins is not instituted to convey these spiritual blessings to such as have them not Significancy is one thing efficiency another You will say by this Argument there is no grace exhibited nor given to beleevers themselves in the Sacrament Answ. Growth in grace and confirmation of Faith is given to beleevers in the Sacrament which the significancy hinders not because the Sacrament doth not signifie nor declare that the receiver hath much grace and a strong faith but that he hath some life of grace and some faith The very state of grace or spiritual life regeneration faith and remission of sins are signified declared testified and sealed but not wrought or given in the Sacrament The strengthening of faith and a further degree of communion with Christ is not signified in the Sacrament I mean it s not signified that we have it but that we shall have it or at most that we do then receive it So that beleevers may truly be said to receive at the Sacrament a confirmation or strengthening of their faith or a further degree of communion with Christ but it cannot be said that the very Sacramental act of eating or drinking being a signe of spiritual life and union with Christ as that which we have not which we shall have or at that instant receive is a mean or instrumental cause to make a man have that which it testifieth or signifieth he hath already There is no evasion here for one who acknowledgeth the Sacrament to be a signe declaring or shewing forth that we have faith in Christ remission of sins by him and union with him Mr. Prynn must either make blank the signification of the Sacrament à parte ante though not à parte post or else hold that the signification of the Sacrament is not applicable to many of those whom he thinks fit to be admitted to receive it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper necessarily supposeth conversion and faith Ergo. The proposition is so certain that either it must be yeelded or a contradiction must be yeelded for that which worketh conversion and faith cannot suppose that they are but that they are not Therefore that which supposeth conversion and faith cannot work conversion and faith because then the same thing should be supposed both to be and not to be The Assumption I prove from Scripture Mark 16. 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized vers 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized Act. 8. 36. 37. And the Eâ—…nuch said See here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest with all thinâ—… heart 〈◊〉
AARONS ROD BLOSSOMING OR The Divine Ordinance of Church-Government VINDICATED So as the present Erastian Controversie concerning the distinction of Civill and Ecclesiasticall Government Excommunication and Suspension is fully debated and discussed from the holy Scripture from the Jewish and Christian Antiquities from the consent of latter Writers from the true nature and rights of Migistracy and from the groundlesnesse of the chiefe Objections made against the Presbyteriall Government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power By George Gillespie Minister at Edinburgh For unto us a child is born unto us a sonne is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder Isaiah 9. 6. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5. 17. And the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the Author of confusion but of peace 1 Cor. 14 32 33. August lib. contra Donatistas post collationem Cap. 4. Ne fortè aut indisciplinata patientia foveat iniquitatem aut impatiens disciplina dissipet unitatem Published by Authority London Printed by E. G. for Richard Whitaker at the signe of the Kings Armes in Pauls Church yard 1646. TO THE Reverend and Learned Assembly of DIVINES Convened at WESTMINSTER Right Reverend THough many faithfull servants of God did long agoe desire to see those things which we see and to heare those things which we heare Yet it hath been one of the speciall mercies reserved for this Generation and denied to the times of our Ancestors that Divines of both Kingdomes within this Island should be gathered and continued together to consult peaceably and freely concerning a Reformation of Religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government 'T is a mercy yet greater that two Nations formerly at so great a distance in the form of publike Worship and Churchgovernment should to their mutuall comfort and happines and to the further endearing of each to other through the good hand of God be now agreed upon one Directory of Worship and with a good progresse advanced as in one Confession of Faith so likewise in one forme of Church-government For all which as the other Reformed Churches in regard of their common interest in the Truth and Ordinances of Christ so especially your Brethren in the Church of Scotland are your debters Your name is as precious Oynment among them and they doe esteeme you very highly in love for your workes sake A worke which as it is extraordinary and unparalleld requiring a double portion of the Spirit of your Master so You have very many Hearts and Prayers going along with you in it that the pleasure of the Lord may prosper in your hand As for my Reverend Colleagues and my selfe it hath been a good part of our happinesse that we have been partakers of and Assistants in your grave and learned Debates Yet as we declared from our first comming amongst you we came not hither presuming to prescribe any thing unto You but willing to receive as well as to offer light and to debate matters freely and fairely from the Word of God the common Rule both to you and us As herein You were pleased to give testimony unto us in one of your Letters to the Generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland so the great respects which in other things and at other times you have expressed both towards that Church from which we are entrusted and particularly towards our selves doe call for a returne of all possible and publique testimonies of gratitude For which purpose I doe for my part take hold of this opportunity I know that I owe much more unto You then I have either ability to pay or Elocution to set forth Yet although I cannot retaliate your Favours nor render that which may be worthy of your selves I beseech you to accept this part of my retribution of respects I doe offer and entitle unto You this Enucleation of the Erastian Controversie which is Dignus vindice nodus I hope here is a word in season concerning it Others might have done better but such furniture as I had I have brought to the worke of the Tabernacle I submit what is mine unto your greater learning and better judgement and shall ever continue Yours to serve you GEO. GILLESPIE To the Candid Reader I Have often and heartily wished that I might not be distracted by nor ingaged into polemick Writings of which the World is too full already and from which many more learned and idoneous have abstained and I did accordingly resolve that in this Controversall age I should be slow to write swift to read and learne Yet there are certaine preponderating reasons which have made me willing to be drawn forth into the light upon this subject For beside the desires and sollicitations of diverse Christian friends lovers of truth and peace seriously calling upon me for an answer to M r Prynne his Vindication of his foure Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension the grand importance of the Erastian controversie and the strong influence which it hath into the present juncture of asfaires doth powerfully invite me Among the many Controversies which have disquieted and molested the Church of Christ those concerning Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline are not the least but among the chiefe and often mannaged with the greatest animosity and eagernesse of spirit whence there have growne most dangerous divisions and breaches such as this day there are and for the future are to be expected unlesse there shall be through Gods mercy some further composing and healing of these Church-consuming distractions which if we shall be so happy as once to obtaine it will certainely contribute very much toward the accommodation of civill and State-shaking differences And contrariwise if no healing for the Church no healing for the State Let the Gallio's of this time who care for no intrinsecall evill in the Church promise to themselves what they will surely he that shall have cause to write with Nicolaus de Clemangis a Booke of lamentation de corrupto Ecclesiae statu will finde also cause to write with him de lapsu reparatione Justitiae As the thing is of high concernment to these so much disturbed and divided Churches so the elevation is yet higher by many dègrees This controversie reacheth up to the Heavens and the top of it is above the clouds It doth highly concerne Iesus Christ himselfe in his glory royall prerogative and kingdome which he hath and exerciseth as Mediator and Head of his Church The Crowne of Iesus Christ or any part priviledge or pendicle thereof must needs be a noble and excellent Subject This truth that Iesus Christ is a King and hath a Kingdome and government in his Church distinct from the kingdomes of this World and from the civill Government hath this commendation and character above all other truths that Christ himselfe suffered to the death for it and sealed it with his blood For it may be observed from the story
no very good friend to Church-discipline and Government loc com disp 22. proveth that Excommunication was transferred from the Jewes to us by Christ himselfe Matth. 18. and that the cutting off mentioned in the Law is no other thing than that which the Apostle meaneth when he saith put away from among your selves that wicked person 4. The cutting off soule from among his people did typifie or resemble eternall death and condemnation In which respect Peter doth some way apply it to the daies of the Gospell that every soule which will not heare Christ the great Prophet shall be destroyed from among his people Acts 3. 23. So Vatablus on Gen. 17. 14. that soul shall be cut off that is shall not be partaker of my promises and of my benefits So that as I. Coch. annot in Sanhedrin cap. 9. saith well death inflicted by the hand of God is lesse then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cutting off Nam exterminii post mortem poena luitur The same thing Guil. Vorstius confirmeth out of Maimonides annot in Maimon de fundam legis pag. 127. And Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 8. saith that the greatest reward is the life of the world to come and the greatest punishment is the cutting off of the soule Now this could not so fitly be resembled and shadowed forth by the cutting off from the land of the living either by the hand of God or by the hand of the Magistrate as by cutting off from the Church and from the communion of Saints by excommunication which is summum futuri judicii praejudicium as Tertullian called it and fore-sheweth that the ungodly shall not stand in the judgement nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous Psal. 1. 5. But Gods taking away of a man by death in the phrase of the Old Testament is not a cutting off from but a gathering of him unto his people yea it is said of wicked Ishmael when he died he was gathered unto his people And as for the abbreviation of life and the untimelinesse of death in youth or middle age that both is now and was of old one of the things which come alike to all to the good as well as to the bad As touching the capitall punishment of malefactors by the hand of the Magistrate it being founded upon the very law of nature and common to all Nations without as well as within the Church so that very often those from whom a malefactor is cut off are not so much as by profession the Church and people of God it cannot so fitly resemble the separation or casting out of a man from having part or portion of the inheritance of the Saints in light 5. D r. Buxtorf lexic. chald Talm. Rahbin page 1101. tels us that this difference was put between him that was guilty of cutting off and him that was guilty of death Reus mortis ipse tantum non semen ejus paena excidii comprehendit ipsum semen ejus Now if the punishment of death was personall oneâ— and the punishment of cutting off comprehensive not onely of them but of their seed how can this agree so well to any thing else as to Excommunication especially if that hold which Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. tels us that the children of excommunicate persons were not circumcised 6. M. Selden de jure nat Gent. lib. 7. cap. 10. tels us that the Hebrew Doctors themselves doe not agree concerning that cutting off in the Law He saith that R. Bechai and others make three sorrs of cutting off i. a cutting off whereby the body onely is cut off which they understand by that phrase Levit. 20. 6. I will cut him off from among his people and this is untimely death Palm 55. 23. Bloudy and deceitfull men shall not live out half their daies 2. They say there was another cutting off which was of the soule onely Levit. 18. 29. the souls that commit these things â—…all be cut off from among their people By this cutting off they say the soule ceaseth to have a being the body not being taken away by death before the naturall period 3. They make a third kind whereby both soule and body is cut off Num. 15. 31. That soule shall be utterly cut off his iniquity shall be upon him Whereby say they both the body is destroyed before the naturall time and likewise the soule ceaseth to have a being But whatsoever any of the Hebrews fancied in their declining latter times concerning that second kinde of cutting off which M. Selden doth not approve but relate out of them I am confident it was onely the degenerating notion of Excommunication and that very fancy of theirs is a footstep thereof which may make us easily believe that the more ancient Hebrews in purer times did understand that such a cutting off was mentioned in the Law by which a man in respect of his Spirituall being was cut off from the Church of Israel whiles his naturall life and being was not taken ftom him Yea Gulâ—…elmus Vorstius annot in Maimon de fundam legis pag. 60. sheweth us that some of the Hebrewes acknowledge nothing under the name of the cutting off but that which is the cutting off of the soule onely But if there be so much as some cutting off mentioned in the Law which concerneth a mans Spirituall estate onely it doth abundantly confirme what I plead for and I shall not need to assert that everywhere in the Law Excommunication must needs be understood by cutting off Some understand the cutting off in the Judiciall or Civill lawes to be meant of capitall punishments and the cutting off in the ceremoniall Lawes which were properly Ecclesiasticall to be meant of Excommunication or cutting off from the Church onely If anywhere the cutting off be Excommunication it sufficeth me Or what ever it may signifie more or be extended unto if Excommunication be one thing which it signifieth then they who thinke it signifieth some other thing beside Excommunication are not against me in this question I shall conclude with that in the Dutch Annotations upon Gen. 17. 14. that soule shall be cut off from his people The Annotation Englished saith thus that man shall be excommunicate from the fellowship of Gods people This kind of expression implies also as some doe conceive a bodily punishment to be iâ—…sticted withall by the Magistrate They hold determinately and positively that it signifieth Excommunication Whether it signifie some other thing beside they judge not to be so cleare and therefore offer it to be considered It is but a poore argument whereby Bishop Bilson of the Government of the Church chap. 4. would prove the cutting off not to be meant of Excommunication because it is applyed even to capitall offences such as the Law elsewhere appointeth men to be put to death for As if it were any absurdity to say that one and the same offence is to be punished sub formalitate scandali with
excommunication and sub formalitate criminis with capitall punishment And who knoweth not that a capitall crime is a cause of excommunication which is also sometimes the sole punishment the Magistrate neglecting his duty If a known blasphemer or incestuous person be not cut off by the Magistrate as he ought by the Law of God shall he therefore not be cut off by excommunication If he had proved that all the causes of cutting off in the Law were capitall crimes he had said much but that will never be proved CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue WE read of a casting out of the Church which was pretended to be a matter of conscience and religion and such as did more especially concerne the glory of God Isa. 66. 5. Your brethren that hated you that cast you out for my names sake said let the Lord be glorified Such was the casting out of the Synagogue mentioned in the Gospell Ioh. 9. 22. 12. 42. 16. 2. Arias Montanus de arcano Sermone cap. 47. expounds it of excommunication from Church Assemblies So the Magdeburgians cent 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. and Corn. Bertramus de repub Ebraeor cap. 7. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 3. cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 2. Wherein the interpreters also upon the places cited doe generally agree Erasmus Brentius Tossanus Diodati Cartwright in his harmony Gerhard c. So likewise M. Leigh out of Paulus Tarnovius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur ejectus e 〈◊〉 sacro Ecclesiae excommunicatus See Critica Sacra of the new Test. pag. 391. So doth Aretius Theol. Probel loc 133. though cited by our Opposites againstus he saith though it was abused by the Pharisees yet it sheweth the Antient use of the the thing it self that there was such a discipline in the Jewish Church It is not much materiall to dispute which of the degrees of the Jewish Excommunication or whether all the three were meant by that casting out of the Synagogue Drusius and Grotius expound Io. 9. 22. of Niddui Gerhard expounds Io. 16. 2. of all the three Niddui Cherem and Shammata It is enough for this present argument if it was a spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censure not a civill punishment Master Prynne Vindic. pag. 48 49. tels us First this casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods Word but was onely a humane invention Secondly as it was practiced by the Jewes it was a diabolicall institution Thirdly that it was meerly a civill Excommunication like to an Outlary whereby the party cast out was separate from civill conversation onely or from all company with any man but was not suspended from any Divine Ordinance Fourthly that it was inflicted by the Temporall Magistrate Fifthly that in the Jewish Synagogues at that time there was neither Sacrament nor Sacrifice but onely Reading Expounding Preaching Disputing and Prayer so that it cannot prove suspension from the Sacrament To the first I answer it was not onely warranted by the cutting off mentioned in the Law but Erastus himselfe gives a warrant for it from Gods word He saith pag. 315. the casting out of the Synagogue was vel idem vel simile quidpiam with that separating from the congregation Ezâ—…a 10. 8. To the second Aretius hath answered The best things in the world may be abused To the third I offer these eight considerations to prove that it was an Ecclesiasticall not a civill Censure First the causes for which men were put out of the Synagogues were matters of scandall offences in point of Religion and we read of none cast out of the Synagogue for a civill injury or crime It was for confessing Christ Io. 9. 22. 12. 42. then counted heresie and for Preaching of the Gospell Io. 16. 2. Secondly The Synagogicall Assembly or Court was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall as Ludoviens de Dieu noteth upon Matth 10. 17. we read of the Rulers of the Synagogue Act. 13. 15. among whom he that did preâ—de and moderate was called the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue Act. 18. 8. 17. names never given to civill Magistates or Judges Therefore Brughton makes this of the Rulers of the Synagogue to be one of the paralells betweene the Jewish and the Christian Church Seâ— his exposition of the Lords Prayer pag. 14. 16. As for that Assembly of the Pharisees which did cast out or excommunicate the blind man Io. 9. Tossanus upon the place calls it Senatus Ecclesiasticus and Brentius argueth from this example against the infallibility of Councells because this Councell of the Pharisees call'd Christ himselfe a finner 3 The Court of civill Judgement was in the Gates of the City not in the Synagogue 4 Such as the Communion and fellowship was in the Synagogue such was the casting out of the Synagogue But the Communion or fellowship which one enjoyed in the Synagogue was a Church-Communion and Sacred fellowship in acts of Divine worship Therefore the casting out of the Synagogue was also Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall not civill or temporall 4 The end was Sacred and Spirituall to glorifie God Is. 66. 5. to doe God good service Io. 16. 2. in that which did more immediately and neerly touch his name and his glory Though the Pharisees did falsely pretend that end their error was not in mistaking the nature of the Censure but in misapplying it where they had no just cause 5 Master Prynne himself tells us pag. 49. That this excommunication from the Synagogue was of force forty dayes though I beleeve he hath added ten more then enough and if he look over his Bookes better he will find he should have said thirty yet so as that it might be shortned upon repentance But I pray are civill punishments shortned or lengthened according to the parties repentance I know Church Censures are so But I had thought the end of civill punishments is not to reclaime a mans soule by repentance and then to be taken off but to guard the Lawes of the Land to preserve Justice Peace and good order to make others feare to doe evill to uphold the publike good The Magistrate must both punish and continue punishments as long as is necessary for those ends whether the party be penitent or not 6 How is it credible that the holy Ghost meaning to expresse a casting out from civill company or conversation onely which was not within but without the Synagogue would choose such a word as signifieth the casting out from an Ecclesiasticall or Sacred Assembly for such were the Synagogues in which the Jewes had Reading Expounding Preaching and Prayer as Master Prynne tells us Christ himselfe distinguisheth the Court or Judicatory which was in the Synagogue from civill Magistracy Luk. 12. 11. And when they bring you unto the Synagogues and unto Magistrates and Powers Magistrates and Powers are civill Rulers supreame and subordinate but the Synagogues are distinct Courts from both these 7 Our Opposites cannot give any other rationall interpretation of the word