power hath for the matter of it the earthly Scepter and the Temporal Sword that is it is Monarchical and Legislative it is also punitive or coercive of those that do evil understand upon the like reason remunerative of those that do well The Ecclesiastical power hath for the matter of it the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven 1. The key of knowledge or doctrine and that to be administred not onely severally by each Minister concionaliter but also Consistorially and Synodically in determining controversies of Faith and that according to the rule of holy Scripture onely which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The key of order and decency so to speak by which the circumstances of Gods Worship and all such particulars in Ecclesiastical affairs as are not determined in Scripture are determined by the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church so as may best agree to the generall rules of the word concerning order and decency avoyding of scandall doing all to the glory of God and to the edifying of one another And this is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The key of corrective discipline or censures to be exercised upon the scandalous and obstinate which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Adde also the key of Ordination or mission of Church-Officers which I may call clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authorizing or power giving key others call it missio potestativa 3. They differ in their formes The power of Magistracy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is an authority or dominion exercised in the particulars above mentioned and that in an immediate subordination to God for which reason Magistrates are called gods The Ecclesiastical power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely It is meerly Ministeriall and Steward-like and exercised in an immediate subordination to Iesus Christ as King of the Church and in his name and authority 4. They differ in their ends The supreme end of Magistracy is onely the glory of God as King of Nations and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth And in that respect the Magistrate is appointed to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to the moral Law the obligation where of lyeth upon all Nations and all men The supreme end of the Ecclesiastical power is either proximus or remotus The neerest and immediate end is the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church The more remote end is the glory of God as having all power and authority in heaven and earth You will say Must not then the Christian Magistrate intend the glory of Iesus Christ and to be subservient to him as he is Mediator and King of the Church Certainly he ought and must and God forbid but that he should do so But how not qua Magistrate but qua Christian. If you say to me again Must not the Christian Magistrate intend to be otherwise subservient to the Kingdom of Iesus Christ as Mediator then by personal or private Christian duties which are incumbent to every Christian I answer no doubt he ought to intend more even to glorifie Iesus Christ in the administration of Magistracy Which that you may rightly apprehend and that I be not misunderstood take this distinction It is altogether incumbent to the ruling Officers of the Church to intend the glory of Christ as Mediator even ex natura rei in regard of the very nature of Ecclesiasticall power and government which hath no other end and use for which it was intended and instituted but to be subservient to the Kingly office of Iesus Christ in the governing of his Church upon earth and therefore sublata Ecclesiâ perit regimen Ecclesiasticum take away the Church out of a Nation and you take away all Ecclesiasticall power of government which makes another difference from Magistracy as we shall see anon But the Magistrate though Christian and godly doth not ex natura rei in regard of the nature of his particular vocation intend the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church but in regard of the common principles of Christian Religion which do oblige every Christian in his particular vocation and station and so the Magistrate in his to intend that end All Christians are commanded that whatever they do in word or deed they do all in the name of the Lord Iesus Col. 3. 17. that is according to the will of Christ and for the glory of Christ And so a Marchant a Mariner a Tradesman a School-master a Captain a Souldier a Printer and in a word every Christian in his own place and station ought to intend the glory of Christ and the good of his Church and Kingdom Upon which ground and principle if the Magistrate be Christian it is incumbent to him so to administer that high and eminent vocation of his that Christ may be glorified as King of the Church and that this Kingdom of Christ may flourish in his Dominions which would God every Magistrate called Christian did really intend So then the glory of Christ as Mediator and King of the Church is to the Ministery both finis operis and finis operantis To the Magistrate though Christian it is onely finis operantis That is it is the end of the godly Magistrate but not the end of Magistracy whereas it is not onely the end of the godly Minister but the end of the Ministery it self The Ministers intendment of this end flowes from the nature of their particular vocation The Magistrates intendment of the same end flowes from the nature of their general vocation of Christianity acting guiding and having influence into their particular vocation So much of the supreme ends Now the subordinate end of all Ecclesiastical power is that all who are of the Church whether Officers or members may live godly righteously and soberly in this present world be kept within the bounds of obedience to the Gospel void of all known offence toward God and toward man and be made to walk according to the rules delivered to us by Christ and his Apostles The subordinate end of the Civil power is that all publike sins committed presumptuously against the moral Law may be exemplarly punished and that peace justice and good order may be preserved and maintained in the Common-wealth which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the Church and to the promoting of the course of the Gospel For this end the Apostle bids us pray for Kings and all who are in Authority though they be Pagans much more if they be Christians that we may live under them a peaceable and quiet life in all Godlinesse and Honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. He saith not simply that we may live in Godlinesse and Honesty but that we may both live peaceably and quietly and also live godly and honestly which is the very same that we
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
his place against the holy Ghost the said holy Spirit bearing the contrary record to his Conscience Testimonies taken out of the Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the 〈◊〉 Churches Râ—printed at London 1643. Pag. 238. Out of the confession of Helvetia FUrthermore there is another power of duty or ministerial power limited out by him who hath full and absolute power and authority And this is more like a Ministry then Dominion For we see that some master doth give unto the steward of his house authority and power over his House and for that cause delivereth him his keyes that he may admit or exclude such as his master will have admitted or excluded According to this power doth the Minister by his office that which the Lord hath commanded him to do and the Lord doth ratifie and confirm that which he doth and will have the deeds of his ministers to be acknowledged and esteemed as his own deeds unto which end are those speeches in the Gospel I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest or loosest in earth shall be bound and loosed in heaven Again whose sins soever ye remit they shall be remitted and whose sins soever ye retain they shall be retained But if the minister deal not in all things as his Lord hath commanded him but passe the limits and bounds of Faith then the Lord doth make void that which he doth Wherefore the Ecclesiastical power of the Ministers of the Church is that function whereby they do indeed govern the Church of God but yet so as they do all things in the Church as he hath prescribed in his Word which thing being so done the faithful do esteem them as done of the Lord himself Pag. 250. Out of the confession of Bohemia THe 14th Chapter of Ecclesiastical doctrine is of the Lords keyes of which he saith to Peter I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and these keyes are the peculiar function or Ministery and administration of Christ his power and his holy Spirit which power is committed to the Church of Christ and to the Ministers thereof unto the end of the world that they should not onely by preaching publish the holy Gospel although they should do this especially that is should shew forth that Word of true comfort and the joyful message of peace and new tydings of that favour which God offereth but also that to the beleeving and unbeleeving they should publikely or privately denounce and make known to wit to them his favour to these his wrath and that to all in general or to every one in particular that they may wisely receive some into the house of God to the communion of Saints and drive some out from thence and may so through the performance of their Ministery hold in their hand the Scepter of Christ his Kingdom and use the same to the government of Christ his Sheep And after Moreover a manifest example of using the power of the keyes is laid out in that sinner of Corinth and others whom St. Paul together with the Church in that place by the power and authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Spirit threw out from thence and delivered to Sathan and contrariwise after that God had given him grace to repent he absolved him from his sins he took him again into the Church to the communion of Saints and Sacraments and so opened to him the Kingdom of Heaven again By this we may understand that these keyes or this divine function of the Lords is committed and granted to those that have charge of souls and to each several Ecclesiastical Societies whether they be smal or great Of which thing the Lord sayeth to the Churches Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven And straight after For where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the middest of them Pag. 253. Out of the French Confession VVE beleeve that this true Church ought to be governed by that regiment or discâ—pline which our Lord Jesus Christ hath established to wit so that there be Pastors Elders and Deacons that the purity of doctrine may be retained vices repressed c. Pag. 257. Out of the Confession of Belgia VVE beleeve that this Church ought to be ruled and governed by that spiritual Regiment which God himself hath delivered in his word so that there be placed in it Pastors and Ministers purely to preach and rightly to administer the holy Sacraments that there be also in it Seniors and Deacons of whom the Senate of the Church might consist that by these means true Religion might be preserved and sincere doctrine in every place retained and spread abroad that vicious and wicked men might after a spiritual manner be rebuked amended and as it were by the bridle of discipline kept within their compasse Pag. 260. Out of the Confession of Auspurge AGain by the Gospel or as they term it by Gods Law Bishops as they be Bishops that is such as have the administration of the Word and Sacraments committed to them have no jurisdiction at all but onely to forgive sin Also to know what is true doctrine and to reject such Doctrine as will not stand with the Gospel and to debarre from the communion of the Church such as are notoriously wicked not by humane force and violence but by the word of God And herein of necessity the Churches ought by the law of God to perform obedience unto them according to the saying of Christ He that heareth you heareth me Upon which place the Observation saith thus To debar the wicked c. To wit by the judgement and verdict of the Presbyterie lawfully gathered together c. A Testimony out of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France Cap. 5. Art 9. THe knowledge of scandals and the censure or judgement thereof belongeth to the Company of Pastors and Elders Art 15. If it befalleth that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistories to such as have done amisse there be some other punishment or more rigorous censure to be used It shall then be done either by suspension or privation of the holy communion for a time or by excommunication or cutting off from the Church In which cases the Consistories are to be advised to use all prudence and to make distinction betwixt the one and the other As likewise to ponder and carefully to examine the faults and scandals that are brought before them with all their circumstances to judge warily of the censure which may be required Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum Cap. 14. Art 7. 8. 9. PEccata sua natura publica aut per admonitionis privatae contemtum publicata ex Consistorii totius arbitrio modo formâ ad aedificationem maximè accomodatis sunt Corrigenda Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit à S. Coenae communione
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
by the Word of God and by the Confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches doth belong to the Christian Magistrate in matters of Religion Which I do but now touch by the way so far as is necessary to wipe off the aspersion cast upon Presbyterial Government The particulars I refer to Chapter 8. Our sixth Concession is That in extraordinary cases when Church-government doth degenerate into tyranny ambition and avarice and they who have the managing of the Ecclesiastical power make defection and fall into manifest Heresy Impiety or Injustice as under Popery and Prelacy it was for the most part then and in such cases which we pray and hope we shall never see again the Christian Magistrate may and ought to do diverse things in and for Religion and interpose his Authority diverse wayes so as doth not properly belong to his cognizance decision and administration ordinarily and in a Reformed and well constituted Church For extraordinary diseases must have extraordinary remedies More of this before A seventh Concession is this The Civil Sanction added to Church-government and Discipline is a free and voluntary Act of the Magistrate That is Church-government doth not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessitate the Magistrate to aid assist or corroborate the same by adding the strength of a Law But the Magistrate is free in this to do or not to do to do more or to do lesse as he will answer to God and his conscience it is a cumulative Act of favour done by the Magistrate My meaning is not that it is free to the Magistrate in genere moris but in genere entis The Magistrate ought to adde the Civil Sanction hic nunc or he ought not to do it It is either a duty or a sin it is not indifferent But my meaning is The Magistrate is free herein from all coaction yea from all necessity and obligation other then ariseth from the Word of God binding his conscience There is no power on Earth Civil or Spiritual to constrain him The Magistrate himself is his own Judge on Earth how far he is to do any cumulative Act of favour to the Church Which takes off that calumny that Presbyterial Government doth force or compel the conscience of the Magistrate I pray God we may never have cause to state the Question otherwise I mean concerning the Magistrate his forbidding what Christ hath commanded or commanding what Christ hath forbidden in which case we must serve Christ and our consciences rather then obey Laws contrary to the Word of God and our Covenant whereas in the other case of the Magistrate his not adding of the Civil Sanction we may both serve Christ and do it without the least appearance of disobedience to the Magistrate Eighthly We grant that Pastors and Elders whether they be considered distributively or collectively in Presbyteries and Synods being Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth ought to be subject and obedient in the Lord to the Magistrate and to the Law of the Land and as in all other duties so in Civil subjection and obedience they ought to be ensamples to the Flock and their trespasses against Law are punishable as much yea more then the trespasses of other Subjects Of this also before Ninthly If the Magistrate be offended at the sentence given or censure inflicted by a Presbytery or a Synod they ought to be ready in all humility and respect to give him an account and reason of such their proceedings and by all means to endeavour the satisfaction of the Magistrate his conscience or otherwise to be warned and rectified if themselves have erred CHAP. IV. Of the agreements and differences between the nature of the Civil and of the Ecclesiastical Powers or Governments HAving now observed what our opposites yeeld to us or we to them I shall for further unfolding of what I plead for or against adde here the chief agreements and differences between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers so far as I apprehend them They both agree in these things 1. They are both from God both the Magistrate and the Minister is authorized from God both are the Ministers of God and shall give account of their administrations to God 2. Both are tyed to observe the Law and Commandments of God and both have certain directions from the Word of God to guide them in their administration 3. Both Civil Magistrates and Church Officers are Fathers and ought to be honoured and obeyed according to the fifth Commandment Utrumque scilicet dominium saith Luther Tom. 1. fol. 139. both Governments the Civil and the Ecclesiastical do pertain to that Commandment 4 Both Magistracy and Ministery are appointed for the glory of God as Supreme and for the good of men as the subordinate end 5. They are both of them mutually aiding and auxiliary each to other Magistracy strengthens the Ministery and the Ministery strengthens Magistracy 6. They agree in their general kinde they are both Powers and Governments 7. Both of them require singular qualifications eminent gifts and endowments and of both it holds true Quis ad haec idoneus 8. Both of them have degrees of censures and correction according to the degrees of offences 9. Neither the one nor the other may give out sentence against one who is not convict or whose offence is not proved 10. Both of them have a certain kind of Jurisdiction in foro exteriori For though the Ecclesiastical power be spiritual and exercised about such things as belong to the inward man onely yet as Dr. Rivet upon the Decalogue pag. 260. 261. saith truly there is a two-fold power of external jurisdiction which is exercised in foro exteriori one by Church-Censures Excommunication lesser and greater which is not committed to the Magistrate but to Church-Officers Another which is Civil and coercive and that is the Magistrates But Mr. Coleman told us he was perswaded it will trouble the whole World to bound Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction the one from the other Maledicis pag. 7. Well I have given ten agreements I will now give ten differences The difference between them is great they differ in their causes effects objects adjuncts correlations executions and ultimate terminations 1. In the efficient cause The King of Nations hath instituted the Civil power The King of Saints hath instituted the Ecclesiastical power I mean the most high God possessor of Heaven and Earth who exerciseth Soverainty over the workmanship of his own hands and so over all mankind hath instituted Magistrates to be in his stead as gods upon Earth But Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church whom his Father hath set upon his holy Hill of Zion Psal. 2. 6. to reigne over the House of Jacob for ever Luke 1. 33. who hath the key of the House of David laid upon his shoulder Isa. 22. 22. hath instituted an Ecclesiastical power and goverment in the hands of Church-Officers whom in his name he sendeth forth 2. In the matter Magistracy or Civil
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
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
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
proved he must not doe an unlawfull act in obedience to men but walke by that Apostolicall rule 1 Tim. 5. 22. Be not partaker of other mens sinnes Keep thy selfe pure In doing whereof he doth not make his conscience the rule of inflicting any censure and particularly of suspending from the Sacrament which must be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by many but yet his conscience so sarre as it is informed and illuminate by the word of God is a rule to him of his owne personall acting or not acting notwithstanding of which the offender stands rectus in curia and is not excluded by the sentence of any Ecclesiasticall Court. I confesse a Minister ought to be very cleare in his conscience and be perswaded not upon suspicions surmises or such like sleight motives but upon very certaine grounds that the sentence of an Eldership Classis or Synod is contrary to the Word of God before he refuse to doe the thing But what may be the reason why M r Prynne is so large upon this point from pag. 28. to 35 I take not upon me to judge de intentione operantis But the intentio operis is to yeeld somewhat in lieu of suspension from the Sacrament which yet shall be no Church censure nor act of jurisdiction and so to make the discipline of Suspension yea and Excommunication too to be of no necessary use in the Church For if it be sufficient and a full discharge of duty to admonish unworthy scandalous persons not to come to the Lords Table unlesse they repent and reforme this cuts off the necessity of Censure whether Suspension or Excommunication As for that admonition or warning to be given it is no Church censure nor act of Jurisdiction especially when given by the Minister alone for no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction can be excercised or Censure inflicted by any one man how eminent soever in the Church Yea when it is a Consistoriall or Presbyteriall Admonition it is not properly a Censure but a Degree to Censure 1. Because Admonition doth not exclude a person from any Church priviledge nor from communion in any Ordinance And how can one be said to be under Church censure who still enjoyeth all Church priviledges 2. If Consistoriall admonition be a binding where is the loosing of that bond Every censure consistorially inflicted must be also consistorially taken off upon repentance appearing in the party These things I doe but tâ—uch that I might make it appeare how M r Prynnes doctrine tendeth to strip Elderships out of all jurisdiction or power of Censures Now come we to the particulars wheren I doe not finde any great matter to insist long upon He â—irst premiseth six conclusions Supposed conclusions he may make them but proved Conclusions they are not The first of them is indeed ushered in syllogistically but very weakly as shall appeare The strength of his discourse he contracteth into this argument Those who have a true right to the Sacrament as visible members of the visible Church ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it in case they demand it by any Minister or Presbytery But all unexcommunicate Christians who are able to examine themselves as visible members of the visible Church have a true right to the Sacrament in case they doe demand it when publiquely administred Ergo they ought not in justice or conscience be deprived of it by any Minister or Presbytery when publiquely administred if they shall require it Answ. First this is fallacia plurium interrogationum for these words as visible members of the visible Church both in the Major and Minor clogge and confound the argument and patch up two distinct propositions into one Secondly his Major cannot be admitted without a distinction There is Ius ad rem and Ius in re There is a remote right or a right in actu primo thâ—t is such a right relation or habitude as entitleth a person to such a priviledge or benefit to be enjoyed and possessed by him when he shall be capable and fit to enjoy it Such is the right of a Minor to his inheritance Such was the right of lepers of old to their Tâ—nts Houses and Goods when themselves were put out of the Camp and might not during their leprosie actually enjoy their own habitations Such is the right which a man hath in England to his sequestred Estate Lands and Houses he doth not lose but retaine his Right Title Charters and Deeds as valid in Law and not made voyd or null and may be againe admitted to the actuall possession upon satisfaction given to the State and a huge difference there is between Sequestration and forfeiture or Outlawry There is againe a proxime right or a right in actu secundo which rendereth a person actually and presently capable of that thing which he is entituled unto If M r Prynnes major be understood of the first kind of right I deny it If of the second kind of right I admit it and it doth not help his opinion nor hurt mine Thirdly yea himselfe must needs admit an exception from his major proposition for by his owne principles those that have a true right to the Sacrament as visible members of the visible Church may be excommunicated and so deprived not onely of the Sacrament but of all other publique Ordinances When he tels us here that nothing but an actuall excommunication can suspend them from this their right he doth but begge that which is in question And if his Argument conclude against a lesser Suspension from their right why not also against the greater Fourthly he hath not proved his minor especially being understood of the second kind of right which renders meâ— actually and presently capable of the thing He saith that the Sacraments were bequeathed by Christ to his visible Church on Earth and all visible members of it Which he hath not proved and I deny it except it have this limitation all visible members of the visible Church which are visibly or in externall profession and conversation qualified according to the rule of Christ and against whose admission to the Sacrament there is no just exception Fifthly when he concludeth that no unexcommunicated Christians who are able to examine themselves that is as himselfe hath explained who are not naturally disabled as children and fooles though he shall finde it a very hard taske to prove that all other unexcommunicate Christians besides these are able to examine themselves ought in justice or conscience to be deprived of the Sacrament by any Minister or Presbytery he doth upon the matter conclude that the Ordinances of Parliament Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. authorising Presbyteries to suspend from the Sacrament scandalous persons unexcommunicated are contrary to all justice and conscience N. B. Sixthly as touching that limitation yeelded by himselfe that they must be such as are able to examine themselves I aske 1. Are persons grossely ignorant able to examine themselves 2. Are drunken persons