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
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
we be all one body in Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. If he mean Ceremonies as such speciall materialls to wit Surplice c. as ordained of man who may ordain another Ceremony doth not immediatly respect the honour of God 1. This is to beg the question 2. A white garment upon a priest of Jupiter Sacrificing to that Idoll should immediatly respect the honour of Iupiter though the Priest might honour Iupiter with garments of white Roses or some other like device while he officiateth So bowing of the knee in prayer doth immediatly honour God though I may pray sitting or standing 3. It is a dream that the honour of the subject is given to the adjunct yea and properly is the adjunct and agreeth to the adjunct as Surplice hath the very Office and place of Gods word and Sacramentâ— to teach and signifie and yet they are but adjuncts if a mans Coat or his Hat or Shooes could discourse and reason as only the man can do in reason we should say the Coat is the man 2. They say God forbiddeth efficient and operative means of worship and grace in the second Commandment or means immediate which worketh by vertue in themselves or wrapped in them for so the word and Sacraments are means of grace and worship yea the Sacraments be exhibitive seals and therefore we owe to such means subjection of conscience immediatly both to the things instituted and particular means of admonition and to the duties admonished or called to our remembrance by them for they have vertue residing and inherent in them by divine institution to work upon us But God forbiddeth not in the second Commandment means that teach occasionally as Objectum a quo therefore we owe subjection of conscience to the things admonished but not to the particular means of admonition therefore we are tied in conscience to Ceremonies only collaterally and propter aliud they be only externall objects or occasions For whoever saith he expected that men should be stirred up by Ceremonies as by causes or any otherwayes but as by sensible objects as we are by the sight of the creatures or other memorials therefore saith he they are not means by the which grace is wrought by the power of God wrapped in them but resident in God himself that freely giveth the grace by the right use of them so D. Burges Ans All cometh to this Ceremonies taketh the place of Word and Sacraments but cannot fill the chaire and discharge the office so well as Gods Ordinances doth A Clown taketh on the Crown and usurpeth the Throne and cannot do Regall Acts with such grace of Royall Majesty as the Lawfull King what is he for that no usurping Traitor 2. He will not have Ceremonies to be causes of worship but occasions so do Papists say Images saith Vasquez do only set before us the History and effects of God Bellarmine Suarez as all know do say That Images cannot so represent Iehovah as he is in himself or described in his word nor can the Idoll or Image of God represent God as a cause but onely as an object externall and occasion and yet God forbiddeth it Isa 40. 18. Hab. 2. 19. 20. 2. Gods word to the reprobate is a sealed Book and is as if you would teach letters to a new weaned childe Isa 29. 11. c. 29. 9. It worketh by no inherent vertue wrapped in it self but though it be mighty yet is it mighty through God 2 Cor. 10. 4. Ioshuahs twelve stones the Phylacteries the Manna the Rainbow did only as Aquinas saith well worke upon the senses and memory The word it self doth but work morally or objectively and is not a cause having the power of God wrapped in it If Surplice work only as an occasion the Preachers Napkin the bands of women doth so excite the memory and the affection 3. All our Divines teach that the Sacraments are exhibitive seals but not of themselves or by any vertue inherent in them as Papists say but by the power of God which worketh by the right receiving of the Sacraments and the Sacraments Actu Primo and essentially are only signes which worketh objectively and occasionally as you say your unhallowed Ceremonies do 1. because they are Sacraments essentially whether they be received by Faith or not and they are exhibitive seals only to believers 2. Vnbelievers should not prophane the Sacraments by their unworthy receiving of them if they were not Sacraments to them only signifying and if they were exhibiting seals to them then should they receive them worthily which is against what we suppose 3. The Fathers as Justine Martyr Ireneus Epiphanius Chrysostom Ambrose prove that Circumcision in its nature except to believers did only signifie Grace 5. Here be a most vilde distinction That we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished but not to Surplice or to such means and particular admonishers but only collaterally But â— is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collaterall Mistresse over the conscience who is the other collaterall judge here who but Christ 2. We owe this collaterall subjection of Conscience to the Image of the Trinity for though we owe not subjection of Conscience to the image as such an admonisher or such an exhorting object seeing the Word of God may also admonish us of God yet we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished to wit to the blessed trinity 3. Neither owe we subjection of conscience to the word as written with ink on paper nor to the sound of the word Preached yea nor do we owe subjection of Faith to the Word as the Word but only collaterall when we say I hope in the Word I believe the Word I rejoyce in the Word of God we take the Word for Objetum quo and God for Objectum quod for the word is not the formall object of any subjection of Conscience I owe to the Word not a subjection of Conscience collaterall or coequall with the subjection that I owe to God but only subordinate as to a mean and to the Word for God and because it is instituted by God but I owe subjection of Conscience to God solely independently and onely yea subjection of Conscience is not due to the Word for its manner of working and not due to the Ceremonies because they work not as the Word of God doth as no wonder they being but hay and stubble but subjection of Conscience is due to the Word because God is the Author of it and speaketh in it himself as is clear Ier. 13. 15. Amos 3. 8. Heb. 2. 3. Hear for the Lord hath spoken and it is to be received only and in Conscience yielded unto as it is the Word of God Isa 1. 2. 1 Thess 2. 13. Now because we cannot receive the Surplice Crossing Capping as the Surplice of God and as the Crossing of Christ therefore are we not to submit at all to the Doctrines which these
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
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
coming to them mourning Ans Where saith Paul that he his alone did use the rod doth he not ascribe judging and casting out to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 5. 12. c and forgiving of the incestuous man 2 Cor. 2. to them Beza saith this power is necessary to purge the Church lest it be infected even to the end of the world and therefore must be left with the Church Erastus To be gathered in the Name of the Lord is not referred to the congregations meeting together but to Pauls act of delivering to Satan the Corinthians and Pauls Spirit instructed thus with the power of Christ might have delivered others to Satan as they did this man if the Apostle had not pardoned them but they had not Pauls spirit with them in their convention afterward because in no place he biddeth them be gathered together with his Spirit as he doth here Ans Paul doth construe the words v. 4. in the Name of Christ with the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye being conveened and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are separated from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged by the interposition of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Erastus his grammar will be a little confused 2. What needed the Corinthians be gathered together with the Spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus to pray that the man might be miraculously killed for when they were not gathered together in a Church meeting but were all separatim in their own houses and closets they had power to judge the man that is to pray that he might be miraculously killed else Erastus cannot make Paul in any reasonable manner to rebuke them because they prayed not that he might be killed for Erastus must suppose the power of praying for this in faith was tyed to this publike convention of the Church and Erastus saith in no place he biddeth them be gathered together as here This Spirit of Paul and power of the Lord Jesus that was in them was not given to elevate them to any higher or more supernaturall acts of miraculous co-operating with Paul then their naked act of consenting that the man should be cut off and this act of consenting they could not want in their private praying at home that the man be miraculously killed and so this spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Iesus shall be brought so low as I know not what to make of it Erastus If they had prayed that God would punish this enormous sinne whether God had heard them or not they had discharged their dutie Ans But it is evident he rebuketh them not onely for not mourning for the mans fall and not praying that he might be punished but for that they conveened not and did not judge and put away the man Ergo they had alwayes an ordinary power to judge and cast out scandalous persons and Paul rebuketh them for not improving this power then it was not any miraculous power not ordinarily in their hand as powers of that kinde are supposed to be Erastus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the meaning may be note such a one in an Epistle and write to me that I may censure him Ans This is throwne Grammar which the Greek doth not bear without violence for Paul saith If he obey not our doctrine written by Epistle marke such a one and he commandeth them to inflict a censure on him by eschewing his company CHAP. XIX Quest 15. Of the use of Excommunication toward the Magistrate especially Erastus How many thousands of men have been killed by occasion of Excommunication in Germany it hath subjected Kings and Scriptures and all to the Pope Ans All this may be said of the Gospell and of Christ that hee is appointed for the fall and ruine of many and that he came not to give Peace but the Sword 1 Pet. 2. 8. Luke 2. 34. Mat. 10. 34 35. But the cause is not in the Gospell or in Christ but in mens corrupt nature Excommunication is the Rod of the King out of Zion and we know how impatient men are of the yoke of Christ Excommunication abused by the Pope doth all this Erastus Excommunication cureth not wounded consciences but begetteth Hypocrites Ans So publike rebuking of those that sin publikely 1 Tim. 5. 20. being abused doth beget Hypocrites Esa 57. 1 2 3. Ezek. 31 32 33. 1 King 21. 27. 28 29. so doth the Rod the Word the giving of almes praying being abused to wicked ends make hypocrites Mat. 23. 14 25. Mat. 6. 1 2 3 4. Psal 78. v. 34 35 36. Hos 7. 14. Excommunication is innocent of all these Erastus I thinke it not amisse that the Magistrate chuse godly and prudent men and joyne to them godly Ministers who in place of the Magistrate may inquire in the life and manners of men and convene before them loose livers and rebuke them and if need be deferre them to the Magistrate But this is unjust that such a Senate be chosen by the Church which hath no power to chuse them 2. That they are not chosen in the Name of the Magistrate but against his will 3. That they subject the Magistrate to them Ans Erastus is willing there be a Presbytery 1. Of mixed men prudent men and godly Pastors 2. Chosen by the Magistrate 3. That they judge and rebuke Murtherers Extortioners Oppressors Thieves c. But 1. he should give us Scripture for this his new Presbytery He condemneth ours because it wanteth as he saith the Authority and the like of his Presbytery in the Old or New Testament you finde not 2. That Ministers should judge of bloods thefts treasons paricides for all these are loose livers and of goods and inheritances and give an account to the Civill Magistrate is all one as if the Ministers of the Gospel should be Iudges as the Lords of the Gentiles such as Pilate Foelix and the rest so they do it at the Command of the Supream Magistrate then the King may warrant Ministers to go against the Command and practise of Christ Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and 12 13 c. 2 Tim. 2. 4. For this is a Civill Judicature 3. Then the Ministers rebuking in the name of the Civill Magistrate may make him to Preach exhort in the name of the Civil Magistrate So Ministers are they to hear the word at the Magistrates mouth I thought Ministers had been the Ambassadors of an higher King Ezech. 2. 7 8. and 3. 3. Speak with my words to them Rom. 1. 1. 2 Cor. 5. 20. 4. If the Ministers rebuke as Ambassadors of Christ Those to whom they Preach the word of reconciliation those they are to rebuke with Authority and all hearers are subject to them Magistrates or others high or low This is clear by 2 Cor. 5. 19. 20 c. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. For rebuking
Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercitâ— of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is tâ— come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the patternâ— shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And
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
and against order in which case the formall object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a particular humane Law but the violation of the morall goodnesse annexed to it and of the scandall given Now in this meaning the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindely Per se of it self punishable but by accident and so it bindeth the conscience by accident And in this sense great Doctors as Ambrose Anselme Theodoret Chrysostom Navarra Felinus Taraquel say That humane Laws oblige the conscience But the most learned of the Canonists aver that not to obey civill Laws laying aside the evil of scandall is no mortall sin and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltinesse before God 2. They object To resist the Laws of the Magistrate is to resist himself and to resist himself is to resist the Ordinance of God Ans To resist the Laws positive and particular in connexion with the morall reason of the Law is to resist the Ruler true But so the question is not concluded against us for by accident in that sense humane Laws binde the conscience but to resist the particular Laws as particular Laws as particular positive Laws is not to resist the Ruler A Ruler as a Ruler doth never command a thing meerly indifferent as such but as good edificative profitable and except you resist the morality of the positive humane Law you resist not the Ruler yea nor yet is the Law resisted 3. The Iesuit Lod. Meratius objecteth Every true Law obligeth either to guiltinesse or to punishment but the civill and Canonick Laws are Laws properly so called But they do not ever oblige to punishment only Ergo They oblige to sin Ans It is denied that Laws civill or Canonicall as meerly particularly positive do oblige as Laws or that they are Laws they be only Laws according to the morality in them that can promove us to our last end eternall felicity It is also false that the Iesuit saith If thou wilt be saved keep the Commandments doth command the keeping of all Civill and Canonick Laws or that hence is concluded a Law obliging the conscience that is humane and positive as if a Lent Fast a Pilgrimage and not carrying Armour in the night were commanded by Christ as necessary to life eternall The same Meratius striveth to answer the Argument of Almain and Gerson which is this Who ever can oblige to sin mortall before God he can inflict eternall punishment but no mortall man can inflict eternall punishment 1. Saith he This Argument would prove sins against the Law of nature as homicide and adultery not to be deadly sins for by the Law of nature eternall punishment is not inflicted for sins against the Law of nature but by the positive will of God If any say God is the author of the Law of nature because he is the Creator of that humane nature in the which this law is written So if that be sufficient that the law of nature oblige under eternall punishment so also the civill and Ecclesiasticall lavv shall binde the conscience because he is the author of that power which maketh Civill and Ecclesiastick laws for there is no power but it is of God Ans 1. By the Law of nature sins against the Law of nature deserve eternall punishment and that essentially laying aside the positive will of God to whom I grant it is free to inflict punishment or not to inflict and this agreeth to all sin But to carry Armour in the night laying aside the case of scandall and the morality thereof that no murther follow thereupon deserveth neither temporall nor eternall punishment And if this Argument of the Iesuits hold good no mortall sin shall oblige to eternall punishment because Gods positive will is the nearest cause of actuall punishment eternall in all sins 2. God is not the Author of a propper noâ—othetick power in man for that is the question 2. He answereth Distinguishing the Proposition None can oblige to a mortall sin but he who can inflict the eternall punishment of a mortall sin It is true saith he of the punishment which wholly dependeth upon the will of the judge who made the Law but it is not true of that punishment which no way dependeth upon the will of the Iudge such as is eternall punishment excommunication dependeth upon the vvill of man and it obligeth to eternall punishment yet man cannot inflict that eternall punishment for a man may command an act the omission whereof or the commission whereof is of such moment that it serveth much for the good of a community and therefore he vvho of knowledge and vvillingly doth such an act doth sin against right reason and so against the eternall lavv of God Ans 1. The distinction of the Jesuit is but a begging of the question He vvho can oblige to mortall sin by his Lavv can also oblige to eternall punishment if eternall punishment depend vvholly on his free vvill as the Lavv doth What is that but the inflicting of eternal punishment belongeth to him who maketh a Law obliging to sin mortal so being the inflicting of eternall punishment belong to him But our Argument is he who hath dominion and authority to make a Law hath dominion and authority to inflict a punishment answerable to the transgression of that Law for it is one dominion and power to make the Law and to inflict the penalty of the Law Man cannot make the penalty of eternall wrath Ergo he cannot make a Law obliging to eternall wrath 2. Excommunication is not done by mans will but by the power of the keys for a mortall sin deserving excommunication and so eternall wrath If any Excommunicate upon his sole will as wicked Popes have done in that case the will of a man obligeth neither to punishment nor to eternall punishment it is but Brutum Fulmen and not to be feared 3. If any Commit an act that hurteth a whole Community and is forbidden by men in Authority he sinneth against the Law of God though men had never forbidden that Act And we deny not but humane Laws agreeing with the Law of Nature doth oblige the Conscience both to sin and eternall punishment but then they are not humane Laws but Divine Laws and in that case two guiltinesses Duo reatus are Committed one against the fifth Commandment in doing what Superiors according to Gods Word forbiddeth and there is another guiltinesse against the matter it self and a Divine Law which also should stand as a sin before God thought the Ruler had never forbidden it But if any carry Armour in the Night being forbidden by the Iudge for eschewing of night homicide if no homicide follow at all and the matter be not known and so not scandalous the carrier of Armour is involved in no guiltinesse before God CAP. III. Of the power of the
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
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
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
in way of Preaching or in way of censure is a part of the Gospel But Pastors are to Preach the Gospel to all to great and small who stand in need of Reconciliation 2 Cor. 5. 20 Act. 9. 15. He is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name before Gentiles and Kings and the Children of Israel Erastus It is false that the Sword of the Magistrate is not sufficient to coerce sins Psal 101. Kings have put to death those that seek not God It is nothing that you say the Priest judged those same sins in a spirituall manner that the Magistrate judged politically for it is false that the Priests judged in a Judicature separated from the Civill Judges as your Presbytery sitteth See Levit. cap. 4. 5. 6. God seemeth to have given no Laws of punishing offenders by themselves as with us least we should imagine two distinct Judicatures Ans We deny not but the Sword is sufficient to punish offenders in its own kinde in order to the peace of the Common-wealth to remove evil to cause others fear to pacifie Gods wrath as the Scriptures speak so David and good Kings purged the city of God but Erastus cannot deny but God ordained spirituall means of rebukings putting out of the Camp eschewing the company of offenders that they may be ashamed and those spirituall means have a spirituall influence on the soul to remove offences to gain the offenders Matth. 18. 15. Psal 110 2. Isa 11. 4. Psal 141. 5. 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 2. The word maketh the Priests separated from Civill Iudges Zach. 3. 7. The Angel of the Lord protested unto Ioshua the high Priest if thou wilt walk in my wayes and keep my charge then thou shalt also judge my house and thou shalt keep my courts The Civill Magistrate judged not the house of God the way that the High Priest did The Divines that noteth on the place say The chief part in Ecclesiasticall affairs was upon the High Priest Deu◠17. 12. 2 Chron. 19. 11. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is given to the Priest is to judge to give out sentence in judgement the very word that is given to King Iosiah He judged the cause of the poor and needy and Ier. 5. 28. They judge not the cause the cause of the fatherlesse and Ier. 21. 12. O house of David execute judgement in the morning and the sons of Aaron the Priests 1 Chron. 24. 5. are made some of them Governors of the sanctuary and Governors of the house of God It is the word that signifies Princes 2 Kin. 9. 5. A word to thee O Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chro. 11. 6. Ier. 17. 25 Num. 23. 3. 10. All the princes of Moab Isa 30. 4. Isa 10. 8. Are not my princes Kings and Lev. 4. 5 6. chapters judiciall acts are given to the Priest that are proper to him as Priest which none do but he nor have the Civill ludges any part in it more then they can offer sacrifices which none do but the priests for he was to judge of the quality of the sins and might not offer any sacrifice for every sin nor dip his finger in the blood of the bullock seven times for every sin this spirituall judicature was the Priests And neither Moses the Prince nor any Civill Iudge on earth could share with the Priests in judging this all the world will say the judge may use the sword against the Murtherer and Elders or Pastors have not to do with the sword at all and the Pastors are to convince rebuke and work upon the conscience of the Murtherer to gain him to repentance and no civill judge as a civill judge hath to share with him in this here be distinct punishments one corporall and civill another spirituall why then must they not flow from two distinct Iurisdictions or if it displease any man that we call Church-censures with the name of punishment we can forbear the name for rebukes suspension from the Sacraments Excommunication because they are intrinsecally and of their own nature such as tend not to the hurt but to the gaining and saving of the souls of the persons censured they are unproperly punishments as the power and court they come from is unproperly a rod a Iudicature a Court and those that inflict the censures improperly Iudges yet can it not be denied to be spirituall Government and that there is a spirituall sword the word of God and a spirituall coaction flowing from Heralds or servants in the name of the King of Kings and Head of the Church who reigneth in his own Ordinances and Ministers Erastus The priests bade Uzziah not burn incense because it was their part only to sacrifice But vvhere is it vvritten that the King vvas condemned by the sentence of the Priests Ans The Priests were a Colledge of Elders who not only judicially condemned the Kings fact as against the Lavv of God but 2 Chron. 26. Azariah and eighty priests vvith him vvithstood him and resisted him yea they gave out sentence against him ver 18. It pertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burn incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn incense go out of the sanctuary for thou hast trespassed they give out the sentence of the Law of God Numb 16. 40 Nor might any come in to the Holy place but the Priests and Levites Num. 18. 6 7. here is a sentence judiciall by the voyces of 80. Priests in an externall court given out against the supream Magistrate for they gave not out this sentence as private men but as Priests judging according to the Law and in this the King was subject to Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Erastus It is a vaine thing to say they Excommunicate not the Magistrate as the Magistrate none but Kata-baptists and such as deny Magistracy to be an Ordinance of God can say that Every man might excuse rebellion so and say I persecute not the Magistrate as he is a Magistrate but as he is a tyrant But I say you may not reproach the Magistrate Exod. 22. farre lesse may you punish him How can I obey him whose whole life and actions I may by Power and coaction limit The Magistrate so is but a servant to the Presbytery Ans Erastus scorneth this distinction to say the Magistrate not as a Magistrate but as a scandalous man is Excommunicated Yet we can make him receive the distinction whether he will or not For Erastus saith that Pastors may rebuke convince and threaten the Magistrate Good man may Pastors threaten and rebuke the Magistrate as the Magistrate or may they only threaten and rebuke him as an offending man Erastus dare not say the first for so he were a grosse Kata-baptist for then Pastors were to rebuke the very office and to condemne it if he say the latter as he doth in expresse words then he acknowledgeth that Pastors may bind
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
and I hope they would not presently in the same moment that they debarred him from the Lords Supper excommunicate him There must be some time required to pray for him to rebuke convince and lay open his sinne before he be excommunicated which moved me to thinke that there was necessity of expresse Scripture to prove Excommunication but that abstention as Divines calleth it or suspension from the Lords Supper may well be sufficiently proved by Analogie by consequent and by the nature of the holy things of God and Pearles that are not to be given to the prophane 3. A visible scandall is a sufficient ground of the lesser excommunication or debarring from the Lords Supper and so we put a Testimony of one banished from the holy things of God on him who hath committed a scandalous offence which is a sufficient ground thereof though the offender be not formally excommunicated This Author saith without the consent of the Church no man though contumacious should be excommunicated What this is against us or for Erastus I see not we say the same He saith The Magistrate may chuse some of the congregation to Excommunicate which if he say I consent not to him and see no warrant for it in Scripture But I rather believe his sense to be That the godly Magistrate may command the Church to Excommunicate and punish them if they be negligent in this But hence it followeth not that the Magistrate may Excommunicate them as Erastus inferreth no more then of old it followeth King Vzziah might command the Priests to burn incense to the Lord and punish them if in this they should neglect their duty Ergo King Vzziah might lawfully in his own person burn incense to the Lord Erastus himself will deny this consequence Erastus saith It is evident this Author meaneth That God commanded not a Presbytery to be but that it is necessary for orders cause But I had rather that he had proved it from the Authors words And so I deny it while Erastus bring his own words to prove it I believe he fancies many things of this worthy Author as that he subjects not the Magistrate to the Presbytery And why Because he saith None ought to be Excommunicated without the consent of the Magistrate Truly it is a weak reason for if the Magistrate be a godly man and a Member of the Church it is necessary that his positive consent be had that he may in light and faith use the sword against him as against other evil doers But I give him no negative voyce nor any authoritative or Ecclesiastically judiciall voyce in Excommunication which can be due to him as a Magistrate So the Author doth not at all disagree from us Erastus is mistasten Erastus God hath Excommunicated Drunkards Hypocrites from the Sacraments except they repent But where hath God commanded such being Circumcised and Baptized to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they professe that they repent of their former wayes for it is one thing to be excluded of God another thing to be cast out of the visible society of the godly Ans God hath Excommunicated Drunkards and Hypocrites who are not known openly to be such to the Church and therefore the Church cannot debar such from the Sacraments and so we grant all That it is one thing to be Excommunicated of the Church and another to be Excommunicated of God 2. He asketh where hath God commanded to debar such from the Sacraments being circumcised and baptized I Answer then If they be uncircumcised and unbaptised God will have the Church to debar them But let Erastus shew any Scripture for their exclusion but such as warranteth us to exclude the openly scandalous though circumcised and baptized 3. What warrant hath the Church or Magistrate if Erastus so will to debar all the uncircumcised and â—nbaptised from the Sacraments Job the Eunuch are not Excommunicated of God Ergo if the Lords non-Excommunication be our rule we cannot Excommunicate all the uncircumcised and baptized as such 4. Erastus addeth They cannot be excluded from the Sacraments Presertim sâ— pâ—nitentiam vitae anteactae prae se â—erant especially if they professe repentance But this presertim especially seemeth to infer though they professe no repentance but be dogs and swine they ought not to be debarred from the Seale Is this piety or rather prophanity But only he would say they are far lesse to be debarred if they professe repentance But we know to professe repentance in Erastus his way is to say by word of mouth they repent Now this saying so may consist with being openly dogs and swine Hence we see the contradicent of Erastus his saying to wit that the most openly scandalous are not to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they say they repent that is especially if they lye and dissemble before the Sun yea though they mock God and repent noâ— I should think their saying they repent when their flagitious and impure conversation doth belye their profession maketh them so much rather worthy to be debarred being both dogs and Hypocrites So far I am from Erastus his presertim especially if they professe that they repent Erastus I grant it â—ighteth with Gods will that pardon should be denied to any by the Word and yet pardon sealed to those same men in the Sacrament But when the Word denyeth remission of sins absolutely to those the Sacraments are not due to them but the Word denieth not remission to them upon condition they repent and so neither should the Sacraments be denied to them Ans But the word denyeth absolutely remission of sins to dogs and swine so long as they repent not and that so much the more that they say they repent and their life belies their words and testifies to their face and before the Sun that they are plaâ—stered Hypocrites Ergo the Sacraments should be denyed to them Erastus But it followeth not that the Sacraments belongeth not to him who is not a member of the invisible Church so he be a member of the visible Church but as he partaketh only of the externall Communion so he receiveth but the externall elements from an externall Minister Ans But if he be visibly no Member of the invisible Church but in the eyes of the Church visibly a dog or a swine neither ought the externall symbols that are even externally the holy things of God to be given to him for otherwise this Argument shall conclude if one be baptised and a member of the Church though a dog yet the pearls of the Gospel are to be cast to such a dog which Erastus himself denieth And so this Argument hurteth Erastus as much as us That this Author saith God commanded those that transgressed his holy Law with an high hand and presumptuously to be killed lest they should live and prophane his holy things I defend not But sure Erastus erreth who will have all such to be killed by
cannot judge the heart or intention whether they do those with conscience to God and reverence and subjection of spirit to his holy Law nor can the manner of doing be proved by witnesses to the magistrate 2. The Magistrate as Magistrate doth not command what he doth not praise or reward for well doing is the object of the Magistrates praising and rewarding power Rom. 13. 3. But as a Magistrate he doth not praise and reward the qualification or spirituality or sincerity of Pastors dispensing of word and seals if they feed the flock the Magistrate is to take care they be rewarded with wages noâ— can the Magistrate as the magistrate withhold praise or wages from labourers in the vineyard because they preach Christ out of envy as some did Phil. 1. 15. or because they feed not the lambs out of a love to Christ as they ought to do Ioh. 21. 15 16 17. it is true magistrates as godly men may love and commend sincerity in faithfull labourers and hate the contrary but this they do as Christian men not as magistrates not by their office and authoritatively 3. Magistrates command that as magistrates the not doing of which they can aâ— magistrates punish with the sword for the object of their vindicative and revenging power is ill doing Rom. 13. 4. But if Pastors feed the flock and rule them the magistrate cannot use the sword against the feeders for that they want sincerity love cheerfulnesse in the manner of doing these things for the sword of the magistrate doth only reach men for their externall facts not for opinions in the mind not for crooked intentions not for hollow-heartednesse hypocrisie infidelity in the manner or inward principles of the actions II. Asser when magistrates command Churchmen to do their duty and to feed the flock sincerely and in the fear of the Lord they do it not as magistrates but as touching the manner they may exhort them to do their duty sincerely cordially and zealously as godly men hence that charge that King Iehoshaphat gave to the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 19. 9. This shall ye do in the fear of the Lord faithfully and with a perfect heart is a mixt command as touching the judging of the people in all causes and controversies that should come before them the King as King commanded them to do this But for the manner of the doing of it that they should do it faithfully in the feare of the Lord and with a perfect heart this he commanded them not as a King but exhorted them to it as a godly religious man for 1. any godly man might have said this and the King might have punished the Levites and Priests if they had not judged the causes according to the Law But though they had not judged in the fear of the Lord and with a perfect heart yet could not the King as King have punished them therefore nor can any say that the spirituall exhortation of Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. to the Priests and Levites came from him as King but as from a graced and religious man as King he might command them to Sanctifie themselves legally for so they were to do by office and he might use the sword against them if they failed in that and as King he may command all externall duties not only to Church-men but to all others only he cannot punish them for failings in the spirituall manner of doing externall duties 2 A spirituall and Christian exhortation ex conditione operis and intrinsecally hath influence on the conscience to turne the soul to God But nothing that the magistrate can do as a magistrate hath such an influence on the conscience all that he doth as a magistrate and directly is toward the outward man by rewards and punishments if the magistrate remove false teachers and wolves which would devour the flock and if that work upon the conscience it is indirectly and by accident for quoad actus imperatos he can command that the Gospel which hath a kindly and intrinsecall power to work upon the conscience be preached if the magistrate convince the conscience of a murtherer that he hath failed against the Law of God he doth not that as a magistrate but as a godly and religious man he may convince him as a magistrate that he hath failed against the Lawes of the State and bands of humane society and externall peace and scarce that for ignorantia juris nemimeâ—â— excusat Obj. 1. It may be objected against this If the Elders not only omit to do their duty but also if they erre in the nature and quality of what they do the Magistrate is to punish Ergo the Magistrate not only commandeth the Church to do the externall facts but also commands the facts with such and such qualities the Antecedent is proved because the Magistrate not only punisheth the omission of a Church duty as if Pastors preach not but also if they preach not â—alâ— modo Orthodox and sound Doctrine Ans We never denied but the Magistrate commandeth both the exercise of Church power simply and the manâ—er and such qualifications as are externall and obvious to the knowledge of the Magistrate such as blasphemous and false Doctrine is But we deny that as a Magistrate he doth command those things that arâ— internall and invisible that is the spirituallity of the actions he can exhort and stirre men up to the spirituallity and sincerity of doing as a godly and Christian man Obj. 2. The Pastors and guides of the Church as such do only command externall obedience for they can onely in â—oro Ecclesiae in the Court of the Church censure externall disobedience before men the heart and sincerity thereof is no more obvious to the eye of Elders then of Magistrates Ans 1. I deny the connexion of the Antecedent for Elders may command as Elders more then the not doing of which they can censure which the Magistrate cannot do for Elders have committed to them the word of reconciliation as the Ambassadors of Christ Now the word hath an immediate influence on the conscience on the thoughts and intents of the heart 2 Cor. 5. 18 19 20. 1 Cor. 3. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 15. Ps 19. 7. Heb. 4. 12 13. And therefore their Ministery hath action on the thoughts yet can they not in the externall court of the Church censure the thoughts as not being able to see them but the Gospel which they preach can arraigne the conscience and thoughts 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. But the Magistrate carrieth not such a message and therefore his Magistraticall command can reach no farther then his temporall praise and reward and his sword and that is commensurable and of equall latitude with those Obj. 3. The Object of the Magistrates power is well doing and ill doing both civill and also supernaturall both for the first table or as well for the spirituall acts of worship and Religion in the first table as for acts of Iustice and mercy
in the second table Rom. 13. 3 4. Isai 49 23. and you said elsewhere that externall peace is too narrow an object for the Magistrate for the intrinsecall end of a Magistrate is also a supernaturall good and not only a peaceable but also a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ans It is true the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth care for the supernaturall good of subjects and the duties of Religion and the first table but how intrinsecally and as a magistrate that is that men worship God according to his word But 1. The magistrate as such hath nothing to do with the spirit nor can he command the sincerity of the worship his care is that there be a divine worship that is materially and externally right and consonant externally to the rules of the word and for this cause learned divines make the externall man the object of the magistrates office but not the externall man as doing the duties of the second table only but also as serving God in the duties of the first table for which cause I said Augustine meant the same when he said that Kings serve God as men and as Kings 2. Magistrates as magistrates are to extend their power for Christ that is that not only there be Iustice and Peace amongst men but also that there be Religion in the land yea that the Gospel be preached so all our Divines make the King to be custos â—t vindex utriusque tabule Yea I think he is a keeper and preserver of the Gospel also and is to command men to serve Christ and professe the Gospel and to punish the blaspheming of Iesus Christ and this is royall and magistraticall service that the King as King performeth to God and to Iesus Christ the mediator ex conditione operis in regard that good which he procureth as King materially and externally is consonant to the supernaturall Law of the Gospel but it is not magistraticall service to Christ ex intentione operantis Obj. 4. When it s required that the Magistrates be men fearing God hating coveteousnesse c. is not this an essentiall ingredient of an King as a King that he read in the book of the Law that he may feare God Deut. 17 Ans There is a twofold goodnesse here to be considered one of the magistrate as a magistrate another as a good and Christian magistrate The former is an officiall goodnesse or a magistraticall prudence justice and goodnesse this is required of all magistrates as such to judge the people so the acts of an heathen magistrate done according to common naturall equity by Nebuchadnezzar Pilate Cesar Felix Festus are to be acknowledged as acts of a Lawfull Magistrate valide and no lesse essentially Magistraticall then if performed by King David and of this goodnesse the Scriptures speak not as essentiall to a Magistrate as a Magistrate But there is another goodnesse required of Magistrates as they are Members of the Iewish Church and as they are Christians and of these the Scripture speaketh and so Magistrates not as Magistrates but as good and Christian are to be such as feare God hate covetousnesse respect not the face and favour of men so it s denied that the fear of God hating of covteousnesse are essentiall ingredients of Kings as Kings For Kings as Kings intend justice peace godlinesse materially considered both ex conditione operis and operantium But for justice and righteous judgement in a spirituall and an Evangelick way that belongeth not to the essence of a Magistrate nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis nec ex conditione operantis The Holy Ghost requireth it of judges as they would approve themselves as truly Holy and Religious and would be accepted of God and in this sense Kings as Kings do not serve God nor the mediator Christ nor yet as men only they serve God and the mediator Christ as Christian Kings or as Christian men rather III. According to that third member of our seventh Distinction The unjust and evil exercise of the Ministeriall power is obnoxious to the magistrate as the magistrate thus in that he beareth the sword against all evil doers Ro. 13. 1. The magistrate as the magistrate doth only command well doing in order to praise and a good name or temporall reward amongst men Rom. 13. 3. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power 1 Tim. 5. 17. Matth. 10. 10. Nor can the magistrate as the magistrate promise or command the Elders to feed the Flock with the promise of the reward that Peter promiseth 1 Pet. 5. 4. to wit That when the chief shepheard shall appear they shall receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away The magistrate as a Preacher if he be one as David and Solomon were both or as a godly religious Christian man may hold forth such a promise but not as a Magistrate and upon the same ground the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot forbid careles unsound preaching and rigorous and tyrannicall ruling or rather domineering over the Flock under the pain of death eternall for he can but kill the body and hath but the carnall and temporall sword Rom. 13. 4. and so he can inhibite ill doing only in order to temporary punishment and though the duty of the former be spirituall and the sinne of the latter also yet the externall man is capable only of the Magistrates promises and threatnings as they respect evill or good temporary so that it is a wonder to me that M. Pryn or any learned man can say that magistrates can make Lawes to binde the conscience sure it is ill divinity 2. If there never had been sin there should have been no government but of Fathers and Husbands there should have been no magistraticall dominion not any magistraticall allurement to weldoing by temporall rewards not any terrifying from evill doing from fear of the sword death stripes or bands and God governed the Apostolick Church and they attained the Crowne and supernaturall end of life eternall without the accessory hire of a a temporary reward from the magistrate and the subsidy of his sword Ergo it is evident that the magistrate is neither an essentiall nor an integrall part of the visible Church as the visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God Word Sacraments Discipline Censures Rebukes Admonition Excommunication Prayers Mutuall edification in as great perfection as is happily attainable in this life without yea against the will of the civill magistrate Though it be a great incouragement to have the King a Nurse-father yet hath not Christ counted it simply necessary to his visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God to the full 3. If the magistrate do only command the teachers and Pastors to preach and determine synodically in order to a temporall reward and forbid them to abuse their ministeriall power in order to temporary punishment by the temporary sword then surely the Pastors and Teachers are
he calls David his Prince a bloody murtherer and saith this evill is come on him for rising up against Saul his Master The Magistrate may not punish him with the Sword for railing against the Lords anoynted 2. And if the Magistrate ought not to strike with the sword any Prophet for preaching according to his conscience for that is persecution to this Author how shall the Prophets judge and condemne the Magistrate for those same decrees which he hath given out according to his conscience for this is a persecution with the tongue Mat. 5. 11. Iob 19. 22. and it is one and the same spirituall cause saith this Author 3. The same very Author and the Parliament do reciprocally judge and condemne one another for the Parliament make warre against Papists for drawing the King on their side and causing him make warre against the Lambe and his followers that is against godly Protestants Now suppose Priests and Iesuits preach this to the Queen and other Papists and they according to their conscience make warre against the flock of Christ and the Parliament according to their conscience make warre against them this Author sitteth downe and judgeth and condemneth both sides as bloody persecutors for point of conscience Now though the Author in his Bench with his penne condemneth and judgeth both according to his conscience yet if the Papists or possibly the Parliament had this Author in their fingers might not they reciprocally judge and condemne him I think he cannot deny how justly they should reciprocally judge the Author I cannot say 3. This Author would have a contradiction such as is to make East and West both one that one and the same man both sit in the Bench and stand at the barre that the Church judge the Magistrate and the Magistrate judge the Church But I hope contradictions were no more under the Old Testament to be admitted nor under the New Now in the Old Testament the King might put to death the Prophet who should prophecy blasphemies and again the Prophet might judge the King by denouncing the judgement of the Lord against the King let the Author say how the King both did sit in the Bench and stand at the baâ—â—e in divers respects I think Aâ—hab might judge and punish Micaiah unjustly for prophecying that he should dye at Ramoth Gilead and Micaiah might in prophecy give out the sentence of death justly against him but here be two contrary sentences the like may fall out in Synodicall constitutions 2. To answer to his reasons 1. It followeth not that in one and the same spirituall respect one and the same person judgeth on the Bench and is judged at the Bar for the Churches judging is in a spirituall respect as the officer ordained may promote the building of Gods House the Magistrates suppressing him is no spirituall respect but as it disturbeth the peace of the State that so unworthy a person is an officer in Gods House and is hurtfull to the Church of God in their ediâ—icatioâ— which the Magistrate is to promote not in spirituall but in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 3. That one judge on the Bench and the same stand at the Barre and be judged at divers and sundry times is not so impossible by farre as to reconcile East and West together Aâ—â—â—b may judge Naboath to be condemned and stoned for his vineyard to day and immediately after Elias the Prophet may arraigne him before the Barre and tribunall of God to be condemned and adjudged to dye in the portion of Iezreel where the dogs may lick his blood It is true Elias is not properly a judge but a declarer in a propheticall and authoritative way of the judgement of God but this is all the judiciall power which we ascribe to Church or Presbytery and Pastors they are meer Ministers or servants to declare the will and sentence of God When the Minister preacheth wrath against the King for his sins he judgeth the King in a Pastorall and Ministeriall way which is all we contend for in many officers united in a Church way and at that same time the King hath power after that to judge him for preaching treason for â—ound Doctrine if it be found to be treason by the Church and this reciprocation of judging we maintaine as consistent and necessary in Ministers of Gospel and Magistrates But such a distance betweene them as between East and West we see not The Author should have shewne it to us by his owne grounds The Church may excommunicate a Magistrate as a persecutor who cutteth off Idolaters for their conscience yet the godly Magistrate may judge and punish them with the sword for abusing the ordinance of Excommunication so as to excommunicate the godly Magistrate because he doth punish evill doing with the Sword Rom. 13. 4. 4. The Author infers that tumults and bloods do arise from these two But that will not prove these two to be inconsistent and contrâ—dictorious tumults and blood arise from preaching the Gospel what then Ergo the Gospel is a masse of contradictions â—â— followeth not The â—umulâ—s and blood have their rise from mens lusts who are impatient of the yoak of Christ not from these two powers to judge Ecclesiastically in the Church and to be judged civilly by the Magistrates The Author draweth his instance to the actuall judging of the same thing contradictory wayes for example the Church ordaineth one to be a preacher and this they do Ecclesiastically and the Magistrate actually condemneth the same man civilly as unworthy to be a preacher It is one thing to say that the Church hath power to judge righteously in an Ecclesiasticall way any matter and another that the Christian Magistrate hath power in a civill way to judge righteously the same matter and a â—ar other thing it is to say The Church hath a power Ecclesiastically to judge a matter righteously according to the word and the Magistrate hath power to judge the same matter civilly in a wrong and unjust way the former we say God hath given a power to the Church to ordaine Ecclesiastically Epaphroditus to be a preacher of the Gospel because these graces and gifts are in him that are requisite to be in a faithfull preacher and God hath also given a power to the Christian Magistrate to adde his civill sanction to the ordination and calling of the same Epaphroditus But we do not teach that God hath given to the Church a power to call Epaphroditus to the Ministery in an Ecclesiasticall way and that God hath given a power to the Christian Magistrate to anull this lawfull ordination of Epaphroditus Now the Author putteth such a supposition that Church and Magistrate have two lawfull powers toward contrary acts the one of them a power to give out a just sentence the other a power to give out an unjust sentence in one and the same cause which we teach not God gave to none either in Church
But the King is head of the Church Ergo he maketh lawes to regulate the Family Ans The Antecedent is false if not blasphemous it is proper to Iesus Christ only Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. The King is the head of men who are the Church materialiter he is not formally as King Head of the Church as the Church and therefore we see not how this Statute agreeth with the Word of God Henric. 8. Stat. 37. c. 17. The Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by under and from the Kings Royall Majesty the onely and undoubted supream head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by holy Scripture is given all authority and power to hear and determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever for neither is the subject the Archbishops Bishops c. lawfull nor is the limitation of the subject lawful for Ecclesiasticall officers are the Ambassadors of Christ not of the King Obj. All Christians are to try the Spirits Ergo Much more Magistrates Ans This proveth that Christians as Christians and Magistrates as Christians may judge determine of all things that concerneth their practise and that they are not with blinde obedience to receive things Mr. Pryn cannot say that 1 Iohn 4. 1. is meant of a Royall Parliamentary or Magistraticall tryall Iohn speaketh to Christians as such But this is nothing to prove the power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate for thought the man were neither King nor Magistrate he ought to try the Spirits 1 Iohn 4. 1. The speciall objection moved for Appeals is that which Paul did in a matter of Religion that we may do in the like case but Paul Acts 25. did appeal from a Church Iudge to a civill and a heathen Iudge in a matter of Religion when he said before Festus Acts 25. I appeal to Cesar Ergo so may the Ministers of Christ far more appeal to the Christian Magistrate and that Paul did this jure by Law not by Priviledge but by the impulsion of the Holy Ghost is clear in that he saith He ought to be judged by Cesar so Maccovius so Videlius so Vtenbogardus so Erastus Ans 1. This Argument if it have nerves shall make the great Turk when he subdueth people and Churches of the Protestant Religion to be the head of the Church and as Erastus saith by his place and office as he is a Magistrate he may preach and dispense the Sacraments and a Heathen Nero may make Church constitutions and say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me and by this Nero by office is to excommunicate make or unmake Pastors and Teachers judge what is Orthodoxe Doctrine what not debarre hereticks Apostates and mockers from the Table and admit the worthie and Paul the Apostle must have been the Ambassador and Deputie of Nero in preaching the Gospel and governing the Church and Nero is the mixt person and invested by Iesus Christ with spirituall jurisdiction and the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven This Argument to the Adversaries cannot quit its cost â—or by this way Paul appealed from the Church in a controversie of Religion to a Nero a Heathen unbaptized Head of the Church and referred his faith over to the will judgement and determination of a professed Enemy of the Christian Church and Paul must both jure by the Law of God and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost appeale from the Church to a Heathen without the Church in a matter of Religion and Conscience then Nebuchadnezzar was head of the Church of Iudah and supreame judge and governour in all causes and controversies of Religion how can we beleeve the adversarie who doe not beleeve themselves and shall we make Domitian Dioclesian Trajan and such heads of the Church of Christ 2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour or civill judge as is clear Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten dayes he went downe to Cesarea and the next day sitting in the judgement seat commanded Paul to be brought vers 10. And Paul said I stand at Cesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged he refused v. 9 10. to be judged by Festus at Ierusalem but saith v. 11. I appeal to Cesar Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar for the Iews laid many grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove vers 7. And it is said vers 8. That Festus was willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure and so was manifestly a partiall Iudge and though the Sanedrim at Ierusalem could have judged in point of Law that Paul was a blasphemer and so by their Law he ought to die for so Caiphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Iesus Christ yet his appeal from the Sanedrim 1. corrupted and having manifestly declared their bloodie intentions against Paul 2. From a Sanedrim in its constitution false and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution Deut. 17. 8 9 10. it now usurping civill businesse which belonged not to them Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloodie and degenerating Church judicature acting according to the bloodie lusts of men against an innocent man to a more unpartiall judge and yet be no contemner of the Church this is nothing against our Thesis which is that it is not lawfull to appeal in a constituted Church from a lawfull unmixt Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death 3. Paul appealed from the Sanedrim armed with the unjust and tyrannicall power of Festus a man willing to please the bloodie accusers of Paul as is clear v. 9. And Festus willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure answered Paul and said Wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me 3. The cause was not properly a Church businesse but a crime of bodily death and sedition I deny not but in Pauls accusation prophaning of the Temple teaching against the Law of Moses was objected to him Materialiter the enemies made the cause of Paul a Church businesse but formally it was sedition 1. It was a businesse for which the Sanedrim sought Pauls life and blood for which they had neither authority nor Law by divine Institution therefore they sought the helpe of Felix Festus and the Roman Deputies so Lysias vvrote to Felix Act. 23. 29. I perceived Paul to be accused of questions of their law but to have nothing layd to his charge worthy of death or of bonds Now it is clear the Roman Deputies thought not any accusation for the Iewish Religion a matter of death and bonds and therefore Gallio the Deputie of Achaia Acts 18. 14. saith
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
as he had said Yet a band of men had been more necessarie then the Ceremonies So 2 King 23. 10 Josiah is commended for defiling Tophet to prevent occasion of offering Children to Molech for this cause God iudgeth an house without Battlement and the sending abroad a goaring Oxe to be murther Deut. 27. 28. Exod. 22. 28. 29. 33. Exod. 23. â— Deut. 7. 3. and Levit. 19. 14. Thou shalt not lay a stumbling block before the blind Marrying with the Canaanites was forbidden for the ruine occasioned by that to the soules of Gods people I prove the Assumption Gretzer saith In Ceremonies Calvinists are the apes of Catholicks 2. If such a worship had been in the Temple or Synagogue so as the Jewes in the same act might have worshipped Jehovah and the Canaanites Baall or Dagon as at one table the Papists may kneele and adore bread with the Protestant receiving the Sacrament it would be a raigning scandall 3. Atheists have mocked Religion for the Surplice and other Masse-toyes 4. Papists say Protestants are returning to their Mother Church of Rome 5. Wee cannot in zeale preach against Popish traditions and practise Popish Ceremonies 6. Lascivious carousings drunkenness harlatrie come from observing of holy dayes That this may be more cleare 1. The nature of a scandall would bee cleared 2 The Doctrine of the Apostle Paul about Scandall proponed A Scandall is a word or action or the omission of both inordinately spoken or done whence we know or ought to know the fall of weake wilfull or both is occasioned to thâ—se who are within or without the Church 1. It is a word or deed seene to others Sinfull thoughts not being seen are not publick scandalls though to the man himselfe they occasion sinne Hence non-conformitie simply to a thing indifferent must onely be scandalous as joyned with contempt formall contempt in things indifferent is inward and invisible to men 2. Omission of words and deeds scandalize Silence in Preachers when God matters go wrong is scandalous So Sanches 3. Not every word deed doth scandalize but such as are done unorderly Sanches saith these words and deeds Quae carent rectitudine which want some morall rectitude oâ— as Aquinas saith of themselves are inductive to sinne doth scandâ—lize or that M. Anton. De Dominis Archiep. Spalatens saith which is indictive to sinne or the cause of great evill or hindereth good as our faith zeale love c. that scundalizeth For though none of these fall out if the work or word or omission of either be such as of it selfe is apt to scandalize it is an active scandall Hence every little scandall is a sinne either in it selfe or in the unordinate way of doing â— But what objects are properly scandalous shall be discussed 3. When we know such words and deeds doe scandalize and they be not necessarie to be done yea and if wee ought to know for though the pronness and proclivitiâ— of our brethren or others to sinne be in some respect questio facti yet is it also questio juris a question of Law the ignorance whereof condemneth when the things themselves are doubtsomely evill but not necessary to be done Hence the practice of a thing indifferent when there be none that probably can be scandalized and hath some necessitie is lawfull as Colos 2. 16. Let no man therfore judge you in meat â—r drinke c. yet in case of scandall it is unlawfull to cat See 1 Cor. 10. 27. Eat whatsoever is set before you asking no question for conscience sake 28. But if any say this is offered in sacrifice to Idolls eat not for his sake who shewedit for conscience sake Conscience I say not thine owne but of others Therefore practising of things indifferent or non-practising are both lawfull according as persons are present who may be scandalized or not scandalized but this is in things though in nature indifferent yet in use having some necessitie as eating of meats but the case is otherwayes in things altogether indifferent as our Ceremonies are which are supponed to lay no ty on the conscience before God o incline to either side as they say to crosse or not to crosse laying aside the Commandement of men For if no-crossing be all 's good as crossing then though there be non-scandalized yet because it is such an action in Gods worship as is acknowledged to be indifferent and hath appearance of adding to Gods word and worship it is inductive to sinne and scandalous though none should hence be actu secundo ruinated and made to stumble But if any in Pauls time as the case was in the Church of Corinth should eat meates at a table forbidden in the Law he not knowing that a Jew was there this may seeme invincible ignorance because ignorance of a meere fact not of a law if that Jew should be scandalized through his eating it should seeme to me to be scandall taken but not culpably given 4. It is said in the definition That these inordinate words or deeds occasioneth the fall of others 1. Because the will of the scandalized or his ignorance is the efficacious and neerest cause why he is scandalized that is why he sinneth actions or words are occasions onely or causes by accident for none ought to be scandalized as none ought to sinne ad peccatum nulla est obligatiâ— 2. Because as to be scandalized is sinne so to scandalize actively is sinne though actuall scandall follow not as Peter scandalized Christ culpably when he counselled him not to die for sinners though it was impossible that Christ could be scandalized 5. It is said whereby weake or wilfull within or withoâ—t the Church may be scandalized For I hope to prove that it is no lesse sinne actively to scandalize the wilfull and malicious then the weak though there be degrees of sinning here and we must eschew things scandalous for their sake who are without the Church For the Second I set down these Propositions 1. from Rom. 14. 1. Proposit The weake are not to be thraled in judgement or practice in thornie and intricate disputes in matters indifferent This is cleare Rom. 14. v. 1. Ergo When people know not mistie distinctions of relative and absolute adoration of worship essentiall or accidentall they are not to be here thraled by a Law to practice Ceremonies humane 2 Proposit If a weake one eat herbs fearing the practice of things forbidden by Gods law he is commended and his abstinence praise-worthy as Rom. 14. v. 2. 3. and he ought not to be judged and so ought not to be a wed by a Law Then abstinence and non-conformitie is lawfull in such a case 3. Proposit He that eateth he that eateth not he that practiseth he that practiseth not indifferent things is not to be judged 1. God hath received the eater 2. You are not to judge another mans servant It is against the Law of Nations 3. If the weake fall God is able
legatiâ— autem neque legatos neque reges neque principes constituit legatos sed ministros qui serviunt non regnant In regno Christi solus ille spiritualiter regnat servi summi Regis regnum sui principis promovent nec unquam sibi usurpaâ—t regalia jura Cardinall Bertrandus tract de Orig jurisd q. 4. n. 5. Non videretur diseretus dominus ut cum reverentiâ ejus loquar nisi unieum post se talem vicarium reliquisset qui haec omnia posset Armacan l. 4. quest Armen c. 16. Becan tom 2. opuscul Suarez tom de incarnat Christi diso 48. sect 2. Aegid Conninck de incarnat disp 23. dub 5. â— 43 p. 697. Communior itaque doctorum sententia Christum etiam qâ—â hominem habere veram potestatem regiam ac directum dominium in omnia regna mundi c. August de Ancona de potest Papae q. 1. art 1 quia est eadem jurisdictio delegantis delegati Coninck tom de incarn disp 23 dub 5. Vasquez tom de incarnat disp 87. c. 2. c. 6. Pet. Wald. de incar dis 11. de adop dominio Christi dub 5. n. 50 51. Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates by the adversaries in their whole Ministery The Magistrate as such not the vicar of the mediatory kingdome Brotherly re-examination pag. 20. Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiasticall administration Mr. Coleman re-examination pag. 1â— Heathen Magistrates as such are not obliged to promote Christs mediatory kingdom Magistracy from the Law of nations Suarez to 1. de legi l. 5. c. 3. qui dat formam dat consequentiâ— ad formam l. 2. in prinfâ—de instit jure cod tit c. jus â—at 1. dispitemdominium est jus quoddam l. fin ad med c. de long temp prestit l. qui usum fert Fâ—rd Vasq illust quest l. 1. c. 41. â— 28 29. D. cl Salmasius de primatu Papae par 1. cap. 14. page 60. eam jurisdictionem Patriarchalem omnem haud miâ—â—â— quam ipsi Metropolitani aut rescriptis principium aut sanctionibus patrum Synodalibus acceptam refer ant oportet non ulli institutioni divinae The Adversaries must teach universall Redemption Cl. Salmasius de primatri pape 1. Part. in apparatu p. 148. 149. nullum jus in corpora â—abuernat ut Magistratus civiles sad animarum curam gerebant ut veri pastores docere pascere munera fuere spiritualia longè diversa ab imperio potestate jurisdictione Magistratâ—um Magistrates as such not members of the Church Christ Mediator not a temporary King So the Belgick Arminians apol fol. 302. Grotius in pictaâ— ordi Hol. p. 113. Vteâ—b p. 28. The Magistrate not the servant of the Church The adequate and compleat cause why the Magistrate is subject to the Church That the Magistrate is subject to the rebukes and censures of the Church proved from the Word Erast l. 5. c. 1 p 299 300. Erast l 6. c. 3. p 349. Sanè ut Idololatram et Apostatatam negamus membrum esse Ecclesiae Christi sic etiam nequitiem suam defendentem negamus inter membra Ecclesiae censendum esse et quem admodum illos ex Christiano caetu juaicamus exterminandos sic hoc putamus in â—o caetu non esse ferendos Arminiani in apolog The supream and principall power of Church affairs not in either Magistrate or Church Blood Ten. c. 84. p. 122 12 And. Riv. in decal in Mand. 5. pag. 206. Though the Magistrate pupunish Ecclesiasticall scandals yet his power to judge and punish is not Ecclesiasticall and spirituall as the Church rebuketh and censureth civil breaches of the second table and yet their power is not civill Blood Tenent c. 93. pag. 137 138. People as people may give power to a Magistrate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church judge and punish offenders in the Church A governor of or over the Church a governor in the Church a governor for the Church are differen◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pagâ— dijs non malcdices Mr. Colemans reexamination p. 15. The distinction of an 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 heedlesse and senselesse notion That the Magistrates punishing with the sword seandalous persons should be a part of Church-government a reasonlesse conceit There is neither coaction nor properly so called punishment in the Church Trigland dis Theâ—lo de potest civil et Ecclefiast c. 13. p. 257. Hyeronymus in Epitaphio Nâ—potiani Rex â—olentibus preest episcopus volentibus Cl. Salm. in apparatu ad librâ—s de primati part 1. p. 154. 155. adeo autem voleâ—tibus pâ—nitentia dabâ—tur ut negata pro paena esset et pro beneficio peteretur atque acciperetur a delinquentibus ut ex multis Canonibus conciliâ—rum constat Epistolis Canonicis et scriptis aliis patrum That Bullinger is not of the mind of Erastus Bulling Epis privat ad Erastum Bul. Epis ad Erast Epist ad Erastum Petr. Dathenus The error of Gualther to please the usurping Magistrate Bullinger Gualther and others differ much from Erastus Gual in Ep. ad Theod. Bezam an caena á. inservire debeat excommunicationi atque adeo in alium usum converti quam qui nobis a Christo monstratus ab apostolis traditus est The Christian Magistrate cannot supply the place of Excommunication C. 18. C. 30. Cl. Salmasi de primatu papae Part 1. in apparatu pag. 288. 289. Hyeronicus Monstra mihi quisnam imperatorum celebrari id concilium iusserit Salmasius in apparatu pag. 292. In apâ—â—â—atu pag. 293. 294. In appar p. 298. p. 303. Course of conformity pag. 115. Indifferent things as such not the matter of a Churrh constitution Doct. Forâ— in Ireni l. 1. c. 12. num 13. Actions are not indifferent because their circumstances are indifferent D. Forbesius in Irenic l. 1. cap. 1. 3. fig. 15. Marrying not indifferent as the Doctor supposeth Indifference Metaphysical and Theological Doctor Forb 16. num 17. Necessity of obeying the Church in things onely necessary for the Churches Commandment is neither a lawful nor an obliging necessity Doctor Ferbes Actions individual meerly indifferent cannot be done in Faith Doct. Forbes Iren â— â— c. 13. hg 11. Doct. Forbes Forbes ib. n. 13. The unlawfulness even inseparably adhering toactions that are indifferent maketh them unlawful * Suarez tom de legib l. 3. c. 18 Formaliter autem coÌ„mittitur hoc vitiuÌ„ contemptus quando ex directâ intentione ad hoc aliquidfit ut alter despiciatur aut despici ostendatur Vasquez tom 2. disp 158. cap. 4. Contemptus est in solà directâ intentione non parendi in qua est speciale mandatum inobedientiae qua quis directo animo non obedit superiori ut ei directe opponatur ex dedignatione quadam quam habet quod ei subditus sit Aquinas 22. q. 168. art 9. 3. Contemnere est nolle subjici legi
or State a power to unjustice ad malum nâ—â—la est potestas Obj. 14. How can the Magistrate determine what the true Church and ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword and how can he give judgement of a â—alse Church false Ministery false Doctrine and false Ordinances and so pull them down by the sword and yet you say the Magistrate is to give no spirituall judgement of these nor hath he any spirituall power for these ends and purposes Bloody Tenent Ans The Magistrate judges of these as a Magistrate not in a Pastorall way or Ecclesiastically for then by office he should be a preacher of the Gospel but civilly as they are agreeable or contrary to the Laws of the Common-wealth made concerning Religion and in order to the civill praise and reward of stipends wages or benefices or to the bodily punishment inflicted by the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. So though the object be spirituall yet the judging is civill and the Magistrates power in setting up true or pulling downe false ordinances is objectively spirituall or civilly good or ill to speak so against the duty or agreeable to that which men owe as they are members of a civill incorporation a City or Common-wealth But the same power of the Magistrate is formally essentially in it selfe civill and of this world CHAP. XXVI Quest 22. Whether appeals are to be made from the Assemblies of the Church to the civill Magistrate King or Parliament and of Paul his appeal to Cesar FOr the clearer explanation of the question its possible these considerations may help to give light 1. There be these opinions touching the point Some exclude the Magistrate from all care of Church-discipline â— As Iesuits and Papists will have Princes not to examine what the Church the Pope and the cursed Clergy of Rome decrees in their Synods To these the Sorbonists of Paris oppose and the Parliament of France cause to be burnt by the hand of the hangman any writings of Iesuits that diminisheth the just right of the Magistrate 2. Those who in the Low-countries did remonstrate under the name of Arminians as they are called hold that the Magistrate ought to tollerate all Religions even Turcisme and Iudaisme not excepted because the conscience of man cannot be compelled Some of them were Socinians as Henry Slatius who saith right downe he that useth the sword or seeketh a Magistracy is not a Christian yea war is against the command of Iesus Christ or in any tearms to kill any saith Henry Welsingius Episcopius their chief man will have the Magistrate going no further then reall or bodily mulcts or fines Ioan. Geisteranus pronounceth it unlawfull to be a Magistrate to use the sword But all say the Magistrate ought not to use the sword against Hereticks Blasphemers Idolaters or against any man for his conscience or Religion 3. Those that think the Magistrate bear the sword lawfully yet do confine him to the defence of the halfe of Gods Law the duties of the second Table and not to these all but to such as border not directly on conscience for if some should sacrifice their children to Molech and Devils as some do the Magistrate were not to punish them it being a joynt of their Religion and a matter of conscience and all these will be found to give to the Magistrate as the Magistrate just as little as Iesuits do in the matters of Religion and that is right downe nothing except possibly the Magistrate be of their Religion only whom he Governs only as a Christian man the Magistrate hath more with these then with Papists 4. Erastus giveth all in Doctrine and Discipline both in power and exercise to the Magistrate even to the dispensing of Word and Sacraments 5. Others forsaking Erastus in a little But following him in the main deny power of order 2. Power of internall jurisdiction granteth to him all the externall government of the Church 6. We hold that the Magistrate keeps both Tables of the Law and that he hath an inspection in a civill coactive way in preserving both Tables of the Law but that he is not as a Magistrate a member of the Church but as a Christian only 2. The exercise of Discipline is one thing and the exercise of it as the modus the way of exercising of it either in relation to Ecclesiasticall constitutions or in relation to the politick and civill Laws of a Common-wealth is a far other thing 3. As the Church is to approve and commend the just sentence of the civill judge in punishing ill doers but only conditionally in so far as it is just so is the magistrate obliged to follow ratifie and with his civil sanction to confirme the sound constitutions of the Church But conditionally not absolutely and blindely but in so far as they agree with the Word of God 4. Hence there is a wronging of the Church as the Church and a civill wronging of the Magistrate as the Magistrate or of the members of the Church as such or of the members of the Common-wealth as such the former and the latter both cannot belong to one judicature No more then the failing of a Painter against the precepts of Art because he hath drawn the colours proportion and the countenance beside the samplar and the failing not against Art but against the Lawes of the King in that he hath lavished out too much gold in the drawing of the image doth belong to one judgement for the Painter as a Painter according to the Law of Art must judge of the former and the Magistrate as a Magistrate of the latter 5. An appellation is one thing and the complaint of an oppressed man is another thing or a provocation to a competent judge is one thing and the refugium the refuge and fleeing of an oppressed man to a higher power is another thing if the Church erre and fail against the Law of Christ in the matter and decree the man to be a heretick who is none and that to be heresie which is truth the oppressâ—d man in a constituted Church may have his refuge to the godly Magistrate and complain but he cannot appeal for an appellation is from an erring judge to an higher judge in eadem sâ—rie in the same nature and kinde of judicatures as from a civill Court to a higher civill Court and from an Ecclesiasticall Court to a higher as suppose the Church of Antioch judge that the Gentiles must be circumcised the godly there may appeal to the judgement of Apostles and Elders in a Councell conveened from Antioch and Ierusalem both and therefore because the Magistrate can no more judge what is heresie what truth as a Magistrate then he can dispense Word and Sacraments an appeal cannot be made to him who is no more a judge ex officio nor he can dispense the Sacraments ex officio but a complaint may be made to the Magistrate if the Church
have equitie or goodnesse from Humane Authoritie and I never contemn Humane Authoritiâ— except I contemn the just Laws made by Humane Authoritie Object Of things alike lawful and convenient for example sitting at the Lords Table or not sitting we are bound to the one rather then to the other for lawful Authorities command for conveniency and goodnesse in external circunistances standeth not in such an indivisible point but there may be circumstances good better and best a gesture a day a habit may be so good and convenient as another gesture another day another habit are as good and convenient in which case either no habit no day no gesture at all shall be in Gods Worship which were impossible else of two Circumstances both of three degrees of goodnesse one shall be chosen by the sole Will of Authority and so people must follow one order rather then another as good for the sole Will of Authority without any prevalent reason in the thing commanded Answ 1. In such a case as that where two Circumstances both of three degrees of goodnesse occurreth Rulers can reasonably tie people to neither but leave it alternatively to their liberty for why should liberty be restrained where necessity of order and deceney doth not necessitate the Rulers will 2. In such a case the Rulers will as will should not be the formal cause why one is enacted rather then another but the Rulers will led by a reason from conveniency and so there were a prevalent reason for the one rather then the other 3. I deny that such a Metaphysical case of two things every way of alike conveniency can fall out as the matter of a grave and weighty Church-constitution For natures Light rules of Prudence Prety Charity and Sobriety shall ever finde out and discover an exsuperancy of goodnesse and conveniency of one above another 4. Granting there be three degrees of goodnesse and conveniency in fitting and two degrees of goodnesse and conveniency in kneeling in this case the object necessitateth the Rulers will to command fitting and refuse kneeling 1. Because good being the formal object of a reasonable Will in both Rulers and people that which partaketh more of the nature of Good is first to be chosen Ergo The Rulers will is determinated and morally necessitated to a circumstance of three degrees before a circumstance of two degrees and we obey for the goodnesse of the thing commanded and not for the will of the Rulers 2. If people obey and so embrace a Circumstance of two degrees and refuse a convenient circumstance of three degrees they either make this choice for the goodnesse and conveniency of the Circumstance or for the meer Will of Authority the former cannot be said because of two Goods known to be so the one of three degrees and the other of two degrees the Will cannot reasonably choose the lesse good because a lesse good known as a lesse good is evil and the Will cannot reasonably choose known evil A lesse good is a good with a defect and so morally evil if then Rulers cannot choose evil they cannot reasonably command others to choose it if the latter be said the choice of people is reasonlesse and their conscience resteth upon the meer Will of Authority which is slavish obedience How are we then bidden try all things Object In matters plainly determined by Scripture Rulers are to follow the Word of God but in matters circumstantial or indifferent where Scripture saith neither for the one side nor for the other what Rulers thinketh good is to be followed there being no evil nor impiety in that which they command Answ 1. This is to make Rulers in matters of Salvation lyable to the Scriptures of God but in matters which men call indifferent to make them Popes and to hang our consciences upon their sleeve which is most absurd 1. Because Paul in matters most indifferent of dayes and meats would not have the Romans to hang upon his judgement but will rule both their practice and his own by the Law of nature Murther not Scandalize not 2. What Rulers thinketh good is not a rule for Constitutions and for peoples obedience in matters circumstantial but the rule of Rulers here in making Laws and of people in obeying Laws is goodnesse it self Order Decency aptitude to Edifie in things that they command for it were strange if in matters that they call of salvation not thoughts but the Word of God should rule and square Canon-makers but in matters indifferent their thoughts should be a Law 3. Scripture and the Law of nature and right reason which is a deduction from Scripture is able sufficiently in all Canous and Constitutions to regulate both Rulers and people and to determine what is conventent in Circumstances and the Lord here is an infallible Judge speaking in his Word as he is in all matters which they call Fundamental yea the Scripture shall be imperfect in the duties of the second Table if it do not determine what is active scandal or soul murther as it doth determine what is Idolatry what is lawful Worship A Dispute touching Scandall and Christian libertie Quest I. Concerning Scandall Whether or not Ceremonies and the use of things not necessarie in Gods worship when they Scandalize be unlawfull I Doe the more willingly enter this Dispute and with reverence to the more learned shall examine the Doctrine of the late Doctors of Aberdene in their Duplyes Because I occasioned their thoughts touching Scandall by a private dispute of the nature of Scandall which I undertooke while I was confined in Aberdene with one of the chief Doctors Our 10 Argument Ceremonies and things not necessarie in Gods worship fail against Charitie by the grievous cryme of Scandall The practice of things indifferent and not necessarie is then unlawfull when from thence ariseth the scandall or occasion of the ruine of ouâ— Brother But from the practice of Ceremonies and things not necessarie ariseth Scandall and occasion of the ruine of our brother Ergo the practice of such is unlawfull Observe our Argument leaneth on a ground given but not granted that the Ceremonies be indifferent though to us they be evill I prove the Proposition 1 Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of it selfe but to him that esteemeth anything unclean to him it is unclean V. 15. But if thy brother be grieved weakened in his Christian race Now walkest thou uncharitably destory not him with thy meat for whom Christ died 20. For meat destroy not the worke of God Then for crossing kneeling holy dayes destroy not him for whom Christ died 1 Cor. 8. 9. 1 Cor. 10. 28. So the brazen Serpent must be removed when it is a scandalous object of Idolatrie Ezra 8. 22. Ezra for feare of Scandall will not seeke a band of men of the King lest the King should believe the hand of God would not bee with his people