for Suspension scarce touched by M. Prynne That the power of Suspension is neither in the Minister alone nor unlimitted The question is practically stated by Aretius The present controversie how different from the Prelaticall The power desired to Elderships is not to judge mens hearts but to judge of externall evidences The distinction of converting and confirming Ordinances how necessary in this question Excommunication and Suspension confounded by M. Prynne as likewise by the Separatists contrary to the manner both of the Jewish Church and of the ancient and reformed Christian Churcheâ— M. Prynnes assertion concerning suspension is contrary to the Ordinances of Parliament The Question stated as it ought to be stated CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15 16 17. prove Excommunication THe Erastians cannot avoyd an argument ex consequenti from this Text for Excommunication although we should grant that the literall sence and direct intendment of the words is not concerning Excommunication Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the trespasse meant vers 15. is sometime known to more then one at first That the meaning is not of a civill personall injury but of a scandalous sinne whether there be materially a personall injury in it or not This confirmed by six reasons That if it were granted these words If thy brother trespasse against thee are understood of a personall injury this could be no advantage to the Erastian cause in six respects Erastus his Argument that the trespasse here meant is such as one brother may forgive to another answered That the Law of two or three witnesses belongeth to Ecclesiasticall as well as to civill Courts That Tell the Church here can not be Tell the civill Sanhedrin or Court of justice among the Jewes Of the meaning of these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican M. Prynnes Argument retorted That the Heathens might not enter into the Temple to wit into the Court of Israel but into the Intermurale they might come and worship That there is not the like reason for excluding Excommunicate persons wholly from our Churches Of Solomons porch That M. Prynne confoundeth the devout penitent Publican with the prophane unjust Publicans The Objection from the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray examined Publicans commonly named as the worst and wickedest of men Another objection Let him be to thee not to the whole Church as an Heathen c. discussed CHAP. III. A further demonstration that these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican are not meant of avoyding Civill but Religious or Church-fellowship THe great disorder and confusion which M. Pâ—…ynne his sence of this Text might introduce That it was not unlawfull to the Jewes to have civill company or fellowship with Heathens unlesse it were for religious respects and in case of the danger of an idolatrous insnarement which is cleared by a passage of Elias in Thesbyte In what sence Peter saith Acts 10. 28. that a Jew might not keepe company or come unto one of another Nation That the Jewes did keep civill and familiar fellowship with Ger toschav or Gerschagnar the proselyte indueller or the proselyte of the gate who yet was uncircumcised and no member of the Jewish Church nor an observer of the Law of Moses but onely of the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah Which cleareth the reason why the Synod of the Apostles and Elders who would not impose circumcision nor any other of the Mosaicall ceremonies upon the believing Gentiles did neverthelesse impose this as a necessary burthen upon them to abstaine from blood and things strangled Christians are permitted by Paul to eate and drinke with them that believe not Further proofes that some uncircumcised Heathens had civill fellowship with the Jewes and some circumcised Hebrews had not Ecclesiasticall communion with the Jewes The Question decided out of Maimonides That these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican doe imply somewhat negative and somewhat positive The negative part is that he must not be worse used in civill things than an Heathen man or Publican that Excommunication breaketh not naturall and morall duties neither is any civill fellowship at all forbidden to be kept with an Excommunicate person except under a spirituall notion and for spirituall ends not qua civill fellowship The positive part is that he must be used in the same manner as an Heathen man and a Publican in Spirituall things and in Church-communion Heathens five waies excluded from communion with the Jewes in the holy things Let him be as a Publican implieth two things more then Let him be as an Heathen but exclusion from some Ordinances was common both to Heathens and scandalous Publicans That the Phraisees speech concerning the Publican who went up to the Temple to pray sheweth that he was not esteemed a prophane Publican CHAP. IV. A Confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Matth. 18. 15 16 17. as likewise of Dr. Sutcliffe his Glosse differing somewhat from theirs THe scope of this Scripture wholly spirituall concerning the gaining of a brother from sin not civill concerning the prosecuting of a personall injury Rebuke for sinne a common Christian duty Which is necessary in sinnes committed against God rather than in injuries committed against man That any sinne by which thou art scandalized is a trespasse against thee The Erastian Interpretation of Matth. 18. makes it lawfull for one Christian to goe to law with another before an unbelieving Judge and so maketh Paul contrary to Christ. The same Interpretation restricteth the latter part of the Text to those Christians onely who live under an unbelieving Magistrate while it is confessed that the former part belongeth to all Christians It is contrary also to the Law of Moyses They contradict themselves concerning the coercive power of the Sanhedrin The gradation in the Text inconsistent with their sence The Argument of Erastus to prove that the words as a Publican are meant of a Publican qua Publican and so of every Publican examined Their exception Let him be TO THEE c. not to the whole Church answered three waies CHAP. V. That Tell it unto the Church hath more in it then Tell it unto a greater number THe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never given to any lawfull assembly simply because of majority of number This Interpretation provideth no effectuall remedy for offences Kahal by the Hebrews and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecians often used for an assembly of such as had Jurisdiction and ruling power Whether the two or three witnesses Matth. 18. 16. be onely witnesses or assistants in the admonition or whether the intention be that they shall prove the fact before the Church forensically if need be and whether two or three witnesses must be taken when the offence is known to him onely that gives the first rebuke discussed This their Interpretation brings a brother under the greatest yoke of
consolatoria promissione nanâ—… dieitur Sunt quidam de hinc 〈◊〉 qui non gustabuâ—…t mortem donec videant regâ—…um Dei The very same words hath Bedâ—… on Mark. 9. 1. following it seemes Gregory Grotius on Matth. 16. 28. doth likewise understand the promulgation of the Gospel and the Scâ—pter of Christ that is his law going out of Zion to be here meant I conclude as the Church is not onely a mystical but a political body So Christ is not onely a mystical but a political Head But peradventure some men will be bold to give another answer that the Lord Jesus indeed reigneth over the Church even in a political respect but that the administration and influence of this his Kingly office is in by and through the Magistrate who is supreme Judge Governour and Head of the Church under Christ. To this I answer Hence it would follow 1. That Christs Kingdom is of this World and commeth with observation as the Kingdoms of this World do which himself denieth Luke 17 20 Iohn 18 36. Next It would follow that Christ doth not reigne nor exercise his Kingly office in the Government of his Church under Pagan Turkish or persecuting Princes but onely under the Christian Magistrate which no man dare say 3. The Civil Magistrate is Gods Vicegerent but not Christs that is the Magistrates power hath its rise origâ—nation institution and deputation not from that speciall dominion which Christ exerciseth over the Church as Mediator and Head thereof But from that Universal Lordship and Soveraignity which God exerciseth over all men by right of Creation In so much that there had been for orders sake Magistrates or superior Powers though man had not fallen but continued in his innocency and now by the Law of Nature and Nations there are Magistrates among those who know nothing of Christ and among whom Christ reigneth not as Mediator though God reigneth over them by the Kingdom of power 4. If the Magistrate be supreme Head and Governour of the Church under Christ then the Ministers of the Church are the Magistrates Ministers as well as Christs and must act in the Magistrates name and as subordinate to him and the Magistrate shall be Christs Minister and act in Christs Name The seventeeth Argument I draw from the institution of Excommunication by Christ Matth. 18. 17. Tell it unto the Church But if he neglect to hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a Publican In which Text 1. All is restricted to a brother or a Church-member and agreeth not to him who is no Church-member 2. His treâ—pasle is here lookt upon under the notion of scandal and of that which is also like to destroy his owne soule 3. The scope is not civil but spiritual to gain or save his soul. 4. The proceedings are not without witnesses 5. There is a publick complaint made to the Church 6. And that because he appeares impenitent after admonitions given privatly and before two or three 7. The Church speaks and gives a Judgement concerning him which he is bound to obey 8. If he obey not then he is to be esteemed and held as a heathen man and a Publican 9. And that for his not hearing the Church which is a publike scandal concerning the whole Church 10. Being as as an Heathen and Publican he is kept back from some ordinances 11. He is bound on earth by Church-Officers Whatsoever ye bind c. 12. He is also bound in Heaven More of this place else-where These hints will now serve The Erastians deny that either the case or the court or the censure there mentioned is Ecclesiastical or Spiritual But I prove all the three First Christ speaketh of the case of scandals not of personal or civil injuries whereof he would be no Judge Luk. 12. 14. and for which he would not permit Christians to go to Law before the Roman Emperor or his deputies 1 Cor. 6. 1. 6. 7. But if their interpretation stand they must grant that Christ giveth laws concerning civil injuries and that he permitteth one of his disciples to accuse another for a civil injury before an unbeleeving Judge Beside Christ saith not If he shall hear thee thou hast from him a voluntary reparation of the wrong or satisfaction for it which is the end why we deal with one who hath done us a civil injury But he saith If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother intimating that the offending brother is told and admonished of his fault onely for a spiritual end for the good of his soul and for gaining him to repentance All which proveth that our Saviour meaneth not there of private or civil injuries as the Erastians suppose but of scandals of which also he had spoken much before as appeareth by the preceding part of that chapter A civil injury done by one brother to another is a scandal but every scandal is not a civil injury The Jewes to whose custome Christ doth here allude did excommunicate for diverse scandals which were not civil injuries And Paul saith of a scandal which was not a civil injury when ye sin so against the brethren c. 1 Cor. 8. 12. 2. The court is Ecclesiastical not civil for when it is said Tell it unto the Church must we not expound Scripture by Scripture and not understand the Word Church to be meant of a civil Court for though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Act. 19. reoitative of a heathenish civil assembly called by that name among those heathens yet the pen-men of the holy Ghost have not made choice of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any place of the new Testament to expresse a civil court either of Jewes or Christians So that we cannot suppose that the holy Ghost speaking so as men may understand him would have put the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place to signifie such a thing as no where else in the new Testament it is found to signifie Nay this very place expoundeth it self for Christ directeth his speech to the Apostles and in them to their Successors in the government of the Church Whatsoever ye shall bind c. And if two of you shall agree c. So that the church which here bindeth or judgeth is an Assembly of the Apostles Ministers or Elders of the church 3. The censure is spirituall as appeareth both by these words Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican which relate to the Excommunication from the church of the Jewes and comprehendeth not onely an exclusion from private fellowship and company which was the condition of the Publicans with whom the Jewes would not eat but also an exclusion from the Temple Sacrifices and communion in the holy things which was the condition of heathens yea of prophane Publicans too of which elsewhere And further it appeareth by these words Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth c. The Apostles had no power to inflict any
of all such as may be satisfied this I avouch and averre It is Jure divino It is the will of God and of his Sonne Iesus Christ the King and Head of his Church that there be a Church-Government in the hands of Church-Officers distinct from the Civil Government It is de necessitate praecepti of the necessity of precept that it be sâ—… It is sin and a violation of Christâ—… Institution if it be not so I am confident the Arguments which I have brought Chap. 9. will reach this point and fully conclude it especially if the strength of them be put together Yet now to drive the nail to the head I adde these following Arguments directly inferring and proving an Institution First The Scripture speaks of Church Government in the same manner and with the same height fulnesse and peremptorinesse of expression as it speaketh of other things which are without controversie acknowledged even by the Erastians themselves to be Institutions of Christ. For instance Let the Erastians prove against the Socinians the necessity and perpetuity of the Ordinance of Baptisme that it ought to continue alwais in the Church and that by vertue of an Institution and precept of Christ I will undertake by the like medium to inferre the like conclusion concerning Church-Government Again let them prove the necessity perpetuity and institution I say not now of the Word it self or of preaching but of the ministery or of the Pastoral office I will bring the like Argument concerning Church-Government I do not now compare or paralel the Government with the Ministery of the Word quo ad necessitatem medii vel finis as being equally necessary to salvation nor yet as being equally excellent but this I say The one is by the Scripture language an Institution and Ordinance of Christ as well as the other One Ordinance may differ much from another and still both be Ordinances Secondly Church-Government is reckoned among such things as had an Institution and which God did set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. It is a good Argument for the Institution of Pastors and Teachers that God set them in the Church as we read in that place and Christ gave them to the Church Ephes. 4. 11. Will not this then hold as well for the Institution of a Government in the Church That the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are Ecclesiastical and distinct from civil is already proved Chap. 6. Thirdly If it be the will and commandement of God that we be subject and obedient to Church-Governors as those who are over us in the Lord as well as to civil Governors then it is the will of God that there be a rule and Government in the Church distinct from the civil For Relata se mutâ—…o ponunt vel tollunt If we be obliged by the fifth commandement to honour Magistrates as Fathers then it is the will of God that there be such Fathers So when we are commanded to know them which are over us in the Lord and to esteem them highly 1 Thess. 5. 12. to honour doubly Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. to be subject and obedlent unto Ecclesiasticall Rulers Heb. 13. 17. with verse 7. 24. doth not this intimate the will of God that Pastoâ—s and Elders be over us in the Lord and rule us Ecclesiastically Fourthly That which being administred is a praise and commendatiâ—n to a Church and being omitted is a ground of controversie to Christ against a Church can be no other then an Ordinance and necessary duty But Church-Government and Discipline is such a thing as being administred it is a praise and commendation to a Church 2 Cor. 2. 9. Revil 2. 2. and being omitted is a ground of Controversie to Christ against a Church 1 Cor. 5. 1. 2. 6. Revel 2. 14. 20. Ergo. Fifthly The rules and directions concerning an Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline are delivered preceptwise in Scripture 1 Cor. 5. 13. Put away that wicked person from among you 2 Thess. 3. 14. Note that man Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Augustine lib. contra Donatistas post Collationem Cap. 4. saith that Church-censurâ—s and discipline are exercised in thâ— Church secundum praeceptum Apostolicum according to the Apostolick precept for which he citeth 2 Thess. 3. 14. Sixthly There is an Institution and command Matth. 18 17. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican In which place there are three Acts of the Church that is of the Assembly of Church-Officers 1. They must be met together to receive complaints and accusations Tell the Church 2. They give sentence concerning the case if he neglect to hear the Church c. Where heareing is required and obedience there must needs be an authoritative speaking or judging So that they who would prove the Church here hath onely power to admonish doctrinally because it is said If he hear not the Church they may as well prove that the Judges of Israel had no more power but to admonish doctrinally because it is appointed Deut. 17. 12. that the man who will not hearken to the Judge shall die and it is not there expressed that the Judge shall put him to death more then it is expressed here that the Church shall declare the offender to be as a heathen and a publican 3. They must bind such a one by Excommunication Whatsoever ye bind on earth c. Neither could it ever enter in the thoughts of Jesus Christ to command one Church-member or private brother to esteem another brother as an heathen and a publican whom he would not have so esteemed by the whole Church and least of all can it be the will of Christ that one and the same person should be esteemed by one of the Church to be as a heathen and a publican and withall be esteemed by the whole Church as a brother a good Christian a Church-member and accordingly to be freely admitted to the Ordinances CHAP. XI The necessity of a distinct Church-Government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates SOme when they could not denie but there was a Church-Government in the Primitive and Apostolick Churches distinct from all civil Government and Churchcensures distinct from all civil punishments yet they have aledged though no such thing was alledged of old neither by Constantine and other Christian Emperors nor by others in their behalf that this was for want of Christian Magistrates and that there is not the same reason for such a Church-Government or censures where there is a Christian Magistracy See Mr. Husseys plea pag. 24. As likewise Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised Master Colemans re-examination pag. 16. calls for an instance where the State was Christian. For taking off this exception I shall observe First of all Grotius otherwise no good friend to Church-Government being poisoned with the Arminian Principles who have endeavoured to weaken extremely the authority of
Intention and it being accordingly declared and Resolved by them That all sorts of notorious scandalous Offenders should be suspended from the Sacrament Which is the very point so much opposed by Master Prynne for the controversie moved by him is not so much concerning the manner or who should be the Judges as concerning the matter it selfe he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the Sacrament but onely such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the Word Prayer and all other publique Ordinances Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question that which is in controversie is plainly this Whether according to the word of God there ought to be in the Elderships of Churches a spirituall power and authority by which they that are called brethren that is Church members or Officers for the publique scandall of a prophane life or of pernicious doctrine or for a private offence obstinately continued in after admonitions and so growing to a publique scandall are upon proofe of such scandall to be suspended from the Lords Table untill signes of repentance appeare in them and if they continue contumacious are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the Church and their sinnes pronounced to be bound on earth and by consequence in Heaven untill by true and sincere repentance they turne to God and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the Church The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed Churches whereunto I adhere The first part of it concerning Suspension is utterly denyed by M r Prynne which breaketh the concatenation and order of Church discipline held forth in the question now stated Whether he denieth also Excommunication by Elderships to be an Ordinance and Institution of Christ and onely holdeth it to be lawfull and warrantable by the word of God I am not certaine If he do then he holds the totall negative of this present question However I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principall Scripturall foundations and pillars upon which Excommunication is builded As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated it is meant positively and exclusively that such a gradation not onely may but ought to be observed ordinarily which M r Prynne denieth although I deny not thaâ— for some publique enormous haynous abominations there may be without such degrees of proceeding a present cutting off by Excommunication But this belongs not to the present controversie CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15 16 17. prove Excommunication THe second point of difference is concerning Matth. 18. M r Prynne in the first of his foure questions told us that the words Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican are meant onely of personall private trespasses between man and man not publique scandalous sinnes against the Congregation and that t is not said Let him be to the whole Church but let him be to Thee c. This I did in my Sermon retort For if to thee for a personall private trespasse much more to the whole Church for a publique scandalous sinne whereby he trespasseth against the whole Congregation Yea it followeth upon his interpretation that he may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans if all the members of the Church doe him a personall injury whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding whether if a private man may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans for a personall injury done to himselfe alone it will not follow that much more the whole Church may account a man as a Heathen and Publican for a publique scandalous sinne against the whole Church M r Prynne in his Vindication pag. 3. glanceth at this objection but he takes notice onely of the halfe of it and he is so farre from turning off my retortion that he confirmeth it for pag. 4. he confesseth that every Christian hath free power by Gods word to esteeme not onely a particular brother but all the members of a Congregation as Heathens and Publicans if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries after admonition Now my exception against his Quere remains unanswered If I may esteem the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans when they doe me an injury and continue impenitent therein may not the whole Church esteem me as an Heathen man and a Publican when I commit a publique and scandalous trespasse against the whole Church and continues impenitent therein Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans and shall not the whole Church have power to cast off one man as an Heathen and Publican I know he understands those words Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican in another sence then either the reformed Churches doe or the ancient Churches did and takes the meaning to be of avoyding fellowship and familiarity with him before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender But however my argument from proportion will hold If civill fellowship must be refused because of obstinacy in a civill injury why shall not spirituall or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spirituall injury or trespasse against the Church If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury why shall not publique fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a publique scandall given to the Congregation Are the rules of Church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civill fellowship or are they straiter Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civill communion or is it narrower Peradventure he will say that the whole Church that is all the members of the Church have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother that is to have no fraternall converse or private Christian fellowship with him Well then If thus farre he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated how shall the whole Church together be bound to keepe fellowship with him till he be excommunicated Instead of loosing such knots M r Prynne undertakes to prove another thing that this Text of Matthew is not meane of Excommunication or Church censures and that the Church in this Text was not any Ecclesiasticall Consistory here he citeth Iosephus as if he had spoken of that Text but onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice But though all this were true which he saith yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this Text to prove Excommunication Which
his calling to minde those words in the rule of Prayer even as we forgive those who trespasse against us Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers 19. Againe I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth supposing that agreement and consequently forgiving of injuries is necessary to make our Prayers the more effectuall for my part I think it not improbable that whatever the occasion of the Question was vers 21 beginneth a new and distinct purpose Which I take to be the reason why the Arabik here makes an intercision and beginneth the eight and fiftieth Section of Matthew at those words Then came Peter and said Lord how oft c. 4. And if vers 21. have a dependence upon that which went before it may be conceived thus Christ had said If thy Brother trespasse against thee goe tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone which supposeth a continuance of the former Christian fellowship and fraternall familiarity and that we must not cast off a scandalous Brother as lost or as an Enemy but admonish him as a Brother This might give occasion to Peter to aske Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me that is scandalize me by his sinne against God for even in Luk. 17. 3. 4. that of forgiving one that trespasseth against us is added immediately after a Doctrine of scandals and I forgive him that is as Grotius expounds it restore him to the former degree of friendship and intimate familiarity to deale with him thus as with a Brother Which he well distinguisheth from that other forgiving which is a not revenging And so much of Master Prynnes first reason His second reason is because the Mention of two or three witnesses vers 16. relateth onely to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes as murders and the like before the civill Magistrates of the Jewes c. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories of which we find no president Answ. 1. If this hold then the Text must not be expounded indefinitely of civill injuries as he did before but of civill capitall injuries whereas Erastus takes the meaning to be of smaller offences onely and not of Capitall crimes 2. The Law concerning two or three witnesses is neither restricted to Capitall crimes nor to civill Judicatories I appeale to the Ordinance of Parliament dated Octo. 20. 1645. The Elder-ship of every Congregation shall judge the matter of scandall aforesaid being not Capitall upon the Testmiony of two credible Witnesses at the least That Law therefore of witnesses is alike applicable to all causes and Courts Ecclesiasticall and civill Deut. 19. 30. One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sinne in any sin that he sinneth at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established 3. And the same Law is in the new Testament clearly applied to proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Cor. 13. 1. again 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against the Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses which is not spoken to any civill Magistrate but to Timothy and others joyned with him in Church Government His third reason doth onely begge what is in Question that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiasticall but a civill Court of the Jewes He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jewes had civill Courts If he could but cite one place to prove that they had no Ecclesiasticall Courts this were to the purpose Not that I grant that at this time the Jewes had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin in the opinion of many learned men the Jewes had no more any civill Jurisdiction Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministery Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death How ever he cannot prove that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church the Jewes had any civill Court of Justice which did exercise either Criminall or Capitall Judgements I have in the first Book shewed out of Buxtorf L'Empereur Casauhon and I. Coch. who prove what they say from the Talmudicall writers that 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and so before Christ said Tell the Church the Court of civill Justice at Hierusalem did cease If Master Prynne make any thing of this Glosse of his he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes I have before proved that that Councell of the Jewes in Christs time was an Ecclesiasticall Court though he conceives it was meerely civill 2. That a private civill injury might not then nor may not now be brought before a civill Court except after severall previous admonitions despised 3. That Chists Rule Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased when a civill Court of Justice among the Jewes ceased If he say that the same rule continueth for telling the civill Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition then I aske â— how will he reconcile himself for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice among the Jewes 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of Ierusalem and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to goe to then the Pagan Magistracy must passe under the name of the Church for they had no other civill Court of Justice to goe to One thing I must needs take notice of that whereas he would prove here that Tell the Church is nothing but tell the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes commonly called the Councell saith he or Sanhedrin he doth hereby overthrow all that he hath been building for the Jewish Sanhedrin at that time had not power to judge civill nor criminall and least of all Capitall offences but onely causes Ecclesiasticall The Romans having taken from them their civill Government and left them no Government nor Jurisdiction except in matters of Religion I hope Master Prynne will not in this contradict Erastus And if so how shall his Glosse stand that this Text is to be understood of civill injuries yea and of these onely for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ sends his Disciples to the Jewish Sanhedrin How sweetly doe his Tenents agree together His fourth reason is that those words let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican cannot signifie excommunication because Heathen men being never members of the Church could never be excommunicated or cast out of it being uncapable of such a censure As for publicans those of them who were members of the Jewish Church though they were execrable to the Jewes by reason of their Tax-gatherings and oppressions yet we never read in Scripture that they were excommunicated or cast out of their Synagogues but
pray and worship This also he hath to prove not that religious publicans of whom Christ means not but that impious infamous Publicans came to the Temple 6. That passage Luke 18. 10. concerning the Publicans goe ing up to the Temple to pray first it is expressely declared to be a parable Vers. 9. and therefore can not prove the reality of the thing according to the letter no more than an audible conference between Abraham and the rich man in Hell can be proved from Luke 16. 24. to the end of the Chapter though I believe that be a History related parabolically as Vâ—…ssius proveth in his Theses farre lesse can a parable properly so called prove an historicall narration The meaning may be no other but this that if such a Publican and such a Pharisee should goe up to the Temple to pray then the one should depart justified and the other not 7. I can also grant without any prejudice to the businesse of Excommunication that the Publican yea an execrable Publican did goe up to the Temple to pray For an excommunicate person among the Jewes as many thinke so long as there was hope of his repentance had leave to come into the utter Court of the Temple yet so that they came in at the gate of the mourners and excommunicate persons were known by all that saw them to be excommunicate persons More of this Booke 1. cap. 4. 8. This very Text Luke 18. helpes us For t is said Vers. 13. The Publican stood afarre off that is in the opinion of Diodati in some remote part of the first Court of the Temple 1 Kings 8. 41. It is very probable whereof see Book 1. chap. 9. that the Intermurale or atrium Gentium is meant which sometime hath the name of the Temple To the Publicans standing afarre off is opposed the Pharisees standing by himselfe Vers. 11. where I construct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Camero doth So Camerarius and Beza following the Syriack and some old Greek copies he stood apart by himselfe the very custome making it so that the Publican should not come neere him but stand in atrio Gentium 9. The reason why Publicans are named as hatefull and execrable persons was not for civill respects nor because Publicans for the Jewes themselves did not refuse to keep company with good and just Publicans as I shall prove afterwards particularly it was not for their Tax-gathering a particular mentioned by M r Prynne it seems to strengthen his exposition of civill injuries but for divers scandalous sinnes and abominable prophanesse therefore publicans and sinners publicans and harlots publicans and gluttons and wine-bibbers are almost synonyma's in the Gospell Matth. 9. 11. 11. 19. 21. 32. Murke 2. 16. Luke 5. 30. and Publicans are named as the worst of men Matth. 5. 46 47. the most of them being so reputed From all this which hath been said in answer to his fourth reason it appeareth that let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican is more than he would make it keepe not any familar company or have no civill fellowship with him And whereas page 4. he saith that Paul expresly interprets it so 1 Cor. 5. 10 11 12. 2 Thess 3. 4. Ephes. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. I answer out of himselfe in that same place and pag. 5. Let him be to thee as an Heathen c. is a phrase never used elsewhere in Scripture How then saith he that Paul doth expresly interpret it Paul commandeth to withdraw fellowship and that for any scandalous sin in a Church-member although it be no private injury to us as the places quoted by himselfe make it manifest Therefore Paul doth expresly interpret that phrase Mat. 18. to be meant of withdrawing civill fellowship only What consequence is there here I come to his fifth and last reason the words runue only Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican not to the whole Church Answ. 1. This is the very thing he said in his first Quaere which is answered before I shall onely adde here another answer out of Erastus who argueth thus One brother should forgive another seventy times in a day if the offending brother doe so oft turn againe and crave pardon Therefore so should the Church doe to a sinner that craveth pardon even as often as he doth crave pardon For saith he there can be no just reason given wherefore the whole Church ought not to doe herein what Church members ought to doe severally If this be a good argument when Christ saith If thy brother repent forgive him Luke 17. 334. by which place M r Prynne expoundeth Matth. 18. 15. will it not be as good an argument Let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican therefore let him be such to the whole Church when the whole Church is offended by his obstinacy and impenitency 2. Those words Let him be to thee cannot be restrictive It must be at least extended to all such as are commanded to rebuke their brother and if he continue obstinate to tell the Church Now the commandement for rebuking our brother that fals into a scandalous sinne is not restricted to him that is personally or particularly wronged but it is a common Law of spirituall love Levit. 19. 17. Yea saith M r Hildersham lect 36. on Psal. 51. Every man hath received â—… commandement from Christ to informâ—… the governours of the Church of such a brother as cannot otherwise be reformed Matth. 18. 17. Tell the Church If it belong to every Church member to reprove a scandalous sinne which his brother committeth in his â—ight or hearing or to his knowledge and if he repent not to tell the Church then it also belongs to every Church member to esteeme him as an Heathen man and a Publican if he heare not the Church 3. The next words Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Hraven being spoken to the Apo les and in them to other Miniâ—ers of Jesus Christ doe expound the former words Let him be unto thee c. to be meant not of private withdrawing of fellowship but of a publique Church censure 4. The reason why Chriâ— will have such an offender to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican is not the offence and fault first committed but his obstinacy and contumacy in that offence and his neglecting to heare the Church So that suppose the offence had been a private or personall injury yet that for which theÌ„ offender is to be esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican toucheth the whole Church and is a generall scandall to them all namely his contumacy and not hearing the Church How can it then be imagined that Christ would onely have one Church member to esteem a man as an Heathen and a Publican for that which is a common generall scandall to the whole Church Munsterus in his Annotations upon Matth. 18. doth
better hit the meaning that the offender is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publiean by those who did before admonish him but were despised that is by the Church whose admonitions being despised they ought to cast out him who had despised them 5. And how can it be supposed that Christ would have one and the same person to be as a Heathen man and a Publican to one member of the Church and yet not to be as ◠Heathen man and a Publican but as a brother received in fellowship by the whole Church Sure this were a repugnancy between the judgement of the whole Church and the judgement of one member of the Church and two things which are repugnant can not be both of them agreeable to the will of Christ. CHAP. III. A further demonstration that these words Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican are not meant of avoyding Civill but Religious or Church-fellowship I Hope I have already made it to appeare that to draw Excommunication from Matth. 18. is not to extract water out of flint as M r Prynne supposeth but that it commeth as liquidè from the Text as water out of the fountaine Wherein I am the more confirmed because M r Prynnes exposition of these words Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican can not stand for he takes the sence to be no more but this keepe not any civill fellowship or company with such a one Now that this can not be our Saviours meaning I prove thus 1. If a private man shall thus at his owne hand withdraw and separate from an offending brother as from an Heathen man and a Publican what order peace or good government can there be either in Church or State And all the odium cast upon Excommunication as contrary to the spirituall priviledges of Christians will fall more heavy upon his owne way which brings any man be he Prince Parliament-man Pastor or whoever he be under so much slavery to the lust of any private person that he may be by that person and by ten thousand persons more in case of so many civill injuries not amended after complaint to the Magistrate esteemed avoyded and abhorred as an Heathen man and a Publican So that in the issue it may fall out that any man how eminent or deserving soever he be in Church or State may be looked upon as a Heathen and a Publican by ten thousand of the people before ever he be so judged by any Judicature For instance put case that a Minister be judicially convict to have wronged his parishioners in the matter of small tythes and they conceive him to persevere in the same injury must or may each of them flee from him as from an Heathen and a Publican Put case a whole company thinke themselves wronged in pay or otherwise by their Captaine or a whole Regiment by their Colonell and after complaint made finde themselves not repaired are they therefore free to avoyd all civill company with the Captaine or Colonell and to flee from them as from Heathens and Publicans And what if both the Lord Major of London and many godly Ministers who have eate at his Table should accuse Mr. Prynne of a calumny because of that passage in his Booke pag. 12. where he saith of Anabaptists Separatists Independents Presbyters or Divines Neither of which make any conscience of not repairing to the Lord Majors or any other publique City feast where they are sure of good fare because they were certaine there to meet and eate with some covetous or other scandalous persons with whom St. Paul probibtes them no not to eate If I say the Lord Major should accuse M r Prynne for slandering him and his house with the company of scandalous persons and if many godly conscientious Ministers should accuse him for aspersing them as having more love to good fare then conscience of avoyding to eate with scandalous persons And if after sentence past against M r Prynne he should still continue impenitent and not confesse his fault in this particular Will he allow the Lord Major and all the godly Ministers who have eaten at the Lord Majors table to avoyd M r Prynne as an Heathen and a Publican Let hm take heed whether his principles will lead him 2. M r Prynne saith pag. 4. that Let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican is interpreted by 1 Cor. 5. 10 11 12. 2 Thess. 3. 14. and elsewhere by Paul Now that place of the Corinthians which he citeth is meant of Excommunication as shall be proved in due time And vers 12. cited by himselfe makes it plaine that a judiciall act not a private mans withdrawing onely is meant for that verse speaks twice of judging an Apostolicall judgeing and an Ecclesiasticall judging And the best interpreters expound 2 Thess. 3. 14. of Church censures It s not the case of private civill injucies which the Apostle there speaks of but the case of publique scandall If any man be disobedient to the Apostolicall Epistle note that man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put a marke upon him that is let him be publiquely censured Let him be separated from you saith the Syriak and then have no company with him and all this that he may be ashamed which must needs be by some publique censure or blacke mark put upon him 3. Let him be to thee as an Heathen if it be meant of keeping no civil company he must shew us that the Jews of old were and Christians under the new Testament are forbidden to keepe civill company with Heathens and those that are without the Church He goeth about to prove that the phrase is taken from the practice of the Jewes in that age pag. 4. But how doth he prove it He citeth some places to prove that the Israelites might not marry with the Canaanites but he doth not prove that they might not keep civill company with any of the Heathens There was no such favour nor fellowship permitted between the Israelites and the Canaanites as between the Israelites and other Gentiles who came among them from other Lands as Tostatus noteth in Matth. 26. quaest 43. The reason was because God had destinat the Canaanites to utter destruction and that the whole Land of Canaan should be given to the children of Israel Onely some few by speciall dispensation were spared as the Gibeonites because Ioshua and the Princes had sworne unto them and Rahab with her kindred because she saved the spies But such extraordinary cases excepted the Israelites ought not to permit any of the Canaanites to live nor receive them though they had been willing to be circumcised as Tostatus there thinketh However that great distance and alienation in point of fellowship between the Israelites and the Canaanites was not qua Heathens but qua Canaanites otherwise the children of Israel had been obliged to root out other Nations as well as the Canaanites Yea
gift from him though upon the holy day for avoyding of offence Sect. 4. reckoneth among the Heathenish festivities a day set apart by them for coronation of a King or in memory of a mans nativity deliverance out of danger or the like Then it is added Sect. 5. But with those Idolaters who spend that day in mirth and gladnesse eating and drinking and observe that day whether for custome or for the Kings honour neverthelesse hold it not for a holy day it is lawfull to have commerce and trade Whâ—n conversing with Heathens did not entrench upon Religion they could doe it without scruple even upon the Heathens good daies or solemnities of joy Then Sect. 8. Is Israelites dwell among Heathens with whom they have made a Covâ—…nt it is lawfull to sell armes to the Kings servants and to his military forces c. It is unlawfull to enter into a Town in which Idolatry is practiced it is lawfull to come out of it But if the Idoll be without the Town it is also lawfull to enter in it If the Jewes might dwell among and enter into league and covenant with Heathens yea enter into the Townes of Idolaters when the Idoll was not in Town then they held it not unlawfull to have any civill company with Heathens It follows Sect. 11. It is lawfull to goe to the markets or faires of Heathens and to buy from them beasts men-servants maid-servants though they be yet Heathens also houses fields vineyards Also for writing contracts it is permitted to goe to their judiciall courts If it be objected that Sect. 12. doth forbid an Israelite to come to the banquet of a Heathen which he hath made for his sonne or for his daughter I answer from that very place For lest this should be taken for a prohibition of civill fellowship Maimonides did adde these words Now this intervall is appointed for Idolatry for it is said and one call thee and thou eate of his Sacrifice and thou take of their daughters unto thy sonnes and they goe a wboring after their Gods citing Exod. 34. 15 16. From all which I conclude that Christs words relating to the Jewish custome Let him be to thee as a Heathen man cannot be meant as M r Prynne would have them of avoyding meere civill company and fellowship for as much as it was not held unlawfull among the Jewes to have civill company and commerce with Heathens Sure the Jewes of our age are farre from holding such a thing unlawfull Yea so farre I am unsatisfied with M r Prynnes interpretation that I verily believe and so doe some others a part of the intendment of these words Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican is to hold forth the lawfulnesse yea the obligation of performing all naturall and in diverse cases morall duties to a person Excommunicated I meane that the Text doth intimate thus much As upon the one hand the contumacious offender who will not heare the Church is to be used no better than an Heathen or a prophane Publican and is not to be admitted to any Ordinance except such as Heathens and prophane Publicans are and may be admitted unto So upon the other hand let him have no worse usage and entertainment then those very Heathens and Publicans unto whom all naturall and some morall duties are performed notwithstanding they be Heathens and Publicans For the Apostle commandeth Christians to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates servants to honour and be subject to heathen and ungodly Masters the wife not to depart from the husband because he believeth not So that this rule of Christ Matth. 18. 17. is so full and perfect as to teach us as well what fellowship is lawfull with such a one as what fellowship is not lawfull to be kept with him I doe not deny but that according to the ordinary rule fellowship with an excommunicate person in meat drinke familiarity and salutations is unlawfull as well as in the Sacrament and prayer according to the received rule Si pro delictis anathema quis efficiatur Os or are vale communio mensa negatur And the Scripture forbidding to eate with such a one or to have company with him or to bid him God speed will reach as farre Neverthelesse there are divers excepted or reserved cases in which the performance of naturall duties unto and keeping of civill company with an excommunicate person is allowed The exception made from the rule is this Haee anathema quidem faciunt ne possit obesse Utile lex humile res ignorata necesse Utile as when a man seeketh payment of debt from an excommunicate person Lex because the law alloweth husband and wife to company together though the one of them be excommunicate Humile because children may and ought to doe the duties of children and servants the duty of servants and subjects the duty of subjects and vassals the duty of vassals and souldiers the duty of souldiers in companying with submitting unto honouring and obeying of their excommunicated Parents Masters Kings Lords Commanders Râ—…s ignorata when he that companieth with an excommunicate person doth not know that he is excommunicate Necesse as when a man passeth through the Land or is under the power of excommunicate persons or some such way is drawn into a necessity of speaking and companying with them All which is most agreeable to this expression Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican and to the nature of Excommunication which doth not breake asunder naturall or morall but spirituall and ecclesiasticall bonds If it be asked why then are we forbidden to eate with an excommunicate person or to bid him God speed I answer these things are not forbidden but under a spirituall notion and for a spirituall end that the offender may be ashamed and humbled that others may not be deceived by countenancing of him or companying with him and that our eating with him or saluting of him may not be interpreted as a conniving at or complying with his sinnes or as a signe of Christian fellowship with a scandalous person formerly called a brother sinally that God may be the more glorified wickednesse the more ashamed others the more edified the sinner the more abasâ—d our selves the better kept from snares by avoyding of all appearance of evill Otherwise setting aside these and such like spirituall considerations and respects I doe aver that Excommunication hath nothing to doe with the avoyding of civill company qua civill that is under a civill or politicalln otion Thus we have the negative part of the rule of Christ. Now to the positive part What is it to be as an Heathen and a Publican He must not be worse used in naturall or civill things yâ—t he muâ— be used in the same manner as an Heathen and a Publican in spirituall things Wherefore Let him be as an Heathen man implieth foure things 1. I have proved that Heathens were not permitted to come into
the utter Court of the Temple which the children of Israel did come into onely they might come and worship in the 〈◊〉 or atrium Gentium and when they were at any time brought into the Temple it s challenged both by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—9 and by the people of the Jews Acts 21. 28. 2. Hâ—ns though sojourning among the children of Israel and dwelling within their gates might not eate of the Passeover Exod. 12. 43 45. where the civill fellowship was allowed partaking of the Passeover was forbidden 3. No Heathen man no not he that was in the Priests house might caâ—e of an offering of the holy things Levit. 22. 10 13. 4. A Sacâ—ifice was not accepted from the hand of an Heathen Lâ—…it 22. 25. those that came from a farre Countrey to pray and worship before the Temple if they had brought out of their owne Countrey or had bought in the Land of Israel beasts or Bread or Oyle or Frankincence or the like and brought any of these for an Oblation it was not accepted from their hand as Tostatus in 2. paral 6. quest 21. rightly observeth Onely he collecteth from Ezra 6. 8 10. that an Heathen might give to the Priests money or expences to buy Sacrifices and to offer them in the Temple Fiftly and generally the Heathens had no part or portion with Gods people Nehem. 2. 20. they were not within but without the Church being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes. 2. 12. So that Let him be as an Heathen must reach thus farre Let him no more partake in the Ordinances then an Heathen have no more Church-communion with him then with an Heathen let him be no more acknowledged for a Church member than an Heathen And good reason he hath made himselfe as an Heathen yea worse than an Heathen Rom. 2. 25. If thou be a breaker of the Law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision Yea a scandalous and prophane Church member is worse then an Infidell 1 Tim. 5. 8. 1 Cor. 5. 1. This fivefold restraint of Heathens from the Temple from the Passeover from eating of an Offering from bringing an Oblation unto the Lord and generally from all Church fellowship did lie even upon those Heathens who did cohabit and familiarly converse with the children of Israel who are called proselyti domicilii and no Heathen man was free of such restraint except proselyti justitiae who were circumcised and made members of the Jewish Church and had the name of Jewes Finally Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man may have a Commentary from 1 Sam. 26. 19. where David curserh his enemies before the Lord because they had made him as an Heathen man they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord saying Goe serve other Gods He did not reckon his banishment want of civill liberties cutting off from the civill fellowship and company of the children of Israel in comparison of that which was farre worse to him and a great deale heavier to be borne namely that he was rejected and repudiate from spirituall fellowship with Gods people from partaking in the holy Ordinances from comming to the Sanctuary from the Church priviledges that his persecution was materially and substantially an Excommunication and qua Excommunication it was more grievous to him then qua persecution I suppose it now appeares that Let him be to thee as an Heathen man is a shutting out not from civill but from sacred fellowship The other branch Let him be to thee as a Publican I have before said enough of it This onely I adde There were among the Jewes two sorts of Publicans some were good and just men exacting no more then what was appointed them others were unjust and extortioners and thereby made infamous The former sort the Hebrews have professed they were willing to converse civilly withall as members of the same Common-wealth See L'Empereur de legibus Ebraeorum forensibus pag. 272. But when Christ saith Let him be to thee as a Publican he means the impious and unjust Publican onely as the same learned Antiquary there saith And so when our Saviour bids us esteem such a one not onely as an Heathen man but as a Publican he means that he is not only to be denied fellowship in the holy things but further made infamous among the people for the name Publican is used to signifie the worst of men Matth. 5. 46 47. and in the Gospell it is said Publicans and Sinners Publicans and Harlots as was noted before So Hierome upon Matth. 18. 17. understands the name of Publicans secundum Tropologiam for such as are given to unlawfull gaines deceits thefts perjuries and such like abominable wickednesses Wherefore we must not thinke that for civill respects of Tax-gathering or the like the Jewes refused to keepe civill company or fellowship with the Publicans For we read in Exc. Gem. Sanbedrin cap. 3. sect 3. that though he that was a shepheard as such was unfit to be a witnesse yet he that was simply a Publican that is as I. Coch. saith in his Annotation a Publican who is not convict of exacting more then is appointed by Law or a Publican as a Publican is not forbidden to be witnesse Where it is also added that the father of R. Sira had the office of a Publican thirteen yeeres Hence we see that a Publican were he a Jew or Gentile provided he were a just Publican his testimony had faith and credit in Judgement How then can it be supposed that the Jewes did not so much as keep any civill company with such a one We must therefore understand that the Jewes refused to have any fellowship with the impious and unjust Publicans as with Church members and this the Jewes did because of their scandalous ungodlinesse and unrighteousnesse Wherefore to be esteemed as a Publican was esteemed among the Jewes comprehendeth these three things 1. To be esteemed as the worst of men impious abominable execrable infamous and as it were publici odii victimae for so were the Publicans esteemed among the Jewes D r Buxtorfâ—…lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 1065. tels us that where in Sanhedrin fol. 44. 2. it is said of a certaine Publican the Glosse expounds it thus Of a certaine wicked man 2. Not to hold or keep with such a one the religious Christian fellowship which we keep with Church members yea and for religious ends and in spirituall respects as was said before not to keep with such a one so much as that civill fellowship which we are permitted to keep with Pagans and unbelievers with whom when bidden to a feast we may goe and eate together as the Apostle expresly resolveth but with him that is called a brother when scandalous and obstinate and therefore justly made as a Publican we may not so much as eate as the same Apostle teacheth wherein those are ever
to be excepted who are tied by naturall relations to performe naturall and humane duties to the party excommunicate and made as a Publican as the wife to the husband the children to their parents In both these respects Let him be as a Publican superaddeth somewhat and saith more then was in that other part Let him be as an Heathen man The third thing which I conceive to be meant by being esteemed as a Publican is coincident with was meant by Let him be as an Heathen that is let him be kept that which back from communion and fellowship with the Church in the holy things M r Prynne brought a parabolicall argument concerning the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray That devout and religious Publicans whether Jewes or Gentiles did goe up into the Temple to pray I make no question and such a one is the Publican in the Parable yea if we marke the Pharisees owne words he speaketh of that Publican as one of the best and most religious Publicans Luk. 18. 11. God I thanke thee that I am not as other men are extortioners unjust adulterers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even as this Publican The vulgar Latin hath it velut etiam hic publicanus as likewise this Publican making the publican to be one of those extortioners unjust adulterers But it is a mistake of the Text which plainly holds forth a disjunctive not a copulative sence The Pharisee is further declaring what himself was not and the disjunctive ◠intimateth some new matter Therefore the Syriak and Arabik hath it neither as this publican Erasmus aut etiam ut hic publicanus Arias Monntanus aut ut hic publicanus and the English or even as this publican Many of the publicans were extortioners unjust adulterers but the Pharisee thought he had not said enough when he had preferred himself to these therefore he addeth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or even as this publican which is a rising and heightning of his speech as if he had said God I thank thee that I am more holy and righteous then the best of the publicans who yet are not as most of them are extortioners unjust adulterers But that prophane unjust scandalous infamous publicans whether Jewes or Gentiles were allowed or permitted to come to the Temple to the Worship Prayer and Sacrifices among the rest of the people of the Jewes I deny it and Master Prynne hath said nothing to prove it These onely are the publicans meant of when Christ saith let him be unto thee as a publican Now this sort of publicans if they were allowed any thing in reference to the Temple it was but to stand afarre off in the Intermurale or atrium Gentium as Heathens might doe If the religious publican stood afarre off how much more the prophane infamous publican That such as were publikely scandalous infamous for impiety and esteemed the worst of men which I have shewed to be meant by let him be unto thee as a publican were admitted into the Temple as much as the rest of the people of the Jewes or had fellowship with the Church in the holy things I doe not beleive I have proved the contrary from Philo and Iosephus CHAP. IV. A confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Math. 18. 15 16 17. as likewise of Doctor Sutliffe his Glosse differing some what from theirs AS for that other Erastian Glosse upon Matth. 18. 17. that Christ meaneth of going to the orthodox Magistrate being of the same true religion that this is the sence of those words Tell the Church but if the Brother who hath done us wrong will not heare nor obey that Magistrate then let him he unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican that is thou mayest prosecute him as thou wouldest prosecute an Heathen man or a Publican before an extrinsecall Tribunall such as at that time the Roman Emperours was to the Jewes See Erastus thes 41. wherein he is followed by Bishop Bilson of the perpetuall Government of Christs Church cap. 4. This Glosse hath been justly rejected by many learned men The first Argument which I bring against it is that it is wide from the scope of the Text yea prejudgeth and even overthroweth the great thing which is principally intended by Jesus Christ in this place Camero Myroth in Math. 18. thinks it is utterly different from Christs intention in this place which is to prescribe rules to our consciences concerning the amendment of our Brother and the reducing of him from his sinne not to give oeconomicall rules concerning the reparation of our injuries or losses Wherefore he concludes that by the Church is meant the Presbytery mentioned 1. Tim. 4. 14. He holdeth also that in the new Testa the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth ever signifie an Assembly cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad religionem with an habitude and reference to religion Let it be also observed with Bucerus Script Anglic. pag. 40. 41. 304 305 306. that what our Saviour directeth one Brother to doe toward the gaining of another by admonitions and reproofs doth onely belong to the care and sollicitude of the salvation of his soule and the gaining of him from eternall death to eternall life and this he collects from these words in the Text thy Brother and thou hast gained thy Brother He doth also paralell Math. 18. 15. with Gal. 6. 1. Brethren if any man be overtaken in a fault ye which are spirituall restore such an one in the spirit of meeknesse Now this as it is the surest exposition expounding Scripture by Scripture so it doth not concerne a Judiciall proceeding in the case of private Injuries but the Christian duty of reclaiming and saving the soule from sin He further observeth that the thing which Christ recommendeth to every Christian to be done ex Charitate Christiana is nothing else but what is incumbent to Pastors ex officio for Pastors ought by vertue of their publike charge and ministery to doe the same thing authoritatively which one Christian is bidden doe to another in Christian Brotherly charity that is to admonish rebuke c. I am perswaded were the Lord Jesus his scope and intent in this Text rightly understood there should need no other confutation of the Glosses given either by Erastus or by M r. Prynne They restrict to the case of private or personall injuries and to the party injuried civilly that which our Saviour prescribeth as a duty of Christian Charity which every Church Member oweth to another It was an impious word of Cain Am I my Brothers Keeper though spoken in reference to his Brothers body and naturall life How much more sinfull is it to say or thinke in reference to our Brothers soule Am I my Brothers Keeper Every Christian is bound by the commandement of God to rebuke his Brother when he seeth heareth or knoweth hlm to commit sinne Lev. 19. 17. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not
militate not onely against Erastus and Bilson but likewise against Sutlivius de Presb. Cap. 9. where he gives this sence of Matth. 18. 15 16 17. that we ought to take heed we give no scandall in the pursuing of injuries and for that end ought to give admonition first privately then before witnesses and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury to tell the Rulers of the Church meaning the Prelates and if he will not hear them then to go to Law with that Brother as with an Heathen or Publican The other Arguments which are to follow the last excepted strike not at his Interpretation but at those other Glosses of Erastus Bilson and Master Prynne Fourthly this Erastian exposition makes these words but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican to be applicable onely to such Christians as live under unbelieving Magistrates and not to all Christians This consequence Erastus foresaw that it would needs follow from his Interpretation therefore he plainly owneth it Thes. 47. He confesseth that the former part concerning rebuking and seeking to gaine the offending Brother belongs to all Christians What a boldnesse is here to rent asunder this passage of Scripture which was uttered as it were with one breath And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians Must Christians that live under an Infidell Magistrate have more effectuall meanes and wayes to use towards an offending Brother and may they go a step further in putting him to shame or in humbling him then those Christians can doe who live under a Christian Magistrate How well doth this hang together I should have thought the ballance must rather fall to this hand But to make the condition of those who live under a Christian Magistrate to be more privative and the condition of those who live under an Infidell Magistrate to be more cumulative is too great a paradoxe for me Sixthly Whereas they say that the way prescribed by Christ Matth. 18. is such as is agreeable to the Law of Moses and they understand by Tell the Church Tell the Magistrate I aske what Magistrate If the Judges and Magistrates of the Cities as Bishop Bilson thinkes then he who did not hearken to those Judges might appeale to the great Sanhedrin at Hierusalem or the Judges themselves might referre and transmit the case thither so that the man was not to be straight way accounted as an Heathen man and a Publican But if by the Church they understand the great Sanhedrin it self he that would not hearken to it was to be put to death by the Law Deut. 17. So that it had not been agreeable to the Law of Moses to teach that he who will not hearken to the great Sanhedrin is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican for this supposeth that he shall not dye but be suffered to live Seventhly the Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves For both Erastus Bishop Bilson and Master Prynne hold that he Jewish Sanhedrin in Christs time was a temporall Magistracy and a civill Court of justice which had power to scourge imprison torture and outlaw offenders yea to put to death as the first two doe positively averre How then can it be said If he neglect to heare the Church c. that is if he neglect to heare the civill Magistrate who hath power to imprison scourge torture outlaw yea to put him to death Surely if he neglect to heare the Church doth intimate that the Church hath not used nor cannot use any externall coercive power Erastus findes himselfe so mightily puzled with this difficulty that to make out his interpretation of Matth. 18. he confesseth Thes. 53. and confirm Thes. lib. 2. cap. 2. the Jewish Sanhedrin had no power under the Romans to judge of civill causes and injuries but of things pertaining to their religion onely so that at that time saith he a man might impune without punishment contemne the judgement of the Sanhedrin in civill things And thus while he seeketh a Salvo for his Glosse upon Matth. 18. he overthroweth the great argument by which he and his followers endeavour to prove that there was no other Sanhedrin in Christs time but a civill Court of justice because say they that Sanhedrin had the power of the Sword and other temporall punishments Eighthly observe the gradation in the Text 1. a private conviction or rebuke 2. Conviction before two or three witnesses 3. Conviction before the Church and the Churches declaring the thing to be an offence and commanding the offender to turn from his evill way 4. If he will not heare the Church which implieth that the Church hath spoken and required him to doe somewhat which he refuseth to doe then Let him be as an Heathen man and a Publican This last is heavier then all that went before and is the punishment of his not hearing the Church now this gradation is in consistent with the Interpretation which Erastus giveth for by his owne confession the Sanh drin of the Jewes at that time had not power to judge of civill causes nor to punish any man for a civill injury but for a matter of religion onely yet they are not matters of Religion but civill trespasses which he understands to be meant Matth. 18. Here is an intercision in the third step of the gradation And if it were an offence in the matter of religion it had not been a greater punishment but a greater ease to the offender to draw him before the Roman tribunals for the Romans cared for none of those things of which the Jewish Sanhedrin was most zealous The gradation in the Text is as inconsistent with M r Prynnes interpretation for imagine the offender to be after previous admonitions publiquely accused and convict before the Church that is in his opinion the civill Court of justice which had power to imprison scourge torture and outlaw offenders if not to condemne and put to death what should be done with such an one can we goe no higher yes thus it is in M r Prynnes sence He that will not submit to the Magistrate and cannot be reduced by stripes and imprisonment torturing and outlawing yea peradventure by condemnation to die the death let this be the last remedy for such an one Let him be unto thee as an beathen man and a Publican that is withdraw familiar civill company from him Ninthly that interpretation of Erastus leaneth to a false supposition namely that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Publican are meant universally of all Publicans good or bad or whatever they were To prove this he takes an argument pag. 189 190 195. from the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for with the Grecians saith he the Article being joyned to the predicate noteth the nature and consequently the universality of the thing whence he concludeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth
a Publican qua Publican and so every Publican Now what can be the sence of Christs words in reference to every Publican saith he unlesse this be it that it was lawfull to pursue any Publican at a Tribunall of the Romans I answer his argument goeth upon a most false supposition which I cleare by the like instances Matth. 6. 7. Use not vaine repetitions as the Heathen doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shall we thence conclude that the Heathens as Heathens and so all Heathens without exception did use repetitions in prayer or that they were all so devout in their way as to make long prayers Luke 15. 11. I am not as other men are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extortioners unjustâ—… c. Did the Pharisee meane that every man eo ipso that he was another man and so the rest of the Pharisees as well as others were extortioners c. Iohn 15. 6. he is cast forth as a branch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the rule of Erastus hold then a branch as a branch and so every branch is cast out Many such instances might be given If in these Texts there must be a restriction of the sence notwithstanding of the prepositive article so that by Heathens we must understand devout or praying Heathens by other men vulgar men or the common sort of men by a branch a fruitlesse or withered branch Why shall we not also understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the prophane loose or unjust Publican and as Grotius doth rightly expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be esteemed saith he as an Heathen man that is as an alien from religion or as a Publican that is if he be a Jew esteeme him as an infamous sinner or one of a flagitious life Since therefore Erastus confesseth pag. 194. that as the office of the Publicans was lawfull so likewise many Publicans were honest chast religious and pious men I may safely conclude that Let him be unto thee as a Publican cannot be meant universally of all Publicans For how can it be supposed that Christ would tacitely allow of alienation from or severity to pious Publicans Tenthly whereas the Erastians lay great waight upon that forme of speech Let him be to thee not to the whole Church as an Heathen man and a Publican which is also one of Sullivius his exceptions de Presbyterio cap. 9. in this also they do abuse the Text for 1. The same offence which is a sufficient ground to one Church-member to esteem another Church member as an Heathen man or a Publican being a publique and known scandall such as is contumacy and disobedience to the Church must needs be a sufficient ground to all other Church members or to the whole Church to esteem so of him Surely Christ would not have contradictory judgements in his Church concerning so high a point as is the esteeming of a Church member to be as a Heathen man and a Publican 2. The Erastians herein argue no better than the Papists Christ said to Peter I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven Therefore unto Peter alone Peradventure Mr. Hussey was so sagacious as to prevent this objection with his popish concession these Keyes were never given to any of the Apostles but to Peter saith he in his plea for Christian magistracy pag. 9. It seems he will farre lesse sticke to grant the Prelaticall argument Timothy laid on hands and Titus ordained Elders therefore each of these had the power of ordination by himselfe alone 3. It is a good observation of Luther Tom. 1. Resolv super propos 13. de potest Papae fol. 299. in the sixteenth of Matthew Christ begins with all his disciples Whom say ye that I am and he endeth with one Unto thee will I give c. In the eighteenth of Matthew he beginneth with one If thy brother trespasse against thee c. and he endeth with all Whatsoever he binds on earth c. Whence he concludeth that in both these places what is said to one is said to all of them CHAP. V. That Tell it to the Church hath more in it then Tell it unto a greater number THere is yet another interpretation of these words invented to elude the argument for Ecclesiasticall government and censures from Mat. 18. Tell it unto the Church that is if the offending brother will neither hearken to private admonition nor to admonition before two or three witnesses then tell it unto many or unto a greater company This cals to mind D r Sutcliffes glosse upon the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. that it signifieth Presbyters or Ministers non juris vinculo sed utcunque collectos as if the occasionall meeting of some Presbyters in Westminster Hall or upon the Exchange or in a journey or at a buriall were a Presbytery with power to lay on hands That interpretation of the word Church is no better But that I may reject nothing without reason I desire it may be considered 1. Whether either in Scripture or in any Greeke Lexicon or in any Classick author it can be found that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever used to signifie meerly a greater number or company then two or three not called out and imbodied together for government or worship For my part I could never yet finde where the simple majority of the number maketh the denomination of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I finde the word sometimes yet very seldome used of an unlawfull assembly combining or joyning together to evill the reason I take to be this because they pretended to be authorised as a lawfull assembly so Christ called Iudas friend when he came to betray him with a kisse But since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 18. 17. doth signifie a lawfull assembly as all doe confesse I desire some testimony of Scripture or approved authors where this name is given to a lawfull assembly which was not imbodied for worship or government but had the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply because of the majority of number Sure I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is at least caetus evocatus an assembly called forth and every offended brother hath not from Christ the priviledge of gathering a Church 2. If by tell it unto the Church were meant no more but this tell it unto a greater number then if the offender doe not heare the Church there must be recourse unto some others distinct from the Church for the more authoritative and ultimate determination unlesse it be said that there is no remedy for offences but in a greater number which each man shall make choice of But where is their more effectuall remedy or where will they fixe the ultimate degree of proceedings 3. When Christ saith Tell it unto the Church and if he neglect to heare the Church c. whether respect be had to the forme of the Hebrews or to the forme of the Grecians the Church will still have a ruling power
bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Where the power of binding and loosing is given to the Apostles Grotius upon the place cleareth it from 2. Cor. 5. 19. 20. God hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ. So that we find in Scripture Church Officers inabled and authorised ex officio as the Heraulds and Ambassadours of the King of Zion to loose from the bands of sinne all repenting and beleiving sinners and to bind over to eternall justice and wrath the impenitent and unbeleevers 2 They are also authorised dogmatically and authoritatively to declare and impose the will of Christ and to bind his precepts upon the shoulders of his peeple Matth. 28. 20. as likewise to loose them and pronounce them free from such burthens as men would impose upon them contrary or beside the word of God 1 Cor. 7. 23. An example of both we have Act. 15. 28. The Synod of the Apostles and Elders bindeth upon the Churches such Burthens as were necessary by the Law of love for the avoiding of scandall but did pronounce the Churches to be free and loosed from other burthens which the Judaizing Teachers would have bound upon them Now therefore if we will expound Matth. 18. 18. by other Scriptures it being the onely surest way to expound Scripture by Scripture it is manifest and undeniable that Church-Officers are by other Scriptures inabled and authorised to bind loose in both those respects afore-mentioned But we no where find in Scripture that Christ hath given either to all private Christians or to the civill Magistrate a Commission and Authority to bind or loose sinners I know a private Christian may and ought to convince an impenitent brother and to comfort a repenting brother ex charitate Christiana But the Scripture doth not say that God hath committed to every private Christian the word of reconciliation and that all Christians are Ambassadours for Christ nor is there a promise to ratifie in heaven the convictions or comforts given by a private Christian No more then a King doth ingage himself in verbo principis to pardon such as any of his good Subjects shall pardon or to condemne such as any of his good Subjects shall condemne but a King ingageth himself to ratifie what his Ambassadours Commissioners or Ministers shall doe in his name and according to the Commission which he hath given them to pardon or condemne Besides all this if Christ had meant here of the brother to whom the injury was don his private binding or loosing not condemning or forgiving then he had kept the phrase in the singular number which Erastus observeth diligently all along the Text vers 15 16 17. But he might have also observed that vers 18. carries the power of binding and loosing to a plurality VVhatsoever ye bind c. As for the Magistrate it belongeth to him to bind with the cords of corporall or civill punishments or to loose and liberat from the same as he shall see cause according to law and justice But this doth n t belong to the spirituall Kingdome of Jesus Christ for his Kingdome is not of this world neither are the weapons thereof carnall but spirituall And beside the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth bind on punishment when the soule is loosed in Heaven and the sinne remitted Again the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth loose and absolve from punishment when a mans soule is impenitent and sinne is still bound upon his conscience There is no such promise that God will forgive whom the Magistrate forgiveth or condemne whom the Magistrate condemneth Neither hath God any where in Scripture committed to the Magistrate the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven or the word of reconciliation as to the Ambassadours of Christ. Binding and loosing in the other sence by a dogmaticall authoritative declaration of the will of Christ is not so principally or directy intended Matth. 18. 18. as that other binding and loosing in respect of sinne Howbeit it is not to be excluded because the words preceding Vers. 17. mention not onely the execution of Excommunication Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican but also the Churches judgement and determination of the case if he neglect to heare the Church which words implie that the Church hath declared the will of Christ in such a case and required the offender to doe accordingly but he shewing himselfe unwilling and contumacious as it were saying in his heart I will breake their bands asunder and cast away their cords from me thereupon the promise reacheth to this also that what the Church hath determined or imposed according to the will of Christ shall be ratified and approved in Heaven Now Christ hath no where given a Commission either to every particular Christian or to the Magistrate to teach his people to observe all things which he hath commanded them and authoritatively to determine controversies of faith or cases of conscience As in the old Testament the Priests lips did preserve knowledge and they were to seeke the law at his mouth Mal. 2. 7. so in the new Testament the Ministers of Christ have the Commission to make known the counsell of God My second proposition that the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. is juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall Censures this I will make good in the next place against M r Prynne who to elude the argument for Excommunication from Matth. 18. answereth two things concerning the binding and loosing there spoken of 1. That these words have no coherence with or dependence upon the former 2. That this binding and loosing is meant onely of preaching the Gospell Touching the first of these I confesse if by the Church vers 17. be meant a civill Court of Justice and by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen c. be meant no more but keepe no civill fellowship with him which is his sence of the Text I cannot marvell that he could finde no coherence between vers 17. and vers 18. yet if there be no coherence between these verses the generality of Interpreters have gone upon a great mistake of the Text conceiving that Christ doth here anticipate a great objection and adde a great encouragement in point of Church discipline for when the offender is excommunicated that is all the Church can doe to humble and reduce him put the case he or others despise the censures of the Church What will your censure doe saith M r Hussey To that very thing Christ answereth It shall be ratified in Heaven and it shall doe more then the binding of the offenders in fetters of Iron could doe But let us heare what M r Prynne saith against the coherence of Text because saith he that of binding and loosing is spoken onely to and of Christs disciples as is evident by the parallel Text
of Joh. 20. 23. not of the Jewish Church It maketh the more against him I am sure that it s spoken to and of Christs Disciples for this proveth that the Church vers 17. is not the Jewish Sanhedrin but the Christian Presbytery then instituted and afterwards erected and that the thing which makes one as an Heathen and a Publican is binding of his sinnes upon him And for the context immediatly after Christ had said If he neglect to heare the Church let him be unto thee c. he addeth Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on earth c. The dependency is very cleare A Christian having first admonished his brother in private then having taken two or three witnesses after this having brought it to the publique cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Consistory and after all that the offender being for his obstinacy excommunicate here is the last step no further progresse Now might one thinke what of all this what shall follow upon it Nay saith Christ it shall not be in vaine it shall be ratisied in Heaven And as the purpose cohereth so that forme of words Verily I say unto you is ordinarily used by Christ to signifie his continuing and pressing home the same purpose which he had last mentioned as Matth. 5. 26. Matth. 6. 2. Matth. 8. 10. Matth. 10. 15. Matth. 11. 11. Matth. 18. 3. Matth. 19. 23 28. Matth. 21. 31. Matth. 23. 36. Matth. 26. 13. Matth. 24. 34 47. Marke 10. 15. 12. 43. 13. 30. Luke 12. 37. and many the like passages To my best observation I have found no place where Christs Verily I say unto you begins a new purpose which hath no coherence with nor dependency upon the former This coherence of the Text and the dependency of vers 18. upon that which went before which dependency is acknowledged by Erastus who perceiving that he could not deny the dependency fancieth that the binding and loosing is meant of the offended brothers pardoning or not pardoning of the offender Confirm Thes. pag. 157. doth also quite overthrow Master Prynnes other answer that this binding and loosing is onely meant of preaching the Gospell and of denouncing remission of sinnes to the penitent and wrath to the impenitent Nay That potestas clavium conoionalis is instituted in other places but here its potestas clâ—…vium disciplinalis as is evident First by the coherence of the Text and by the taking of two or three more and then telling of the thing to the Church all which intimateth a rising as from one or two or three more so from them to the Church which cannot be meant of one man as hath been argued against both Pope and Prelate for no one man can be called a Church neither hath one man the power of jurisdiction but one man hath the power of preaching Secondly the Apostles and those who succeed them in the worke of the Ministery have the same power of the Keys committed from Christ to them ministerially which Christ hath committed from the father to him as Mediator authoritatively For in the parallel place Ioh. 20. v. 21 23. where he gives them power of remitting or retaining sinnes he saith As my Father hath sent me even so send I you But the Father gave Christ such a power of the Keyes as comprehends a power of Government and not meerely doctrinall Isa. 22. 21 22. I will commit the government into his hand c. And the Keyes of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder Thirdly It may be proved also by that which immediately followeth vers 19. Againe I say unto you that if two of you shall agree on earth c. which cannot be meant of the power of preaching for neither the efficacy of preaching nor the ratification of it in Heaven nor the fruit of it on Earth doth depend upon this that two preachers must needs agree in the same thing But it agreeth well to the power of Discipline concerning which it answereth these two objections First it might be said the Apostles and other Church-governours may fall to be very few in this or that Church where the offence riseth shall we in that case execute any Church-discipline Yes saith Christ if there were but two Church-officers in a Church where no more can be had they are to exercise Discipline and it shall not be in vaine Againe it might be objected be they two or three or more what if they doe not agree among themselves To that he answereth there must be an agreement of two Church-officers at least otherwise the sentence shall be null we can not say the like of the doctrinall power of binding or loosing that it is of no force nor validity unlesse two at least agree in the same doctrine as hath been said two must agree in that sentence or censure which is desired to be ratified in Heaven and then they binding on Earth and unanimously calling upon God to ratifie it in Heaven it shall be done Fourthly this binding and loosing can not goe without the Church it is applicable to none but a Church member or a Brother So the threed of the Text goes along from vers 15. If thy Brother trespasse against thee and vers 16. thou hast gained thy Brother And when it is said Tell the Church it is supposed that the offender is a member of the Church over whom the Church hath authority and of whom there is hope that he will heare the Church And when it is said Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican it is supposed that formerly he was not unto us as an Heathen man and a Publican For these and the like reasons Tostatus in Matth. 18. quaest 91. and divers others hold that this rule of Christ is not applicable to those who are without the Church But if the binding and loosing be meant onely of preaching the Gospell as Master Prynne would have it then it were applicable to those that are not yet baptised nor made Church members for unto such the Gospell hath been and may be preached The binding and loosing which is proper to a Brother or to a Church member must be a juridicall power of censures of which the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge them also that are without Doe not ye judge them that are within Therefore Chrysostome Hom. 61. in Matth. according to the Greeke Hom. 60. doth parallel Matth. 18. with 1 Cor. 5. proving that this rule of Christ is not applicable to one that is without but onely to a brother Which Paul also saith in these words What have I to doe to judge them also that are without But he commandeth us to convince and reduce brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to cut off the disobedient this he Christ doth also in this place Theophylact also on Matth. 18. noteth the same restriction of this rule of Christ to a Christian Brother Fifthly this binding power is
doctrine of scandals warning us not to offend so much as one of his little ones which he presseth by divers arguments 5. The Erastians and we doe both agree in this that Christ here hath a respect to the Jewish Government Now the trespasses for which men were excommunicate by the Jewish Sanhedrin were scandalous trespasses such as the despising of any of the precepts of the law of Moses or Statutes of the Scribes The doing of servile worke upon Easter Eve The mentioning of the Name of God rashly or by a vaine oath The inducing of others to prophane the Name of God or to eate holy things without the holy place and the like More of this elsewhere in the 24 causes of the Jewish Excommunication 6. M r Prynne expoundeth this Text in Matthew by 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11 12. but there the Apostle intends the purging of the Church from scandals whether those scandals have any private injury in them or not Instance in Idolatry and drunkennesse there mentioned 7. I can also without yeelding the least advantage to the Erastian cause admit and suppose that which is so much pressed both by Erastus M r Prynne and others viz. that these words If thy brother trespasse against thee are spoken of a personall injury between man and man Though I doe not grant the thing yet I am content even upon their own supposition to argue from this Text. And first it may be answered with Aegi dius de Coninck de actib supernat Disp. 28. Dub. 8. that Christ doth not speake of the case of personall injuries as if he meant to restrict unto such cases the order of proceeding for gaining of the offenders soule from sinne but onely for examples sake he brought such kind of sinne of which it might have been most doubted whether in the reproofe thereof this order be to be kept and in which it can be most hardly observed in respect of the innate desire of revenge in many 2. Let our opposites themselves say whether we ought not in conscience and duty endeavour the gaining of an offending brothers soule when we see him commit a trespasse against God which is no personall injury to our selves as well as when the trespasse is a personall injury 3. As this order of proceeding here prescribed by Christ is in the case of a personall injury the greatest triall of Christian love in the person offended so it may by Gods blessing be the stronger and more efficacious upon the person offending to conquer and overcome his spirit while he that might prosecute him in a legall and criminall way commeth in meeknesse and love to admonish him and to endeavour the gaining of him from sin by repentance Which is the observation of Chrysostome upon the place for if he that might demand punishment upon him even that man be seen to be taking care of his salvation this most of all other things is able to make him ashamed and to yeeld 4. If it be a civill and personall injury matterially yet it comes not in here under that formall consideration but partly as a scandall to him that hath received the injury so that Chrysostome doth rightly make this Text to hang together with that which was said before in the same Chapter concerning scandals partly as a soul-destroying sinne upon him that doth the wrong which doth endanger his salvation And if under such a notion private injuries be here spoken of then what have our opposites gained 5. The scope also is not civill but wholly spirituall which Chrysostome doth very well explaine Hom. 60. in Matth. What is it if he shall heare thee if he shall be perswaded to condemne himselfe of sinne Thou hast gained thy brother he saith not thou bast a sufficient punishment or satisfaction but thou hast gained thy brother And after He saith not accuse nor censure nor demand punishments but convince saith he The Context confirmeth it for these words are added immediately after the parable of bringing home the lost sheep Which parable we have also Luke 15. where it is not applied to the reducing of such as have done private injuries but of Publicans and sinners who were publiquely scandalous this I thought good to note by the way Ammonius Alexandrinus de Quatuor Evang. consonantia cap. 96 97. doth together with the parable of the lost sheep adde also the other two of the lost penny and the lost sonne immediately before these words If thy brother trespasse against thee c. 6. And suppose that the businesse hath its rise and beginning from a personall injury verse 15. yet the trespasse for which the man is to be held as a Heathen and Publican is a publique scandalous sinne against the Church or Congregation namely his neglecting to heare the Church vers 17. for it is not his first trespasse but his contumacy against the Church which by this Text is to make him esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican Before I leave this point I will answer the chief Argument by which Erà stus would prove that this Text is meant only of private civill injuries because saith he the trespasse here spoken of is no other then what one brother may forgive to another I answer both he and Master Prynne doe suppose this Text Mat. 15 16 17. to be parallell to that in Luk. 17. 3. 4. which they take for granted without proof or reason Certainly there is a great difference between the purpose and scope of the one place and of the other It will be replyed that even in this very Chapter Matth. 18. the next thing which follows vers 21. is concerning personall injuries which one brother can and ought to forgive to another Then came Peter to him and said Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me and I forgive him c. To that I answer 1. We cannot gather from the Text that Peter did propound this question immediately after or upon occasion of that which went before vers 15 16 17 c. where nothing is spoken of one Brothers forgiving another We read Luk. 8. 19. Then came to him his Mother and his Brethren c. yet the meaning is not that his Mother and his Brethren came to him immediately after his speaking of the words before mentioned by Luke in that place for that it was not after these but after other words is plain from the Harmony of the other Evangelists Matthew and Mark. So here these words Then came Peter may very well relate to a new businesse and to another time 2. Or if it was the same time it might be said Then came Peter that is Peter being absent and not having heard that which Christ had been before speaking he came immediatly after did propound a new Question 3. Suppose also that Peter was present and heard all which had been before spoken yet it is much doubted among Interpreters whence Peter had the rise and occasion of that Question Some think it was upon
contrarily that they went up into the Temple to pray as well as the Pharisees and were more acceptable to Christ himself c. So likewise Sutlivius against Beza de presâ—…yt Cap. 9. pag. 57. I answer 1. by a retortion Master Prynne p. 4. expounds these words let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican to be meant of avoiding familiar fellowship with the Brother that hath committed a civill trespasse and keeping no more civill company with him Now I argue thus ad hominem This cannot be the meaning which he gives because Heathens being never admitted into familiar fellowship and company with the Jewes who might not marry nor familiarly converse with them as himself proveth pag. 4. could never be cast out of their fellowship and company being uncapable of any such thing If our exposition of excommunication must drive us to acknowledge that Heathens were formerly members of the Jewish Church his exposition of avoiding familiar fellowship must drive him to acknowledge that formerly the Heathens were admitted into familiar fellowship with the Jewes 2. Those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be unto thee c. do not look backward but foreward neither is the matching and comparing of the scandalous impenitent Brother with an heathen à priori but à posteriori so that no comparison is to be made between the praeterite Estate of an offending Brother and the praeterite Estate of an Heathen man but between the future Estate of an offending obstinate Brother and the present Estate of an Heathen man 3. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen is as much as have no communion nor fellowship with him in the holy Assemblies nor in the Temple for Heathens were not permitted to come into the Temple Ezek. 44. 7. 9. Act. 21. 28. whereupon Paul is accused for bringing Greeks into the Temple and so polluting that holy place Act. 21. 28. Heathens were excluded from Atrium Israelis the Court of Israel which was without the Court of the Priests There was without the Court of Israel Atrium Gentium the Court of the Heathen otherwise called Intermurale because it lay between the Temple and the utter wall mentioned Ezek. 42. 20. Into this utmost Court or intermurale Heathen men were admitted to come and worship there according to that 1 Kings 8. 41. 2 Chro. 6. 32. They might not onely come into the holy Land but to the holy City and not onely to the holy City but to the mountain of the house of the Lord yea not onely to the mountaine of the Temple but within the utter Wall yet into the Court of Israel which was properly the first or utter Court of the Temple they were forbidden to enter He that would be further satisfied that these things were so let him read Ioseph antiq lib. 15. cap. 14. Tâ—…status in 1. Reg. 8. quaest 21. Arias Montanus de saer fabric pag. 15. Azorius Instit moral Tom. 1. lib. 6 Chap. 53. L'Empereur Annot. in Cod Middoth cap. 2. Sect. 3. Peradventure you will say if it was thus then an excommunicate person being esteemed as an Heathen must not gâ—t leave to heare the word nor at all to enter into the places of publike Assâ—molies where the word was Preached Answ. I will not now debate that point Others have debated it with the Anabaptists who hold that excommunicate persons ought not be admitted to the Hearing of the word Luc. Osiand Enchirid. contra Anab. c. 6. quest 2. but however it doth not follow upon what I have said that excommunicate persons must be wholly excluded from hearing of the word First because the places of our publike worship have no Sacramentall significancy or holinesse as the Temple and Tabernacle had of old therefore say the professors of Leyden there is not the like reason to exclude excommunicate persons wholly from our Temples as there was excluding them from the Temple of Ierusalem 2. because both Christ Io. 10. 23. and the Apostles Acts 5. 12. did use to Preach in Solomons Porch This Porch so called was the great east Porch in the Intermurale whether Heathens were admitted and so they did hear the word though they had no leave to come into the Court of Israel there to have fellowship with or to be esteemed and reputed among the people of God Yea as Master Selden tells us de Jure nat Gent. lib. 3. cap. 6. some understand by Solomons Porch act 3. 11. 5. 12. the very Court of the Gentiles into which they came to worship which Gentiles were not withstanding forbidden by a superscription under paine of death to enter into the Court of Israel or into that which Iosephus calls the second Temple Iosephus doth also make mention of foure Porches of the Temple into the utmost of which this is certainly meant of Solomons porch it was lawful for heathens to come contra appron l. 2. 4. For the other part let him be unto thee as a publican if the meaning were no more but this avoid all fellowship and familiarity with him it doth not hurt our Exposition exclusion from the Temple being clearly signified by his being as an Heathen and avoiding of fellowship with him being in the most emphaticall manner further expressed by his being as a publicans both these put together do the more fully hold forth excommunication And in this sence some resolve the words 5. Yet let us see how Master Prynne proves that the Publicans were admitted into the Temple or Synagogues He tells us that Christ received them or conversed with them as if the meaning had been to compare an impenitent Brother with penitent publicans Luk. 18. 13. who drew neer to Christ to heare him Luk. 15. 2. who left all and followed Christ to be among his disciples Matth. 10. 3. Luk. 5. 27 28. Mark 2. 15. who justified God Luk. 7. 29. who knew themselves to be sick of soule-diseases Matth. 9. 12 13. These very places cited by himself make against him However the Question is how Publicans were esteemed of in the Jewish Church for that is the thing pointed at in those words let him be unto thee as a Publican for that he objecteth that Publicans went up into the Temple to pray If he meane that Publicans who were neither devout Jewes nor Proselytes went up into the Temple to pray had accesse to and fellowship in the Sacrifices and Temple worship as well as the Jewes themselves it s more than he can prove If he mean that publicans who were Jewes or Proselytes went up into the Temple to pray it helpeth him not except he can prove that when Christ saith let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican the meaning is of such a publican as was a devout Jew or proselyte And if so then he had to prove that the Jewes did not keep civill company or fellowship so much as with the religious publicans with whom they went together to the Temple to
not entice him to Idolatry and that a Jew also was permitted to be Physitian to a Gentile for which purpose they alledged the example of Moses who as their Tradition told them did practice medicine in Egypt Furthermore when Master Prynne understands nothing by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican but avoid civill fellowship and keep no familiar company with him and expounds it also by 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one not to eat which he still conceives to be onely meant of avoiding civill fellowship and by 2. Io. 10. receive him not into thy house He is twice out both because the Jewes did keep civill company with Heathens which hath been proved and also because if we beleive the Jewish writters concerning the customes of their Nation the Rabbies or wise men among them did not keep familiar fellowship nor civill company with the Plebeians of the Jewes themselves they were forbidden to eat and drink with or among the Plebeians Maimen de fundam legis cap. 5. Sect. 13. neither might they converse in the paths nor come into the houses of the Plebeians Ibid. Sect. 14. Gul. Vorstius in his annot pag. 73. addeth a passage in Misua that a wise man might neither lodge with a Plebeian nor receive a Plebeian to lodge with him Neverthelesse a wise man was permitted to converse not onely civilly but frequently with an Heathen man for which see Master Selden de Jure nat Gent. lib. 6. cap. 10. quoniam nihil mali ex Gentilium consuetudine viro scientiori imâ—…inere censebant So that in Master Prynâ—… sence all the Plebeians of the Jewes themselves were as Heathens and Publicans or civilly excommunicated by their wise men Wherefore we must needs distinguish a two fold communion or fellowship among the Jewes one civill another Ecclesiasticall It was the shutting out from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the Jewes which Christ alludes to Mat. 18. for beside the distinct notions of the Jewish Church and the Jew State of which before Is. Abrabanel de capitc fidei cap. 6. speaking of certaine fundamentall Articles which the Jewish Church did beleive saith they were intended to be Articles of Judaisme so that he that should beleive these should be in the communion of Israel and Ib. cap. 3. speaking of an Article concerning the coming of the Messiah he moves a doubt about it because Rabbi Hillell who denieth it was not excluded from the communion of the Law for the Gemaâ—…a gives him the Title of Rabbi When he comes to the solution of this doubt cap. 14. he cleares Rabbi Hillell as not denying that Article But all this intimateth that for heresy there was a shutting out from Ecclesiasticall communion Or that an hereticall apostat Jew was unto them as an Heathen man and therefore they were permitted to take usury as from strangers or Heathens so from an apostat Jew quia fratris nomen exuerat saith Master Selden de Jure nat Gent. lib. 6 c. 10. In Tzemach David edit Hen. Uorst pag. 67. it is said that the chief of the Hereticks were Tzadok and Baythos who denying rewards and punishments after this life exiverunte communione vel caetu Israelis they went out from the Ecclesiasticall communion of Israel This is good reason to say of a sonne of Israel if he be a sonne of Belial let him be to thee as an Heathen that is esteeme him as prophane and as lost as an Heathen have no more Church communion with him then with an Heathen And by this time I suppose it doth fully appeare to the intelligent Reader that some uncircumcised Heathens were admitted in to the civill fellowship and some Israelites continued not in the Ecclesiasticall fellowship of ihe Jewes which overturneth the whole strength of M r Prynnes answer to our argument from Matth. 18 But once more for I have thought good to insist the longer upon this point because much dependeth upon it Let him be to thee as an Heathen doth forbid Ecclesiaâ—icall communion not civill company except secondarily as a consequent of Excommunication for spirituall respects and ends as I shall shew anon but it is not meant of abstaining from meere civil company fellowship because the Jews were permitted to keep civil company and fellowship with Heathens even any civill company which did not encroach upon Religion or had appearance of an ensnarement into Idolatry and in that respect as participating of Religious fellowship became unlawfull This is the point I have been proving and which I will yet further prove out of Maim mides de Idolalotria cap 9. That one Chapter is sufficient to 〈◊〉 the present question Thus it begins Three daies before the feasts or holydaies of Heathens that worship Idols we are forbidden to buy from them or to sell unto them any durable thing to take or give any thing in lend to take or make payment of that which was given in lend upon writ or pledge but what was given in lend upon words onely it is lawfull to exact because this seemeth to be taken out of their hands It is also lawfull to sell unto them that which can not last as green herbs or anything sodden and that ever untill their holy day You see it was lawfull among the Jewes to buy and sell borrow and lend to make contracts with Heathens yea with Idolatrous Heathens onely in some not in all things there was a restraint upon them and that but three daies before the Heathen sestivities Then follows Sect. 2. This hath place in the land of the Israelites but in the other lands it is not forbidden except upon their holy day If any man transgresse by having trade or commerce with them during that space of three daies it is lawfull though to use the ware but if any man trade with them upon their holyday the things are forbidden to be used It is unlawfull also to send a gift to an Heathen man upon his holy day unlesse it be known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nâ—…t 〈◊〉 the worship of Idols neither serâ—…eth them But if somâ—… 〈◊〉 mâ—…n upon his Holyday send a gift to an Israelite let him not take it from him 〈◊〉 it be suspected that hâ—… will be offended Neverthelessâ—… he shall not use it untill it be known that the Heathen man doth not worship Idols nor esteem them to be Gods Observe 1. that the things mentioned in the first Section though unlawfull to the â—ewes in their own Land three daies before the Heathâ—nish 〈◊〉 yet they held them not unlawfull in other Lands 2. They held it lawfll for a Jew to send a gift to an Heathen man or to receive a gift from him so that it were not upon the Heathenish festivity 3. Yea in some cases it was permitted to a Jew to send a gift to an Heathen man upon the very Heathen festivity to wit if he knew that Heathen man to be no worshipper of Idols as likewise to receive a
not so hatefull to God as legall uncleannesse The Law of confessing sin Levit. 5. Num. 5. is meant of every known sin which was to be expiated by Sacrifice especially the more notorious and scandalous sins CHAP. XIII M. Prynnes argument from 1 Cor. 10. which he takes to be unanswerable discussed and confuted Mr Prynne in expounding that Text of the Passeover differeth both from the Apostles and from Erastus himselfe His argument if good wil necessarily conclude against his owne Concessions If scandalous sinners had been suspended from the Manna and Water of the Rocke they had been suspended from their ordinary orporal meat and drinke That the scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle were committed not before but after their eating of that Spirituall meate and drinking of that Spirituall drinke The Argument strongly retorted The scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle were Nationall sins and so come not home to the present Question which is of persons not of Nations An Appendix to the first Booke THe Erastians misrepresent the Jewish Government Their complyance with the Anabaptists in this particular Their confounding of that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Church with that which was the ordinary rule Fourteen Objections answered M. Prynne his great mistakes of Deut. 17. and 2 Chron. 19. The power and practice of the godly Kings of Iudah in the reformation of Religion cleared The Argument from Solomon his deposing of Abiathar and putting Zadock in his place answered foure waies The Priests were appointed to be as Judges in other cases beside those of leprosie and jealousie 2 Chro. 23. 19. further scanned A scandalous person was an unclean person both in the Scripture phrase and in the Jewish language The sequestration of the uncleane from the Sanctuary no civill punishment Of Lawes and causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall among the Jewes Of their Scribes and Lawyers Some other observable passages of Maimonides concerning Excommunication What meant by not entring into the Congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 1 2 3. and by separating the mixed multitude Nehem. 13. 3. Five reasons to prove that the meaning of these places is not in reference to civil dignities and places of government nor yet in reference to unlawful mariages onely but in reference to Church-membership and communion Two Objections to the contrary answered One from Exod. 12. 48. Another from the example of Ruth An useful observation out of Onkelos Exod. 12. The second Booke Of the Christian Church Government CHAP. I. Of the rise growth decay and reviving of Erastianisme THe Erastian error not honest is parentibus natus Erastus the Mid-wife how engaged in the busines The breasts that gave it sucke prophannesse and self-interest It s strong food arbitrary Government It s Tutor Arminianisme It s deadly decay and consumption whence it was How ill it hath been harboured in all the reformed Churches How stiffled by Erastus himselfe Erastianisme confuted out of Erastus The Divines who have appeared against this error How the Controversie was lately revived CHAP. II. Some Postulata or common principles to be presupposed THat there ought to be an exclusion of vile and prophane persons knowne to be such from the holy things is a principle received among the Heathens themselves That the dishonour of God by scandalous sinnes ought to be punished as well yea much rather than private injuries That publique sinnes ought to be publiquely confessed and the offenders put to publique shame That there ought to be an avoyding of and withdrawing from scandalous persons in the Church and that by a publique order rather then at every mans discretion That there is a distinction of the Office and power of Magistracy aâ—d Ministery That the directive judgement in any businesse doth chiefly belong to those who by their prosession and vocation are set apart to the attendance and oversight of such a thing CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto us and what we yeeld unto them THey yeeld that the Magistrate his power in Ecclesiasticis is not arbitrary but tied to the word That there may be a distinct Church government under Heathen Magistrates That the abuse takes not away the just power They allow of Presbyteries and that they have some jurisdiction That the Ministery is Iure divino and Magistracy distinct from it We yeeld unto them That none ought to be Rulers in the Church but such against whom there is no just exception That Presbyteriall government is not a Dominion but a Service That it hath for its object onely the inward man That Presbyteriall government is not an Arbitrary government cleared by sive considerations That it is the most limited and least Arbitrary government of any other cleared by comparing it with Popery Prelacy Independency and with lawfull Magistracy That the civil Magistrate may and ought to doe much in and for Religion ordinarily and yet more in extraordinary cases That the civil Sanction is a free and voluntary act of the Magistrates favour That Ministers owe as much subjection and honour to the Magistrate as other Subjects CHAP. IV. Of the agreement and the differences between the nature of the Civill and of the Ecclesiasticall powers or Governments TEn agreements between the Civil power and the Ecclesiasticall power The differences between them opened in their causes efficient matter where a fourfold power of the keys is touched for me and ends both supreme and subordinate where it is opened how and in what respect the Christian Magistrate intendeth the glory of Jesus Christ and the purging of his Church Also effects objects adjuncts correlations ultimate terminations and divided executions CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdome of Iesus Christ a generall Kingdome as he is the eternall Sonne of God the Head of all Principalities and Powers raigning over all creatures and a particular Kingdome as he is Mediator raigning over the Church onely HOw this controversie fals in and how deepe it drawes That our Opposites herein joyne issue with the Socinians Nine Arguments to prove this distinction of a twofold Kingdom of Christ. In which of the eternity universality donation and subordination of the Kingdome of Christ. The Arguments brought to prove that Christ as Mediator raigneth over all things and hath all government even civil put in his hands examined and confuted In what sence Christ is said to be over all the heire of all things to have all things put under his feet to be the head of every man A distinction between Christs Kingdome Power and Glory cleared CHAP. VI. Whether Iesus Christ as Mediator and Head of the Church hath placed the Christian Magistrate to hold and execute his office under and for him as his Vicegerent The Arguments for the affirmative discussed THe decision of this Question will doe much yet not all in the decision of the Erastian controversie The question rightly stated Ten Arguments for the affirmative discussed and answered Where divers Scriptures are debated and cleared How we are to understand that Christ is King
of Kings and Lord of Lords How all power in Heaven and in Earth is said to be given to him That the Governments set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not civill Magistrates fully proved Ephes. 1. 21 22 23. and Colos. 2. 10. vindicated CHAP. VII Arguments for the negative of that Question formerly propounded THe lawfull authority of the Heathen Magistrates vindicated It can not be shewed from Scripture that Christ as Mediator hath given any Commission of Vice-gerentship to the Christian Magistrate That the worke of the Ministery is done in the name and authority of Jesus Christ the worke of Magistracy not so The power of Magistracy or civill Government was not given to Christ as Mediator shewed from Luke 12. 14. Iohn â—8 36. Luke 17. 20 21. Magistracy founded in the Law of nature and Nations The Scripture holds forth the same origination of Heathen Magistracy and of Christian Magistracy CHAP. VIII Of the power and priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not and what it is THat no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall and namely the dispencing of Church censures doth belong unto the Magistrate nor may according to the Word of God be assumed and exercised by him proved by six Arguments That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church to receive appeales from all Ecclesiasticall Assembles There are other sufficient remedies against abuses or Mal-administration in Church-Government Reasons against such appeales to the Magistrate The Arguments to the contrary from the Examples of Ierenâ—…y and of Paul discussed Of the collaterality and coordination of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers What is the power and right of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall cleared first generally next more particularly by five distinctions 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong to the civill power but non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Magistrate may imperare that which he may not elicere 3. Distinguish the directive power from the coercive power 4. The Magistrates power is cumulative not privative 5. He may doe in extraordinary cases that which he ought not to doe ordinarily A caution concerning the Arbitrary power of Magistrates in things Ecclesiasticall CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government besides Magistracy or civill Government namely an Ecclesiasticall Government properly so called in the hands of Church-officers THe Question stated and the Affirmative proved by one and twenty Scripturall Arguments Who meant by the Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 names of government The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 13. 7 17. examined Of receiving an accusation against an Elder Of rejecting an Hereticke Of the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian and the sence of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the subjection of the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets The Angels of the Churches why reproved for having false Teachers in the Church Note that man 2 Thess. 3. 14. proved to be Church-censure Of the Ruler Rom. 12. 8. and Governments 1 Cor. 12. 28. A patterne in the Jewish Church for a distinct Ecclesiasticall government What meant by cutting off Gal. 5. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly what Of the Ministeriall power to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 8. what Of the visible administration of the Kingdome of Christ by his Laws Courts Censures The Arguments for Excommunication from Matth. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. briefly vindicated That Elders are rulers of the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of Government Ministers why called Sâ—…ewards of the Mysteries of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of government Church-Government exercised by the Synod of the Apostles and Elders Acts 15. CHAP. X. Some objections made against Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline answered Mr Husseys objection doth stricke as much against Paul as against us The fallacy of comparing Government with the word preached in point of efficacy Foure ends or uses of Church-government That two coordinate Governments are not inconsistent The objection that Ministers have other worke to doe answered The feare of an ambitious ensnarement in the Ministery so much objected is no good Argument against Church-government M. Husseys motion concerning Schooles of Divinity examined Church Government is no immunity to Church-officers from Censure Though the Erastian principles are sufficiently overthrown by asserting from Scripture the may be of Church-government yet our Arguments prove a must be or an Institution Six Arguments added which conclude this point CHAP. XI The necessity of a distinct Church-government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates THis acknowledged by Christian Emperours of old Grotius for us in this particular Christian Magistracy hath never yet punished all such offences as are Ecclesiastically censurable Presbyteries in the primitive times did not exercise any power which did belong of right to the Magistrate No warrant from the word that the Ordinance of a distinct Church government was onely for Churches under persecution but contrariwise the Churches are charged to keep till the comming of Christ the commandement then delivered No just ground for the feare of the interfeering of the civill and of the Ecclesiasticall power The Churches liberties enlarged not diminished under Christian Magistrats The Covenant against this exception of the Erastians The Christian Magistrate if he should take upon him the whole burthen of the corrective part of Church-government could not give an account to God of it The Erastian principles doe involve the Magistrate into the Prelaticall guiltinesse The reasons and grounds mentioned in Scripture upon which Church-censures were dispenced in the Primiâ—ive Churches are no other then concerne the Churches under Christian Magistrâ—tes The end of Church-censures neither intended nor attained by the administration of Christian Magistracy The power of binding and loosing not temporary They who restrict a distinct Church-government to Churches under Heathen or persecuting Magistrats give a mighty advantage to Socinians and Anabaptists Gualther and Master Prynne for us in this Question APPENDIX A Collection of some testimonies out of a Declaration of King Iames the Helvetian Bohemian Augustane French and Dutch confessions the Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches in France Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum the Irish Articles a Book of Melanchton and another of L. Humfredus The third Booke Of Excommunication from the Church AND Of Suspension from the Lords Table CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles A Transition from Church-government in generall to Excommunication and Suspension in particular The present controversie ten waies mis-stated by M. Prynne That which was publiquely depending between the Parliament and Assembly did rather concerne the practicall conclusion it selfe then the Mediums to prove it The strength of the Assemblies proofes
the following words who shall dwell in thy holy hill which noteth a permanent and durable estate The Chaldee Paraphrase expoundeth the whole of such as were thought worthy to be admitted into the house of the Lord thus Lord who is worthy to abide in thy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and who shall be worthy to sojourne in the mountaine of the house of thy holinesse So Psalm 24. 3. the Chaldâ— readeth thus Who shall be worthy to ascend unto the mountaine of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord So that the thing alluded unto in both these places is that the Priests and Levites did admit 〈◊〉 to the Sanctuary but such as had the markes or characters there enumerated so farre as men can â—udge of these markes that is so faâ—e as they are externall and discernable 7. The same thing seemeth also to be alluded unto Psalm 50. 16. Unto the wicked the Chaldee addes that repenteth not and prayeth in his transgression God saith what hast thou to doe to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth It is spoken to a scandalous prophane man Vers. 18 19 20. who yet will needs take upon him a forme of godlinesse Where Philo the Jew speakes of him that blasphemed the name of the Lord he addeth that it was not lawfull for all men to name the name of God no not for Honour or Religions sake but onely for good and holy men And this gives me occasion to adde in conclusion a further confirmation out of the Hebrew Doctors They held that an Israelite turning an Hereticke that is denying any of their thirteen fundamentall Articles to be as an Heathen man and did therefore permit a Jew to lend to him upon usury even as to an Heathen M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 6. cap. 10. They held that such a one an hereticall Israelite had no communion with the Church of Israel See Tzemach David translated by Hen. Vorstius pag. 67. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 3. dub 5. Ib. cap. 6. They esteemed an hereticall Jew more hereticall then a Christian and did excommunicate him even summarily and without previous admonition See Buxtorf lexic. Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 195. Moses Maimonides de fundam legis cap. 6. sect 10. tels us that if an Epicurean Israelite had written a coppy of the booke of the Law it was to be burnt with the name of that Epicurean wretch because he had not done it holily nor in the name of God They who did imagine the Scripture it selfe to be polluted and prophaned when it came thorough the hands of an Epicurean or Hereticall Israelite no doubt they thought the Temple polluted and prophaned if such a one should be suffered to come and worship in it From all which it appeareth how much reason L'Empereur had to say that they did not admit an Heretick into the inner part of the Intermurale or that part of the Temple which divided between the Israelites and Heathens If any man shall aske what I meane to inferre from all this Must all prophane persons be kept back from our 〈◊〉 â—s and publike Assemblies and so from hearing the word I answer God forbid The Analogy which I understand is to hold between the Jewish and Christian Church is this As prophane persons were forbidden to enter into the Temple because of the sacramentall and typicall holinesse thereof for the Temple was a Type of Christ so prophane persons are now much more to be kept back from the Sacrament of the Lord Supper which hath more of Sacramentall signification mystery and holinesse in it then the Temple of Ierusalem had and whereby more ample Evangelicall promises are set forth and sealed unto us And as prophane persons might of old come into the Court of the Gentiles and there heare the word preached in Solomons Porch where both Christ and his Apostles did Preach Io. 10. 23. Act 3. 11. Act. 5. 12. which Porch was in the utmost Court That is the Court of the Gentiles of which else-where out of Iosephus but might not come into the Court of Israel nor have communion in the Sacrifices so prophane obstinate sinners are to be excluded for their impiety from the Church communion of Saints though they may heare the word as Heathens also may doe Now that the Temple of Ierusalem had a Typicall Sacramentall resemblance of Christ may appear plainly in divers particulars 1. As the glory of the Lord dwelt in the Temple within the oracle above the Arke and the Mercy seat and at the dedication of the Temple the cloud of the glory of the Lord did visibly fill the whole house so in Christ the fulnesse of the God-head dwells bodily as the Apostle speakes 2. As the great God whom the heavens of heavens cannot containe was yet pleased to dwell on earth by putting his name in that place so notwithstanding of the infinite distance between God and man yet they are brought neer each to other to have fellow-ship together in Jesus Christ. 3. God revealed his will that he would accept no Sacrifices from his people but in the Temple onely after it was built So God hath revealed his will that 〈◊〉 spirituall Sacrifices cannot be acceptable to him except in Jesus Christ onely 4. The people of God were bound to set their Faces toward the Temple of Hierusalem when they prayed 1. Kings 8. 30. 48. Dan. 6. 10. So are we bound in Prayer to looke toward Jesus Christ with an eye of faith 5. As there was an ample promise of God to heare the Prayers which should be made in that place 2. Chro. 7. 15 16. so hath God promised to heare us and accept us if we seeke unto him in and through Jesus Christ. 6. God said of the Temple mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually 2 Chro. 6. 16. so he said of Chriâ—t This is my well beloved Son in whom I am well pleased 7. There was but one Temple so but one Mediator between God and man the man Jesus Christ saith Paul 8. As the Temple was appointed to be a house of Prayer for all Nations Isa. 56. 7. and the sâ—ranger as well as the Israelite might come and pray in it 2 Chro. 6 32. So 〈◊〉 is a propitiation not for the Jewes onely but for the Gentiles and whosoever beleeves on him Jew or Gentile shall not be confounded 9. Because of thy Temple at Hierusalem shall Kings bring presents unto thee saith the Prophet Ps. 68. 29. so because of Jesus Christ who hath got a name above every name and hath received all power in heaven and earth shall Kings submit themselves and bow the knee 10. Glorious things were spoken of Ierusalem the City of God but the Temple was the glory of Ierusalem so glorious things are spoken of the Church But Christ is the Churches glory Other like considerations might be added but these may suffice CHAP. X. A debate with Master Prynne concerning the
〈◊〉 So that when they retalne the same word in rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text of Ezekiel they doe thereby intimate that the latter word will reach a power which was more then doctrinall as well as the former Which I doe the rather assert because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by the Septuagints not seldome as agreeing in signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de voluntate sua certiorem reddidit constituit decrevit so that it will reach the making of others to know a thing not onely doctrinally but by rules Canons Statutes and Government Yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will reach the teaching or making men to know by censures or punishments inflicted as Iudg. 8. 16. Gedeon tooke briars and thornes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pagnin confregit and he brake with these the men of Succoth Hierome contrivit The Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comminuiâ—… The English Translation and with these be taught in the Margent made to know the men of Succoth For this signification of the word namely conterere Arias Montanus in his Hebrew Lexicon citeth Isa. 53. 3. Ezech. 19. 7. So conteri Psalm 74. 5. Prov. 10. 9. Upon this last place Mercerus tels us that the Hebrews doe not onely admit this sence of that Text but in other places also take the same word pro confringi So that without the least violence to the Text in Ezekiel it may be thus read They have not separated or put difference between the holy and prophane neither have they broken or divided between the uncleane and the cleane The latter part seemeth to charge the Priests with the admission of such as were legally uncleane the former part with the admission of such as were morally uncleane or prophane to such ordinances as were appointed onely for the holy and cleane Tenthly Heathens or strangers who were not Proselytes of the covenant or of righteousnessè were not permitted to eate of the Passeover Now one that is by profession a Church member but living in prophanesse and scandalous wickednesse ought to be esteemed as an Heathen Matth. 18. 17. yea as worse than an Infidell 1 Tim. 5. 8. Hence was it that the word Heathen was used for an irreligious or wicked man as is observed by Mathias Martinius in lexic. philol pag. 717. 718. and as a discriminating name from believers so Zonaras in Cone Carthag Can. 24. When David speaks of his persecuting wicked enemies though Israelites he cals them strangers and heathen Psal. 54. 3. Psal. 59. 5. How then can it be supposed that those who were esteemed as heathens were admitted to all Church priviledges as well as the best Israelites Eleventhly that which was among the Jewes a sufficient cause to deny circumcision to him who desired to be admitted and received into the Jewish Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ger ben berith a proselyte sonne of the covenant or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ger tsedeck a proselyte of righteousnesse was also a sufficient cause to deny the Passeover to a proselyte who desired to eate it Even as now that for which we may and ought to refuse Baptisme to one that desireth it must needs be also a cause and reason to refuse the Lords Supper to him that desireth to receive it for he that is not fit to be baptized is much lesse fit to receive the Lords Supper But prophanesse or a scandalous conversation was among the Jewes a sufficient cause and reason to refuse Circumcision Yea as D r Buxtorf tels us in Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 408. before the Jewes would circumcise or baptize a proselyte for after circumcision they did baptize him they did first examine him exactly and prove him narrowly whether he desired to be a proselyte from covetousnesse ambition feare the love of an Israelitish virgin or the like sinister end If upon examination it did appeare that he was not moved by any worldly consideration but by affection to Religion and the glory of God then they proceeded to set before his eyes the strictnesse of the law and how strait and narrow a path he must walke in telling him also of the persecutions and tribulations of Israel If after all this triall they found him stedfast in his desires and resolutions then they received him he being first instructed in the Articles of their faith and in the Commandements of the Law How much lesse would they have circumcised a scandalous person being so farre from any hopefull signes of sincerity that he had the blacke markes of a worker of iniquity And if they would not receive such a scandalous flagitious person to circumcision how could they receive such a one being circumcised to the Passeover Twelfthly compare Ezra 6. 21. with Ezra 10. 16 17. First it is marked Ezra 6. 21. that such proselytes did eate the Passeover with the children of Israel as had separated themselves unto them from the silthinesse of the Heathen of the Land to seeke the Lord God of Israel If those who did eate were thus qualified it is not obscurely intimated that those who were not thus qualified did not eate And if no proselyte who did not separate himselfe from the filthinesse of the Heathen was allowed to eat the Passeover then muchlesse was an Israelite who did not separate himselfe from the silthynesse of the Heathen allowed to eat it I like well Beda his observation upon Ezra 10. 16 17. Israel was purged from unlawfull marriages and the strange wives put away and this worke was ended against the beginning of the first moneth to the intent that none defiled with unlawfull mariages might eate the Passeover Ut ante initium mensis primi consummarentur omnes qui prophano erant connubio maculati id est a tali scelere purgarentur quatenus ipsum mensem primum in quo erat pascha faciendum mundi intrarent mundi paschalia festa peragerent c. Thirteenthly I argue from the signification of the legall or ceremoniall uncleannesse and from that which was signified by the exclusion of those that were legally uncleane Without all controversie the keeping backe of such was a significant ceremony For all the legall ceremonies concerning cleannesse or uncleannesse were teaching ceremonies and are therefore called Doctrines Matth. 15. 9. Col. 22. 2. What was taught and signified thereby I have before shewed namely that prophane ones be not admitted to fellowship with Gods people in their holy things Yea was not prophannesse and open wickednesse more hatefull to God than legall uncleannesse yes saith Erastus pag. 144. because God appointed greater punishments for the former then for the latter the greater crimes were punished by fire and sword stoning hanging the smaller by mulcts and stripes But yet say I by his grounds the legall uncleannesse was more hatefull to God than prophanesse and wickednesse in reference to fellowship in the holy things for that is the point He holds that the most flagitious and prophane were
3. 14. Not eat with them 1 Cor. 5. 11. Nor bid them God speed 2 Epist. John vers 10. 11. 6. That since there must be a withdrawing from a brother that walketh disorderly and scandalously it s more agreeable to the glory of God and to the Churches peace that this be done by a publick authoritative Ecclesiastical judgement and sentence than wholly and solely to trust it to the piety and prudence of each particular Christian to esteem as heathens and publicans whom and when and for what he shall think good and accordingly to withdraw and separate from them 7. That there is a distinction between Magistracy and Ministery even Iure Divino That the civil Magistrate hath not power to abolish or continue the Ministery in abstracto at his pleasure nor yet to make or unmake Ministers in concreto that is to ordain or depose Ministers as he thinks fit 8. As the Offices are distinct so is the power Magistrates may do what Ministers may not doe and Ministers may doe what Magistrates may not do 9. It is Iuris Communis a principle of common equity and naturall reason that the directive Judgement in any matter doth chiefly belong to such as by their profession and vocation are devoted and set apart to the study and knowledge of such matters and in that respect supposed to be ablest and fittest to give Judgement thereof A consultation of Physitians is called for when the Magistrate desires to know the nature symptomes or cure of some dangerous disease A consultation of Lawyers in Legal questions A Councell of War in military expeditions If the Magistrate be in a ship at Sea he takes not on him the directive part of Navigation which belongs to the master with the mates and pilot Neither doth the master of the ship if it come to a Sea-fight take on him the directive part in the fighting which belongs to the Captain And so in all other cases Artifici in sua arte credendum Wherefore though the Judgement of Christian prudence and discretion belongs to every Christian and to the Magistrate in his Station and though the Magistrate may be and sometime is learned in the Scriptures and well acquainted with the principles of true Divinity yet ut plurimum and ordinarily especially in a rightly Reformed and well constituted Church Ministers are to be supposed to be fittest and ablest to give a directive Judgement in things and causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical with whom also other ruling Church Officers do assist and joyne who are more experimentally and practically they ought also and diverse times are more Theoretically acquainted with the right way and rules of Church-government and censures then the civil Magistrate when he is no ruling Elder in the Church which is but accidentall can be rationally or ordinarily supposed to be 10. There is some power of Governement in the Church given to the Ministery by Christ else why are they said to be set over us in the Lord and called Rulers and Governours as we shall see afterwards CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto Vs and what We yeeld unto them FOr better stating of the controversie We shall first of all take notice of such particulars as are the Opposites concessions to us or our concessions to them Their concessions are these 1. That the Christian Magistrate in ordering and disposing of Ecclesiastical causes and matters of Religion is tyed to keep close to the Rule of the Word of God and that as he may not assume an Arbitrary Government of the State so far lesse of the Church 2. That Church-Officers may exercise Church-government and authority in matters of Religion where the Magistrate doth not professe and defend the true Religion In such a case two Governments are allowed to stand together one civil another Ecclesiastical This Erastus granteth as it were by constraint and it seems by way of compliance with the Divines of Zurik who hold excommunication by Church-Officers under an infidel Magistrate and that Iure Divino to move them to comply the more with him in other particulars 3. That the abuse of Church-governement is no good argument against the thing it self There being no authority so good so necessary in Church or State but by reason of their corruptions who manage it may be abused to tyranny and opression These are Mr. Prinnes words Vindic. of the 4. Questions pag. 2. 4. That some Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyteries by Divine Right Mr. Prynne in his Epistle Dedicatory before the vindication of his four questions saith that his scope is not to take from our new Presbyteries all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction due by Divine Right to them but to confine it within certain definite limits to prevent all exorbitant abuses of it 5. That the Christian Magistrate ought not may not preach the Word nor minister the Sacraments Mr. Coleman in his Brotherly examination re-examined pag. 14. I never had it in my thoughts that the Parliament had power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments Then so far there is a distinction of Magistracy and Ministery Iure Divino Yet in this he did not so well agree with Erastus 6. That the ministery is Iure Divino and Ministers have their power and authority of preaching the Word derived to them from Christ not from the Magistrate So Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to my self We preach the Word with all authority from Christ derived to us by those of our Brethren that were in Commission before us Magistrates may drive away false Teachers but not the Preachers of the Gospel but at their utmost peril 7. They admit and allow of Presbyteries so that they doe not exercise Government and Jurisdiction Erast. lib. 4. cap. 1. Our Concessions to our Opposites are these 1. That all are not to be admitted promiscuously either to be governours or members in the Ecclesiastical Republick that is in a visible political Church None are to governe nor to be abmitted members of Presbyteries or Synods except such as both for abilities and conversation are qualified according to that which the Apostle Paul requireth a Bishop or Elder to be Scandalous or prophane Church-Officers are the worst of dogs and swine and to be first cast out And as all are not to governe so all are not to be governed Ecclesiastically but onely Church-Members 1 Cor. 5. 12. Therefore what hath been objected concerning many both Pastors and People in England who are still branches of the old stock doth not strike against what we hold All are not sit for a Church-government Therefore those that are fit shall not have a Church-Government So they must argue Or thus a Popish people are not fit to be governed Presbyterially and Episcopal Ministers are not fit to governe therefore the rest of the Nation shall want a Government 2. Presbyteriall Government is not despotical but ministerial it is not a Dominion but a Service We are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.
be previous admonitions and the party admonished prove obstinate and impenitent The eighth difference stands in their correlations The Correlatum of Magistracy is people embodied in a Common-wealth or a Civil corporation The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a Church or Spiritual corporation The Common-wealth is not in the Church but the Church is in the Common-wealth that is One is not therefore in or of the Church because he is in or of the Common-wealth of which the Church is a part but yet every one that is a Member of the Church is also a Member of the Common-wealth of which that Church is a part The Apostle distinguisheth those that are without and those that are within in reference to the Church who were notwithstanding both sorts within in reference to the Common-wealth 1 Cor. 5. 12 13. The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power may be quite taken away by persecution or by defection when the Correlatum of the civil power may remain And therefore the Ecclesiastical and the civil power do not se mutuò ponere tollere Ninthly There is a great difference in the ultimate termination The Ecclesiastical power can go no further then Excommunication or in case of extraordinary warrants and when one is known to have blasphemed against the holy Ghost to Auathema Maranatha If one be not humbled and reduced by Excommunication the Church can do no more but leave him to the Judgement of God who hath promised to ratifie in Heaven what his Servants in his Name and according to his Will do upon Earth Salmasius spends a whole chapter in confuting the Point of the coactive and Magistratical Jurisdiction of Bishops See Walo Messal cap. 6. He acknowledgeth in that very place pag. 455 456 459 462 that the Elders of the Church have in common the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline to suspend from the Sacrament and to excommunicate and to receive the offender again upon the evidence of his repentance But the Point he asserteth is That Bishops or Elders have no such power as the Magistrate hath and that if he that is excommunicate do not care for it nor submit himself the Elders cannot compel him But the termination or Quo usque of the civil power is most different from this It is unto death or to banishment or to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment Ezra 7. 26. Tenthly They differ in a divided execution That is the Ecclesiastical power ought to censure sometime one whom the Magistrate thinks not fit to punish with temporal or civil punishments And again the Magistrate ought to punish with the temporal Sword one whom the Church ought not to cut off by the Spiritual Sword This difference Pareus gives Explic Catech. quaest 85. art 4. and it cannot be denied For those that plead most for Liberty of conscience and argue against all civil or temporal punishments of Hereticks do notwithstanding acknowledge that the Church whereof they are Members ought to censure and excommunicate them and doth not her duty except she do so The Church may have reason to esteem one as an Heathen and a Publican that is no Church-Member whom yet the Magistrate in prudence and policy doth permit to live in the Common-wealth Again the most notorious and scandalous sinners blasphemers murtherers adulterers incestuous persons robbers c. when God gives them repentance and the signes thereof do appear the Church doth not binde but loose them doth not retain but remit their sins I mean ministerially and declaratively Notwithstanding the Magistrate may and ought to do Justice according to Law even upon those penitent sinners CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdom of Iesus Christ a general Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God the Head of all Principalities and Powers raigning over all creatures and a particular Kingdom as he is Mediator raigning over the Church onely THe Controversie which hath been moved concerning the civil Magistrate his Vicegerentship and the holding of his Office of and under and for Jesus Christ as he is Mediator hath a necessary coherence with and dependance upon another Controversie concerning a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ one as he is the eternal Son of God raigning together with the Father and the holy Ghost over all things and so the Magistrate is his Vicegerent and holds his Office of and under him another as Mediator and Head of the Church and so the Magistrate doth not hold his Office of and under Christ as his Vicegerent Wherefore before I come to that Question concerning the origination and tenure of the Magistrate's Office I have thought good here to premise the enodation of the Question concerning the twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a distinction which Master Hussey cannot endure and no marvel for it overturneth the foundation of his opinion He looks upon it as an absurd assertion pag. 25. Shall he have one Kingdom as Mediator and another as God He quarrelleth all that I said of the twofold Kingdom of Christ and will not admit that Christ as Mediator is King of the Church onely pag. 25 26 27 35 36 37. The Controversie draweth deeper then he is aware of for Socinians and Photinians finding themselves puzzled with those arguments which to prove the eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ were drawn from such Scriptures as call him God Lord the Son of God also from such Scriptures as ascribe Worship and Adoration to him and from the Texts which ascribe to him a Supreme Lordship Dominion and Kingdom over all things For this hath been used as one Argument for the Godhead of Jesus Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father The Father raigns the Son raigns the holy Ghost raigns Vide lib. Isaaci Clari Hispani adversus Varimadum Arianum Thereupon they devised this answer That Jesus Christ in respect of his Kingly Office and as Mediator is called God and Lord and the Son of God of which see Fest. Honnij Specimen Controv. Belgic pag. 24. Ionas Schlichtingius contra Meisnerum pag. 436. and that in the same respect he is worshipped that in the same respect he is King and that the Kingdom which the Scripture ascribeth to Jesus Christ is onely as Mediator and Head of the Church and that he hath no such Universal Dominion over all things as can prove him to be the eternal Son of God This gave occasion to Orthodox-Protestant-Writters more fully and distinctly to assert the great difference between that which the Scripture saith of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God and that which it saith of him as he is Mediator and particularly to assert a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ and to prove from Scripture that besides that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator he hath another Kingdom over all things which belongs to him onely as he is the eternal Son of God This the Socinians to this day do contradict and stisly hold that Christ hath but one Kingdom which he exerciseth as
vers 18. But Becmanus answering Iulius distinguisheth the Text as I do for which Analysis I did formerly cite Beza Zanchius Gualther Bullinger Tossanus M. Bayne beside diverse others But I have found none that understands the Text as Mr. Hussey doth except the Socinians and Photinians who do not acknowledge that Christ hath such an universall dominion and Lordship over all things as God the Father but onely that he ruleth over all things as Mediator Now for answer to that which Mr. Hussey pag. 26. 27. alledgeth to prove that Christ as Mediator reigneth over all things First he tells us out of Diodati that Christ is head of the Church and King of the Universe and out of Calvin that the Kingdom of Christ is over all and filleth heaven and earth But who denieth this That which he had to prove is that Christ as Mediator is King of the Universe and as Mediator his Kingdom is spread over all and when he hath proved that he hath another thing to prove that the universality of Christs Kingdom as he is Mediator is to be understood not onely in an Ecclesiastical notion that is so far as all Nations are or shall be brought under the obedience of the Gospel but also in the notion of Civil Government that is that Christ reignes as Mediator over all creatures whether under or without the Gospel and that all Civil Power Principality and Government whatsoever in this World is put in Christs hand as Mediator If therefore he will argue let him argue so as to conclude the point The next objection he maketh is from Heb. 1. 2. Christ as Mediator is made Heir of all things But I answer Christ is Heir of all things 1. as the eternall Son of God in the same respect as it is said of Christ in the next words of the same verse that he made the world and thus he may be called Heir of all things by nature even as Col. 1. 15. he is called the first borne of every creature 2. He is heir of all things as Mediator for the Heathen and all the ends of the earth are given him for an inheritance Psal. 2. 8. but that is onely Church-wise he shall have a Catholique Church gathered out of all Nations and all kings and people and tongues and languages shall be made to serve him Moreover Mr. Hussey objecteth from Heb. 2. 8. and 1 Cor. 15. 28. that God hath put all things under Christs feet as he is Mediator Answ. As this is not perfectly fulfilled in this World but will then be fulfilled when Christ shall have put down all rule and all authority and power so in the measure and degree wherein it is fulfilled in this World it concerneth not men onely but all the works of Gods hands Heb. 2. 7. Thou crownedst him with glory and honour and didst set him over the works of thy hands Which is taken out of the eighth Psalme vers 6. 7. Thou hast put all things under his feet all sheep and oxen c. Now how is it that the Apostle applyeth all this to Christ How doth Christ rule over the beasts fowles fishes Calvin in 1 Cor. 15. 27. 28. answereth dominatur ergo ut omnia serviant ejus gloriae He ruleth so as all things may serve for his glory So then all things are put under Christs feet as he is Mediator both in regard of his excellency dignity and glory unto which he is exalted far above all the glory of any creature and in respect of his power and over-ruling providence whereby he can dispose of all things so as may make most for his glory But it is a third thing which Mr. Hussey hath to prove namely that Christ as Mediator exerciseth his office and government over all men as his Subjects and over all Magistrates as his Deputies yea over all things even over the reasonlesse creatures for by his arguing he will have Christ as Mediator to governe the sheep oxen fowles and fishes all things as well as all persons being put under Christs feet But in the handling of this very argument Mr. Hussey yeelds the cause God is said to put all things under him saith he whereby it is implyed that all things were not under him before they were put under him but as the second Person in Trinity so nothing could be said to be put under him because they were in that respect alwaies under him Is not this all one for substance with that distinction formerly cited out of Polanus of a two-fold Kingdom of Christ one natural as he is the second Person in the Trinity another donative as he is Mediator Lastly Mr. Hussey argueth from Phil. 2. 8. 9. 10. Christ as Mediator is exalted to have a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee may bow Answ. Here is indeed a dignity glory and power as Diodati saith above all things but yet not a government or kingdom as Mediator for those who must bow the knee to Christ are not onely things in heaven that is Angels and things in earth that is men but also things under the earth that is divells yet divells are none of the Subjects of Christs kingdom as he is Mediator Therefore this Text proves not a Head-ship or Government over all which Mr. Hussey contends for but a power over all I will here anticipate another objection which is not moved by Mr. Hussey It may be objected from 1 Cor. 11. 3. that the head of every man is Christ. I answer 1. Some understand this of Christ as God and as the Creator of man And if it be said that the latter clause the head of Christ is God is meant of Christ as Mediator and not as God yet Martyr tells us out of Chrysostome that all these comparisons and subordinations in this Text are not to be taken in one and the same sence 2. I grant also that Christ may be called the head of every man not onely in respect of his God-head but as Mediator that is the head of every man in the Church not of every man in the World for the Apostle speaks de ordine divinitus sancito in Ecclesiae corpore mystico as Mr. David Dicksone an Interpreter who hath taken very good pains in the Textuall study of Scripture saith upon the place I shall clear it by the like formes of speech Ier. 30 6. Wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loyns Luke 16. 16. The Kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth unto it 1 Cor. 12. 7. The manifestaetion of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall Heb. 2. 9. Iesus did taste death for every man Yet none of these places are meant of every man in the World 3. Yea in some sence Christ as Mediator may be called the head of every man in the World that is in respect of dignity excellency glory eminence of place quia in hoc sexu ille supra omnes eminet saith
to the holy men of God in the old Testament who honoured Heathen Princes and were subject to them as to lawful Magistrates but also to the doctrine of Jesus Christ who taught his Disciples to give unto Caesar what is Caesars and of the Apostles who in their time exhorted the Churches to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates for they had no other at that time to obey them to pray for them Rom. 13. Titus 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. 17. It is justly condemned as one of the errors of the Anabaptists that an heathen Magistrate is not to be acknowledged as a lawfull Magistrate or as being from God See Gerhard loc com Tom. 6. Pag. 498 499 P. Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo disp 13. cap. 1. The Scriptures now cited are so clear that when Mr. Hussey saith of the heathen Magistrate Let Baal plead for himself he might as well have said that Christ and his Apostles pleaded for Baal They that plead for the authority of an heathen Magistrate do not plead for Baal but for God and for his ordinance for the powers that be are ordained of God saith Paul speaking even of the heathen Magistrates Rom. 13. 1. But what will Mr. Hussey say if his great master Erastus be found a pleader for Baal as much as I am Confirm Thes. lib. 3. cap. 2. pag. 184. speaking of the heathen and unbeleeving Magistrates before whom the Corinthians went to law one against another he saith An non est impius quoque Magistratus à Deo praepositus ut subjectes quoslibet ab injuria vi tueatur Is not the ungodly Magistrate also preferred by God that he may defend any of his Subjects from injury and violence Yea the Scriptures afore touched are so clear in this point that Gamachaeus in primam secunda Quaest. 4. 5. cap. 33. though he hold that by humane and Ecclesiastical right Pagan Princes lose their dominion and authority over their Subjects when their Subjects turne Christians yet he acknowledgeth that they still retain their former Jurisdiction over those Subjects by the Law of God and nature Surely one might as well say that heathen Parents are unlawful and heathen masters are unlawful and heathen husbands are unlawful all which were contrary to the Word of God as to say that heathen Magistrates are unlawful Take the instance in Parents for all lawful Magistrates are fathers by the fifth Commandement Doth the paternity of a heathen father differre specie from the paternity of a Christian father are they not both lawful parents being made such by God and nature are not their children bound to honour them and be subject to them and obey them in things lawful The paternity is the same in se but different modaliter that I may borrow a distinction from Mr. Hussey The Christian father is sanctified and qualified to do service to Jesus Christ as a father in educating his children Christianly which an heathen father can not do So the heathen Magistrate and the Christian Magistrate are both lawful Magistrates being made such by God and nature or by election of people they are both of them to be honoured submitted unto and obeyed they are both of them the ministers of God for good to their people their power is the same in actu signato though not in actu exercito The heathen Magistrate may do and ought to do what the Christian Magistrate doth but the Christian Magistrate is fitted qualified enabled and sanctified to glorifie and serve Jesus Christ as a Magistrate which the heathen Magistrate is not Secondly They that hold the derivation of Magistracy to be from Jesus Christ and that it is held of and under him as Mediator must either shew from Scripture that Jesus Christ as Mediator hath given a commission of Vicegerentship or Deputyship to the Christian Magistrate or otherwise acknowledge that they have given the most dangerous and deadly wound even to Christian Magistracy it self which ever before it received Mr. Hussey pag. 20 answereth I conceive he the Christian Magistrate hath a Commission from Christ but when he should prove it which my argument calld for here he is at a losse He citeth Psal. 72 11. All Kings shall fall downe before him all Nations shall serve him Isa. 60. 12. That Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish I hope indeed there is a time comming when all Kings shall fall down before Jesus Christ and all Nations shall serve him and that will make an end of the Erastian controversie But I pray do all that serve Jesus Christ hold their office of and under Christ as Mediator and as his Vicegerents then the poorest servant that fears God shall be a Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator and shall have a commission from Christ to that effect for every godly servant doth not serve his master onely but Christ Eph. 6. 5 6 7. Again if those who shall perish because they serve not Christ be his Deputies and Vicegerents then the wickedest persecuters in the World shall have a commission of Vicegerentship from Jesus Christ. Well let the Christian Magistrate animadvert whether these men have done any thank-worthy service to Magistracy who will needs have it to hold of and unâ—er Christ as Mediator and by a commission of Vicegerentship from him and when they are put to it to produce that commission they prove no more then agreeth either to the meanest Christian or to the wickedest persecuter The Ministery hath a clear undeniable commission from Christ as Mediator even our opposites themselves being Judges Matth. 16. 19. and 28. 19. 20. Iohn 20. 21 22 23. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. Eph. 4. 11 12. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5. I say therefore again let them also shew from Scripture a commission from Jesus Christ constituting Christian Magistrates to be his Vicegerents as he is Mediator and to hold their office of and under him as Mediator which if they cannot shew they have done a greater disservice to the Christian Magistrate then they can easily repair or amend We are sure the lawful Magistrate whether Heathen or Christian is Gods Vicegerent and that is a safe holding of his office But our opposites shall never prove that any civil Magistrate though Christian and godly is the Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator And in seeking to prove it I am perswaded they shall but discover their own weaknesse and shall also weaken the Magistrates authority more then they can strengthen it Thirdly The Scripture intimateth this difference between Ministery and Magistracy that the work of the Ministery and the administrations thereof are performed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church the work of Magistracy not so except we adde to the Word of God they who will do any thing in the Name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and cannot find any Scripture which can warrant their so doing are lyars and the truth is not in
scandals in the Church surely it is more then he can discharge or give a good account to God of It will be hard enough to Church-officers to do it though they are set apart to that service and ex officio do watch over peoples souls as they that must give an account But for the Christian Magistrate to discharge the whole corrective part of Church-Government and to watch over the soules of all the people so as to take care of the purging of the Church from scandals and for that end to observe examine and judge all offences in the Church and to determine that this man ought to be admitted to the Sacrament and that man ought not to be admitted for that there must be a suspension of scandalous and unworthy persons I now take it for granted because of the Ordinance of Parliament as it is impossible for the Magistrate to do all this so I beleeve it will be to him durus sermo a hard saying to hear that he must give account to God of all these things and that Ministers have no more to answer for but preaching ministring the Sacraments to those to whom they are appointed to give them catechizing visiting the sick exhorting admonishing reproving comforting It was a good argument against the Prelat he assumed the Ecclesiastical government of a whole Diocesse and could not give account to God for so many thousands and sometime hundreths of thousand souls Yet Mr. Coleman would have had the Parliament to be Church-Officers to the whole Kingdom in point of corrective Government and the Ministery to have no part of that government But then I ask How shall they answer for that Ecclesiastical Government and administration of theirs more then the Prelat could answer for the Ecclesiastical Government of a whole Diocesse If it be said that the Parliament is onely to settle a rule and to give order what is to be done and to commit the execution and the managing of particular cases to subordinate Courts and inferiour Officers then no more is said then the Prelats did plead for themselves that they did per alium what they could not do per se. So that such principles do tend directly to involve the Parliament in the Prelatical guiltinesse which our Principles do avoid Was it not another Argument used against the Prelats that they could not manage both Civil and Church-government and that an Ecclesiastical Administration could not consist with civil power and places in the Parliament or with offices of State any one of these administrations either the civil or the Ecclesiastical requiring the whole man Do not the Erastians endeavour to draw the Parliament into the very same absurdity with which the Prelats were pressed For if any of these two administrations require the whole man how can the civil Magistrate though Christian take upon him the burthen of Church-Government more then Church-Officers can take upon them the burthen of civil-government Philo the Jew gives this reason why Moses did make a partition of the charge between Ioshua and Aaron committing to the one the civil to the other the Ecclesiastical administration He considered that it was impossible rightly to take care both of the supreme civil power and of the Priesthood since the one professeth to care for things pertaining to God the other for men Philo de charitate Tenthly Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabilâ—… If the Apostle had required the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous man upon such grounds and reasons as were proper to that time and are not applicable to after times so as to prove the necessity of excommunication for the like offence then there were some reason why excommunication should not be esteemed a perpetual ordinance in the Church but it is manifest that the reasons given by the Apostle were not proper to that time but do concern this time as well as that The reasons are taken 1. From the glory of God versâ—… 1. 2. He that had done such wickednesse as was not so much as named among the Gentiles was not to be suffered among Gods people but to be taken away from among them If evil be not put away from Israel it is a great dishonour to the God of Israel This first argument used by the Apostle is like that Ezek. 36. 22 23. They had prophaned the holy name of God among the Heathen therefore God would sanctifie his great name and make the Heathen to know that he is the Lord when he should be sanctified in his people before their eyes 2. From the commission power and authority which the Church of Corinth that is their Presbytery compare 2 Cor. 2. 6. had to excommunicate such aâ—one vers 4 5. In the name of our Lord Iesus Christ when ye are gathered together c. 3. From the good and benefit of the sinner himself that he might be ashamed humbled reclaimed mortified and saved vers 5. For the destruction of the Flesh that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 4. From the Churches good that the Church might be preserved from the contagion of such sinful examples vers 6. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump 5. From that which was signified and typified by the purging out of leaven from Israel in the time of the Passeover vers 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven c. 6. From the end of Christs death which was to purifie and sanctifie as well as to reconcile and justifie his people vers 7. 8. For Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us Therefore let us keep the Feast c. 7. From the difference which ought to be made between the foul sins of Church-members and others that are not Church-members a blacker mark is to be put upon the former then upon the latter and more withdrawing there must be from a scandalous brother or professor of Christian Religion then from a prophane Heathen vers 9. 10. 11. From all which it doth appear that it is not without good reason that Martyr and Pareus upon 1 Cor. 5. do maintain the necessity of Excommunication under a Christian and pious Magistrate as well as under an Infidel and prophane Magistrate Eleventhly The end and use for which Church-censures are necessary is not intended and endeavoured much lesse attained by the government of the Christian Magistrate For though the Christian Magistrate punisheth many I cannot say all grosse and scandalous sins with corporal or civil punishments yet to punish sin is one thing to seek the salvation of the sinner is another thing so the offender his suffering of punishment and satisfying the Law of the Land is one thing his declaring of his repentance and publike confession of his sin for taking away the scandal which he hath given to the Church is another thing Suppose a deliâ—quent whose fault is not capitall by the law of the land for instance a Fornicator a drunkard a common swearer a Sabbath-breaker or the like to
Grotius did well perceive for in his annotations upon the place after he hath told his opinion that excommunication is not meant in this Text he addeth that he hath elsewhere spoken of the antiquity and necessity of Excommunication quanquam ad eam ex hoc etiam loco non absurde argumentum duci pâ—…sse non negaverim though I will not deny saith he that even from this place the argument may be drawn to excommunication without any absurdity My argument afore-mentioned will hold good even from Master Prynnes owne exposition Thus farre I have gone upon a consession now to the confutation Before I come to his reasons I observe in his margent a double mistake of the testimony of Scapula First he sends us to Scapula to learn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any civill assembly or councell as well as an Ecclesiasticall Presbytery Yes Scapula tels us it hath in Heathen writers a generall signification to expresse any Assembly called forth But he addeth immediately that in the writing of Christians it signifieth the assembly of such as are called to eternall life and doe professe Christian Religion Since therefore it hath not the same signification in Heathen writings and in the New Testament he should have shewed us where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament doth signifie a civill Court of Justice I hope the holy Ghost did speake so in this place as he might be understood and to take the word Church here in that sence which it hath nowhere else in the new Testament doth not agree with that received maxime That Scripture is to be expounded by Scripture I finde indeed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for a Civill assembly Acts 19. 39 41. But as that is an Heathen assembly so it is not the Evangelist Luke his expression otherwise then recitative that is he mentioneth an Heathen assembly under that name by which Heathens themselves called it His other mistake of Scapula is the citing of him for that assertion that the Church in this Text is not an Ecclesiasticall Con sistory Whereas Scapula doth expound the Church Matth. 18. to be meant of the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders as Stephani Thesaurus doth also and having told that the word signifieth the whole Christian Church also particular Congregations he addeth two more restricted significations sometimes it signifieth a Christian family sometimes the Presbytery for this last he citeth Matth. 18. Now I proceed to M r Prynnes Reasons First saith he this Text speakes not at all of any publique scandalous sinne against the Church or Congregation the proper object of Church censures but onely of private civill trespasses between man and man as is evident by the words If thy brother trespasse against thee goe and tell him his fault between him and thee c. Answ. We have ever understood that place of such trespasses which grow publique afterwards by the offenders obstinacy after admonition Yet the trespasse here meant may be often such as even at first is scandalous to more then one Such a case falleth under Christs rule here and is not excluded Wherein observe Durand upon the fourth Book of the Master of Sentences Dist. 19. Quest. 4. But if saith he the sinne be not altogether secret nor altogether knowne that is such as is known to many by whom he may be convict or be is ill reported of among grave persons though the publique fame be not against him so the procedor which Christ hath set us in the Gospell seemeth to have place to wit that first he may be secretly admonished concerning his amendment which if it profit not that he may be admonished concerning his amendment before those who know the fact but if that also doe not profit that then he may be declared to the Church But if we should grant that no other trespasse is meant here but a private trespasse yet I aske is there no private trespasse but that which is civill The Schoolmen writing de scandalo will tell him that one brother trespasseth against another when he scandalizeth him by any sinfull example though without any civill injury Nay it s the greatest trespasse which is committed against the soule of our neighbour scandall is soule murther It is a breach of the Law of love not onely by omission but by commission He that is commanded to edifie his brother and then giveth scandall to him doth he not trespasse against his brother The like answer I return to that which he addeth that Luke relating the same thing without any Dic Ecclesiae Luk. 17. 3 4 puts it out of question if compared with Gen. 52. 31. there is no such Scripture 1 Sam. 25. 28. What out of question Doth he not find scandalous sins in the two verses immediately preceding in Luke and thereupon it s immediatly added Take heed to your selves if thy brother trespasse against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him Can not a Christian rebuke his brother who scandalizeth him and if he repent forgive him Luke needed not adde Dic Ecclesiae because he speaks of a repenting brother not of an impenitent brother after private admonition And that scandalous trespasses are understood Matth. 18. 19. as Augustine Tostatus and many others have observed may thus appeare 1. Scandals are the greatest and worst trespasses as hath been said and woe unto the world because of offences Surely Jesus Christ did intend to provide a remedy against the greatest evils rather than against the lesser 2. Christ would not be Judge of civill injuries Luke 12. 14. How can it be then supposed that he giveth here Lawes concerning civill rather then spirituall injuries 3. Christ saith If be shall heare not repaire thee thou hast gained not thy goods or thy good name or the like but thy brother Intimating that it s not a mans owne interest but the rescuing of his brothers soule from sinne and scandall which is here sought M r Prynne himselfe confirmeth it not a little for he takes the meaning to be of avoyding a brothers company in the case of a civill or private injury if he continue impenitent after admonition Now what if he that hath done the injury make full reparation and all reall satisfaction to the brother injured and yet continue impenient shewing no symptome at all of repentance must he not by M r Prynnes exposition be esteemed as an heathen man and a Publican because of his visible and scandalous impenitency How often hath it been seen that a man was compelled by Law or perswaded by friends to make a reall restitution and full satisfaction for a civill or personall injury and yet hath given very great scandall by his impenitency not so much as confessing but still defending and justifying his sinfull act in his discourses 4. The dependency upon the preceding parts of that Chapter confirmeth it from the beginning of the Chapter to this very Text vers 15. Christ hath been upon the
an Heathen man and a Publican 6. This interpretation as it is fathered upon Grotius so it may be confuted out of Grotius upon the very place He expounds Tell it unto the Church by the same words which Drusius citeth è libro Musar declare it coram multis before many But is this any other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many spoken of 2 Cor 2. 6 a place cited by Grotius himselfe together with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. Now these were acts of Ecclesiasticall power and authority not simply the acts of a greater number He tels us also it was the manner among the Jewes to referre the businesse ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the assembly of those who were of the same way or followed the same rites the judgements of which multitude saith he seniores tanquam praesides moderabantur the Elders as Presidents did moderate He further cleares it out of Tertullian apol cap. 39. where speaking of the Churches or assemblies of Christians he saith ibidem etiam exhortationes castigationes censura divina c. praesident probati quique seniores Where there are also exhortations corrections and Divine censure c. all the approved Elders doe preside And is not this the very thing we contend for I hope I may now conclude that Tell the Church is neither meant of the civill Magistrate nor simply of a greater number but of the Elders or as others expresse it better of the Eldership or Assembly of Elders So Stephanus Scapula and Pasor in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin Bucerus Illyricus Beza Hunnius Tossanus Pareus Cartwright Camero Diodati the Dutch annotations all upon the place Marlorat in Thesauro in the word Ecclesia Zanchius in 4. Praec pag. 741. Iunius Animad in Bell. Contr. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6. Gerhard loc theol Tom. 6. pag. 137. Meisuerus Disput. de regim Eccles. quaest 1. Trelcatius Instit. Theol. lib. 1. pag. 291. Polanus Syntag. lib. 7. cap. 1. Bullinger in 1 Cor. 5. 4. Whittaker de Ecclesia quaest 1. cap. 2. Danaeus in 1 Tim. pag. 246. 394. These and many more understand that neither the Magistrate nor the multitude of the Church nor simply a great number is meant by the Church Matth. 18. but the Elders or Ecclesiasticall senate who have the name of the Church partly by a Synâ—cdoche because they are a chief part of the Church as otherwhere the people or flock distinct from the Elders is called the Church Act. 20. 28. partly because of their eminent station and principall function in the Church as we say we have seen such a mans Picture when haply t is but from the shoulders upward partly because the Elders act in all matters of importance so as they carry along with them the knowledge and consent of the Church And therefore according to Salmeron his observation Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 9. Christ would not say Tell the officers or Rulers of the Church but Tell the Church because an obstinate offender is not to be excommunicate secretly or in a corner but with the knowledge and consent of the whole Church so that for striking of the sinner with the greater fear and shame in regard of that knowledge and consent of the Church the telling of the officers is called the telling of the Church partly also because of the ordinary manner of speaking in the like cases that which is done by the Parliament is done by the Kingdom and that which is done by the common Councell is done by the City Among the Jewes with whom Christ and his Apostles were conversant this manner of speaking was usuall Danaeus where before cited citeth R. David Kimchi upon Ose. 5. noting that the name of the house of Israel is often put for the Sanhedrin in Scripture T is certaine the Sanhedrin hath divers times the name Kabal in the Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek of the old Testament Which is acknowledged even by those who have contended for a kind of popular Government in the Church See Guide unto Zion pag. 5. Ainsworth in his Counterpoison pag. 113. CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. THey that doe not understand Matth. 18. 17. of Excommunication are extreamely difficulted and scarce know what to make of that binding and loosing which is mentioned in the words immediately following v. 18. verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Erastus and Grotius understand it of a private brother or the party offended his binding or loosing of the offender Bishop Bilson understands it of a civill binding or loosing by the Magistrate whom he conceives to be meant by the Church vers 17. These doe acknowledge a coherence and dependance between vers 17. and 18. M r Prynne differing from them doth not acknowledge this coherence and expounds the binding and loosing to be ministeriall indeed but onely Doctrinall Some others dissenting from all these doe referre this binding and loosing not to a person but to a thing or Doctrine whatsoever ye shall bind that is whatsoever ye shall declare to be false erroneous impious c. Sutlivius though he differ much from us in the Interpretation of vers 15 16 17. yet he differeth as much if not more from the Erastians in the Interpretation of vers 18. for he will have the binding and loosing to be Ecclesiasticall and spirituall not civill to be Juridicall not Doctrinall onely to be Acts of Government committed to Apostles Bishops and Pastors he alloweth no share to ruling Elders yet he alloweth as little of the power of binding and loosing either to the Magistrate or to the party offended See him de Presbyteriâ—… Cap. 9. 10. So that they can neither satisfie themselves nor others concerning the meaning and the context For the confutation of all those Glosses and for the vindication of the true scope and sence of the Text I shall first of all observe whence this phrase of binding and loosing appeareth to have been borrowed namely both from the Hebrewes and from the Graecians The Hebrews did ascribe to the Interpreters of the Law Power authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to loose So Grotius tells us on Mat. 16. 19. The Hebrews had their loosing of an Excommunicated person which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Buxtorf Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 1410. The Grecians also had a binding and loosing which was judiciall Budaeus and Stephanus on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cite out of Aeschines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quum primo suffragio non absolutus fuerit reus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the stone by which the Senators did give their suffrage in judgement It was either a blacke stone by which they did bind the sinner and retaine his sinne and that stone
that 1 Cor. 5. 13. proveth excommunication and why the gathering together vers 4. should not be intended for the same worke I cannot imagine Some question there was of old whether the Apostles meaning vers 13. were not that the Corinthians should put away every man out of himselfe the evill of sinne Which Augustine having somewhere left in medio doth in his Retractations correct and Beda upon the place out of him tels us the very same and expound it of the taking away of the evill man from the Church by Excommunication because saith he the Greeke can not be rendered hoc malum but hunc malum 2. They who had power to receive him and forgive him and to confirme their love towards him had power to cast him out and censure him but those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church officers of the Church of Corinth had power of the former Therefore of the latter See 2 Cor. 2. 7 8. The Apostle adviseth them to forgive the offender How to forgive him not as man forgives a private injury that was not the case Nor onely by the doctrine of remission of sinnes applied to him in foro conscientiae upon evidence of his repentance that any one Minister might doe But the Apostle will have those many who had censured him consistorially and judicially to forgive him in the same manner Which is yet further confirmed by that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confirming of their love towards him vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ratum facere thence commeth not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Apostle will expresse a ratified or confirmed testament Galat. 3. 15. he cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the same word Erasmus doth collect that the Apostle speaketh to them as the ordinary Judges who have power to confirme their love to that penitent sinner in an authoritative manner And why doth the Apostle choose a word which properly signifiâ—th an authoritative confirming or ratifying of a thing if he were not speaking of a jurisdiction and power of inflicting and taking off againe censures 3. The Apostle upon occasion of that offenders case puts the Corinthians in remembrance that they ought likewise to purge the Church from the mixture of other scandalous sinners 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11 12. The Chapter both begins and ends with the case of the incestuous man and his punishment which makes interpreters conceive that what is enterlaced concerning other scandalous sinners in the Church is to be understood of such as the Apostle would have to be censured in the same manner as that incestuous man 4. He instanceth in six cases not intending an enumeration of all the particular cases of Excommunication fornication covetousnesse meaning covetousnesse scandalously and grossely manifested or practicall covetousnesse for of the heart God onely judgeth idolatry railing drunkennesse extortion His instancing in these tels us he intends not the case of private civill injuries but of scandals yea though the scandall be without the mixture of any civill or private injury as in the case of an Idolater or a drunkard 5. And even where there is a private injury wrapt up in the bosome of the scandall as in railing and extortion yet the Apostle there looketh upon them not qua injuries but qua scandals and in that notion he will have not onely the party particularly interrested and injured but the other members of the Church also to withdraw communion from the offender for he writeth to the whole Church of Corinth not to keepe company with such 6. When he saith with such a one no not to â—…ate he intimates by No not some further and greater punishment than not eating with him as hath been said before If not so much as eating with him then muchlesse Church communion with him at the Lords Table 7. He meanes not of that withdrawing whereby each Christian may and ought to withdraw familiarity and fellowship from such a notorious scandalous sinner whose sinne is manifest before hand that he may keep himselfe pure and not partake of another mans sinne In which case a member of one Church may withdraw familiar conversing with a scandalous member of another Church But he speakes of such a withdrawing from and avoyding of the fellowship of a scandalous Brother as is done not by one or some few private Christians but by the whole Church for hee writeth to the whole Church of Corinth not to company nor eate with such a one I say by the whole Church whereof the offender was a member and that not without a judiciall or consistoriall sentence vers 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within which can not be restricted to the judgement of Christian discretion and prudence for so both the Apostles and they did judge those that were without to walke circumspectly toward them Col. 4. 5. and to beware of their evill But t is meant of censures and punishments inflicted by many that is by the Presbyters of that Church 2 Cor. 2. 6. 8. And so I have touched upon the last consideration which is this That as the fault was a scandall given to the Church and the judgement and censure was Ecclesiasticall not civill so that censure for that offence was inflicted onely upon Church members not upon unbelievers If an unbeliever did a civill injury to a Christian the Christian was free to accuse the unbeliever if he saw it good before the civill Magistrate and there to seeke judgement and justice Or the Christian was free to withdraw civill fellowship from the unbeliever which did him a civill injury which I suppose M r Prynne will easily grant But this way of censuring and punishing a scandalous Church member did not agree to an Heathen who was an Idolater or drunkard or extortioner c. Vers. 10 11 12 13. Thus I have proved Church censure from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2 Cor. 2. without laying the weight of any argument upon Tradere Sathanae Which I would not have to be understood as if I yeelded to our opposites that the delivering to Satan is not meant of Excommunication My meaning is onely to make the shorter worke of the Erastian Antithesis The weight of their arguments not of ours is laid upon Tradere Sathanae But for my sence of the word I am of their opinion who interpret it of Excommunication and so doth Gualther himselfe So doth the Syriack which readeth That you Corinthians may deliver such a one to Satan If it was an an act of the Church of Corinth then it was a Church censure not a miracle The Greeke doth also carry it to be an act of the Church of Corinth assembled together We have also some though not all of the Ancients for us in this particular as Balsamon in Canon epist. Basilii ad Amphiloâ—… Câ—…n â— observeth Basil speaketh of some who at that time had been delivered to Satan for 30 yeeres that they might learn not to