the preaching of the word in which Commandments Promises and threatnings are proposed to all in generall there be rebukes of the Church the sentencing of such and such persons by name as Hymeneus and Philetus and other Blasphemers the Authoritative Declaration that such a brother is to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican and brotherly fellowship of eating and drinking with such an one denied that he may be ashamed if these be then are some debarred from the holy things of God by Church-Censures beside the preaching of the word of God But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is proved because all wicked persons and heart-hypocrites are excluded from the holy things of God by the Preaching of the Word But only these that are notoriously and by testimony of witnesses convinced to be scandalous or contumacious in atrocious sins after they are by name rebuked and are declared to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans and from whom we are to withdraw brotherly fellowship are excluded from the holy things of God by Discipline and Church Censures The Assumption I prove Because the word is preached to all by one in office and that a Steward and dispenser of the mysteries of God and he excludeth all unworthy ones known to be such or invisible only from the kingdom of God But the Censure 1. Is inflicted by many 2 Cor. 26. by the Church Matth. 18. 17. conveened together 1 Cor. 54. 2. It is applied to such persons by name 1 Cor. 5. 5. He that hath done such a deed ver 2. Hymeneus Alexander 1 Tim. 1. 20. Jezabel Rev. 2. 20. 3 The whole congregation is not to eat or Table with such an one 1 Cor. 5. 11. We are to note and observe him and to have no company with him that he may b ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. to esteeme him as an Heathen and a Publican and exclude him from the Seals of the Covenant so long as he remaineth in that state 3. Arg. If a person may for not hearing the Church be judged as an Heathen and a Publican and his sinnes bound in heaven by the Church then by discipline he is excluded from the holy things of God in a peculiar way in the which contumacious persons uncircumcised in heart are excluded in foro interno Dei in Gods secret Court But the former is true Matt. 18. 15. 16 17 18. Ergo c. Now if there be two Courts one before God Rom. 2. 16. Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Ioh. 3. 21. Another of the Church Mat. 18. 15. 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 6 11 12. and two sorts of bindings two sorts of Witnesses two sorts of Sentences then can it not be dedenyed but the Church hath a spirituall Court for censures as well as for preaching the Word 4. Arg. Exclusion of an offender from the societie of the Saints and not to eate or drinke with him is some other reall visible censure accompanied with shame then any censure by the preaching of the Word but there is such a censure inflicted by the Church Ergo The Proposition is cleare from Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you brethren marke them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which yee learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and avoid them Here is a reall visible and personall note of shame put on Schismaticks a bodily declining and avoiding of their company which could not possibly be done by preaching of the Word But some may say this was not done by the Church court but every one as private christians were to eschew the society of Schismaticks and by this you cannot conclude any Church censure Answ Not to say that it were unjustice to decline any and renounce society with him before he were convinced to be factious according to Christs order Mat. 18. which to Erastus is a way of common and naturall equity And so in order to some publique censure before the Church Paul wâ—iâ—eth to a constitute Church at Rome in which he prescribeth Rom. 12. the Officers duty as what Pastor Doctor Elder Deacon ought to doe in a Church body We cannot imagine he could command every private Christian to inflict the censure and punishment for a punishment it is in order to a publike sin of avoiding any in Church communion professing they serve the Lord Iesus Christ as these doe verse 18. upon their owne private opinion Iesus Christ and his Apostles must have left men loose in all order and discipline by this way howbeit the adversary would deny a church punishment here is a punishment inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And it is not inflicted by way of preaching so 2 Thes 3. 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man have no company with him that he may be ashamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the learned is to put a publike church note on him that he may be confounded make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a publike wonder that he may be ashamed as Piscator and P. Baynes observe on the place expounding it of excommunication and the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is here is used toward the incestuous man who was to be excommunicated 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to keepe company with fornicators the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 1. is ascribed to the incestuous man and here they are not to be mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fornicators vers 11. But now I have written unto you not to keepe company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or an extortioner with such a one no not to eate And that we may know that this is a church censure he addeth ver 12. For what have I to doe to judge them also that are without Ergo this no keeping company with such is a Church judging 5. Arg. The Church of Pergamus is rebuked for having amongst them such as hold the doctrine of Balaam and Revel 2. 14. and Thyatira that they suffered Iezabel to preach and seduce the servants of God ver 20. as the Church of Ephesus is praised v. 2. that they cannot beare with them that are evill but had tryed such that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them liars Rev. 2. 3. Here is it clearely supposed that these churches were to censure false teachers if any shall say they were to censure them no other waies but by preaching against their errors 1. This would establish a Prelate above the Church contrary to that of Mat. 18. Tell the Church and 1 Cor. 5. Where the Church gathered together was to excommunicate 2. The Angel of the Church is taken collectively for all the Rulers and the whole Church to whom Christ writeth as is cleare in that he saith so often He that hath an eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to
THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Church-Government AND Excommunication OR A peaceable DISPUTE for the perfection of the holy Scripture in point of Ceremonies and Church-Government IN WHICH The removal of the Service-book is justifi'd The six Books of Tho Erastus against Excommunication are briefly examin'd with a Vindication of that eminent Divine Theod Beza against the Aspersions of Erastus The Arguments of Mr. William Pryn Rich Hooker Dr. Morton Dr. Jackson Dr. John Forbes and The Doctors of Aberdeen Touching Will-worship Ceremonies Imagery Idolatry Things Indifferent An Ambulatory Government The due and just Power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion and The Arguments of Mr. Pryn in so far as they side with Erastus are modestly discussed To which is added A brief Tractate of SCANDAL with an Answer to the new Doctrine of the Doctors of Aberdeen touching Scandal By SAMUEL RUTHERFURD Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts Zach. 4. 6. Veritas claudi ligari potest vinci non potest Hieronymus comment ad Ierem. in Prefati ad Eusebium Occultari ad tempus potest veritas vinci non potest florere potest ad tempus iniquitas per manere non potest Augustinus ad Psal 61. Published by AUTHORITY London Printed by JOHN FIELD for Christopher Meredith at the Crane in Pauls Church yard MDCXLVI TO The Right Honorable and Noble Lord The EARL of LOVDEN Chancellor of Scotland AND Chancellor of the University of St. Andrews Grace Mercy and Peace RIGHT HONORABLE AS Jesus Christ the wonderful the Counsellor the mighty God driveth on his great State-design in the whole Earth and now in these Kingdoms to to save an afflicted people to dye his Garments in the blood of his Enemies and to build the Tabernacle of God amongst men and cause the wildernes blossome as a Rose that the glory of Lebanon and the excellency of Carmel and Sharon may in a spiritual manner be given to Zion So he still acteth in his own sphere of Righteousnes and all inferior wheels in their revolutions move toward his most eminent end for the Courtiers and Royal Attendants of his Throne are Righteousnes and Judgement And he desireth that the motions and wayes of his people may be concentrick to his own heart and move in the same Orb with himself we must either walk or be drawn to the end of Jesus Christ his end cannot come down and comply with our policy When men go with one head and two faces and two hearts Providence can beguil them we are then safe and do sail at the Haven of the Sea when we walk with God and our way draweth a straight line to the heart of Jesus Christ These two Kingdoms have before them an end the Covenant to be a people to God this we did Swear with our Hands lifted up to the most High the stones of the field shall witnes against us and the Sword of the Lord avenge the quarrel of his Covenant if we dally with the Lord as if the Vow of God that the Lord may be one and his Name one in both Kingdoms had been on us when we were low only and our Oath had a date only till the Year 1645. and then our Vow must exspire as did the Law of shaddows when the Body Jesus Christ came As successe is a poor and waxy Kalender for Religion so the low condition of our Kingdom I hope shall not move us to forsake the Lords cause or to blame God because good causes have sometimes sad events for beside that Heathens said that God cannot erre because Marius ex culpâ gloriam reportavit Marius was made glorious by ill-doing and one hath a Crosse another a Kings Crown for a reward of wickednesse we know that God however it be is good to Israel If that which was intended for Vnion shall by mens wickednesse turn to a sad Division between the Kingdoms I shall believe that the truly Godly of either Kingdoms can scarce be capable of such bloody intentions as shall leave a Legacy of perpetuated blood to the Posterity and sure though for the present guiltinesse strength prevail yet habent Deum ultorem men on Earth cannot long be strong against Vengeance from Heaven As successe doth inebriate so extremity of a low condition is a wicked Counsellor and evil Iealousie as Hell thinketh alwayes evil All whose bowels are moved for the Desolation Graves multiplied Widows and Orphans of both Kingdoms will not dare Judgement from the Almighty being a terrour to them to adde affliction to the people of God already afflicted Blessed shall they be of the Lord who mediate for preventing of National ruptures and for the continuance of the Brotherly Covenant Christ Jesus is a uniting Saviour one God one Faith one Lord Jesus one Religion should be and I beseech the God of Peace they may be Chains of Gold to tie these tipo Nations and Churches together in uno tertio that they may be concentered and united in one Lord Jesus O that that precious Dew of Hermon that showers of Love and Peace may lie all the night upon the Branches of the two Olive Trees that the warmnesse heat and influence of one Sun of Righteousnesse with healing in his wings may make the Lilly amongst the Thorns the Rose of Sharon that is planted by the Lord the Spouse of Jesus Christ in both Kingdoms to spred its Root and cast its Smell as green and flourishing to all the Nations round about The Kingdom of God is Peace The Lord is about a great work in Britain why should Divisions that proceed from the lusts of men and the enemies of the Lord retard the wheels of the Chariot of Christ Let us not water the Lilly with blood again The Sons of Babel have shed our blood in great abundance for the which doth the Church of God in the three Kingdoms stand and Pray and Prophecy in sackcloth The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon shall the Inhabitants of Zion say And my blood upon the Woman arrayed in Purple and Scarlet the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth shall Ierusalem say Happy we if we could for the second Temple builded and the Lord repairing the old waste places and the Gentiles beholding the Righteousnesse of the Elder Sister the Church of the Jews and both as a Crown of Glory in the hand of the Lord and as a Royal Diadem in the hand of our God I shall not need I hope either of an Apology for Intituling this Piece such as it is others can and I hope will adde riper Animadversions to Erastus to Your Honours Name or of a word of incitement that Your Lordship co-operate with Your serious Endeavours for a right understanding between both Kingdoms and for the carrying on the work of the right arm of the Lord the Lords creating of
ratifying an Ordinance in heaven and of pardoning sins in heaven for he that can make the ordinance can make also the Gospel-Promise and he that can by an Arbitrary power make one Promise or part of the Gospel may make all And if either Magistrate or Church can appoint such an Ordinance as hath a Promise of bâ—nding loosing made good in heaven they may also take away such Ordinances and Gospel Promises for it is the same power to make and adde to unmake and destroy Ordinances Hence also I argue for the Immutabiliâ—y of a Scripturall Platform that the Church cannot alter at her will thus That must be of Divine institution which is an essentiall part of the Gospel but the Platform of Church-Government in the word is such and so must be no lesse Immutable then the Gospel I make good the major Proposition thus That which essentially includeth a Promise of the New Testament that must be a part of the Gospel which consisteth especially of Promises Heb. 8. 6. 2 Cor. 7. 1. Gal. 3. 17. Gal. 4. 23 24. But there 's a Promise of forgiving sins in Heaven made to the Church using the Keys aright and of Christs presence in the excercise of the Keys as walking amongst the golden Candlesticks Matth. 18. 18 19. 20. Math. 16. 18 19. Iob. 20. 23. Rev. 2. 1. Now if any shall object this Argument proveth only that which is not denyed to wit that some part of Discipline only is of Divine institution which is not denyed for a power of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins is of Divine institution But hence it is not concluded that the whole Platform and all the limbs joynts bones and toes are of Divine institution they being matters of smaller concernment I Answer As from a part of the Doctrine of the Law and Gospel that is of Divine institution for Example that I keep observe and do the Law that I believe and repent which are things of Divine institution I infer that the whole Platform of Law and Gospel is of Divine institution and the particulars of Obedience and Faith are not Arbitrary to the Church just so in Discipline I say the like there is no more reason for one part written by God then for another Farther if the Church be a visible Politick Kingdom as it is Mat. 13. v. 45 46 47 48. Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 8. 12. And if the Word be the Word Scepter and Law of the Kingdom as it is Matth. 6. 10. Matth. 13. 11. Luk. 4. 43. Matth. 4. 23. Mark 13. 8. Luk. 21. 10. 14. Luk. 8. 10. Yea the Sword and Royall power of the King Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 19. 15. By which he Ruleth and Raigneth in his Church Isa 11. v. 4. Psal 110. 2. Heb. 1. 8 9. Psal 45. 3 4. 5 6 7. Isa 61. 1 2. 2 Cor. 10. 4 5 6. 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. And if by this Word the King Raigneth bindeth looseth and conquereth souls and subdueth his Enemies Matth. 18. 18 19 20. Matth. 16. 19. Rev. 6. 2. Then certainly Christ must Raign Politically and externally in his Church and walk in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. 2. 1. And if Christ Ascending to Heaven as a Victorious King Leading Captivity Captive gave gifts to men and appointed an externall policie for the gathering of his Saints by the Ministery of certain officers of his Kingdom as it is Psal 68. 18. Even that the Lord God might dwell amongst them Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Then he must Raign in the externall Policie of Pastors Teachers Elders by Word Sacraments and Discipline Now the King himself the Lord who Raigneth in this externall Policie must be the only Law-giver Iam. 4. 12. Isa 33. v. 22. There can be no Rabbies or Doctors on earth who as little Kings can make Laws under him Mat. 23. v. 8 9 10. Yea not Apostles who can teach how the Worship should externally be ordered but what they receive of the King of the Church 1 Cor. 11. 23. Act. 15. v. 13 14 15 16 17 18. How the house should be Governed Heb. 3. 1 2. 4 5. Yea nothing more reasonable then that Whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven should be done in and for the house of the God of Heaven under the pain of his Wrath Ezr. 7. 23. 1. That there should be Officers in a Kingdom and Laws to Govern the Subjects beside the will of the Prince or Judges of the Land or that the Members of a Family or Souldiers in an Army should be Governed by any Rule Custome or Law beside or without the will of the Master of the House and of the Generall Commanders is all one as if Subjects Families and Souldiers should be Ruled and Governed by their own will and wisdome and not by their King Iudges Masters and Commanders for the question is upon this undeniable supposition that Christ is the only Head and King of his Church and so the Head and King of Prelats if they be of the body and of the Rulers Guides and Pastors of the Church which are to be Governed and Ruled by certain Laws no lesse then the people whither or no this Representative Church of Rulers being Subjects and Members of the Head and King of the Church are to be Ruled by the wisdome Laws and Commandments of this King the Lord Jesus or if they have granted to them a vast Arbitrary power to Govern both themselves and the people by adding Positive Mandats of Arbitrary Commanders such as Prelats are in the minde of those who think they have no patent of any Divine right and of Surplice Crossing kneeling for reverence to wood to bread and wine The matter cannot be helped by saying that Christ is the Mysticall Invisible King some doubt if he be the only King of the Church which is too grosse to be resuted of the Church in things spirituall and in regard of the inward operation of the Spirit but he is not a Politicall and visible Head in regard of externall Policie this distinction must hold also in regard of the people who as Christians and believers are rather under Christ as a Mysticall and invisible Head then the Rulers who are not as Rulers but only in so far as they are believers Mysticall Members of the Head Christ for Christ exerciseth no Mysticall and Internall operations of saving Grace upon Rulers as Rulers but upon Rulers as believers then he cannot be the Mysticall and invisible King of Rulers as Rulers to give them as a King an Arbitrary power to be little Kings under him to Govern as they please and the truth is Christ is a Politicall Head and King of his Church not properly a visible Head 2 Cor. 5. 16. Except that he is a visible Head in this sense in that he Raigneth and Ruleth even in the externall visible Policie of his Church through all the Catholick visible Church in his Officers Lawfull Synods
Ordinances giving them Laws in all Positive externals which place the Beast the King of the Bottomlesse Pit the Pope usurpeth But I would gladly be informed of Formalists how the King is the Head and Vicegerent of Christ over the Church if Christs Kingdom be only spirituall Mysticall Internall not Politicall not externall for sure the King as King exerciseth no internall and Mysticall operations upon the consciences of men under Jesus Christ his power is only Politicall and Civilly Politicall about or without the Church not properly within the Church Surely if Rulers be Subjects and Members under Christ the Head and King I shall believe that Christ must in all Positive things of externall Policie give to them Particular Laws in the Scripture and Rule them and that they being Members not the Head must as particularly be Ruled in all externals Positive by the will and Law of the Head Christ and that they are not Kings Heads and Law givers and Rulers to themselves And especially upon these considerations This King and Head must be particular in an immutable perpetuall and unalterable Platform of Church-Government 1. Salomon for wisdome in the order degrees number attire of his servants and Policie of his house to the admiration of the Queen of Sheba in this we conceive was a type of a greater then Salomon 2. The Positives of the policie of Christs house must be congruous to a supernaturall end the edification of souls and that Symbolicall Rites of mens devising speak supernaturall duties that Christ hath already spoken in the Scripture as that Crossing spell out Dedication to Christs Service Surplice pastorall holinesse which both are Gospel truths 1. Pet. 1. 18. 1 Pet. 2. 24. Isa 52. 11. Is as supernaturall a mean for edification as that bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood therefore the one more then the other ought not to be left to humane reason but must be expresly set down in Scripture 3. All these must lay a tie upon the conscience but if they have their rise from the vain will of Prelats and men they can never bind my conscience for how can they bind my conscience as the Scripture bindeth them on me and yet Rulers as Rulers in the name of Christ the King cannot presse them upon me Formalists give divers Replies to this As 1. Hooker You are constrained to say that of many things of Church-Policie some are of great weight some of lesse that what hath been urged of immutability of Laws it extendeth in truth no farther then only to Laws wherein things of greater moment are prescribed as Pastors Lay-Elders Deacons Synods Widows else come to particulars and shew if all yours be perpetuall and our particulars unlawfull Ans 1. Things of greater and lesse weight we acknowledge in Church-Policie and in Doctrinals too but in this sense only 1. That they be things Positive 2. They be both things that are unchangeable by any except by God himself and oblige us Necessitate precepti by the necessity of a Divine Commandment as Matth. 23. 23. To pay tythe of Mint Annise and Cummin is a lesse matter then the weightier duties of the Law Iudgement Mercy and Faith But there is nothing so small in either Doctrinals or Policie so as men may alter omit and leave off these smallest Positive things that God hath commanded for Christ saith Paying of tythe of Mint ought not to be omitted though the Church of Pharisees should neglect it and command some other petty small things in place thereof If therefore Prelats should obliterate the Office of Ruling Elders which Christ the Lord instituted in his Church and put themselves in as Governours in their Room they may put out Pastors and Sacraments and take in for them Turkish Priests and Circumcision with a signification that Christ is already come in the flesh We urge the immutability of Christs Laws as well in the smallest as greatest things though the Commandments of Christ be greater or lesse in regard of the intrinsecall matter as to use water in Baptisme or to Baptise is lesse then to Preach Christ and believe in him 1 Cor. 1. 17. Yet they are both alike great in regard of the Authority of Christ the Commander Matth. 28. 18 19. And it s too great boldnesse to alter any Commandment of Christ for the smallnesse of the matter for it lieth upon our conscience not because it is a greater or a lesser thing and hath degrees of obligatory necessity lying in it for the matter but it tyeth us for the Authority of the Law-giver Now Gods Authority is the same when he saith You shall not Worship false Gods but me the only true God And when he saith You shall not adde of your own one ring or pin to the Ark Tabernacle Temple yea either to break or teach others to break one of the least of the Commandments of God maketh men the least in the Kingdom of God Matth. 5. 18. And to offend in one is to offend in all Iam. 2. 10. 2. That our things of Church-Policie are perpetuall we prove and that what we hold of this kinde we make good to be contained in the Scripture either expresly or by due consequence and so the Church and their Rulers act nothing in our way but as Subordinate to Christ as King and Head of the Church and Surplice humane Prelats Crossing we hold unlawfull in the house of God because they are not warranted by the King and Head Christs word and because the devisers and practisers of these do neither devise nor act in these as Subordinate to Jesus Christ as King Priest or Prophet by the grant of our Adversaries Hooker l. 3. Eccles Pol. pag. 124. The matters wherein Church-Policy are conversant are the publick Religious duties of the Church as administration of the Word Sacraments Prayers spirituall censures of the Church and the like to these the Church stand alwayes bound and where Policy is it cannot but appoint some to be leaders of others and some to be led If the blinde lead the blinde they both perish and where the Clergy is any great multitude order requireth that they be distinguished by degrees as Apostles and Pastors were in the Apostolick Church And number of specialities there are which make for the more convenient being of these principall parts of Policy Ans 1. If Christ as King have appointed word and Sacraments in generall and Censures he hath appointed the Word Sacraments and Censure in speciall to wit such a word such Sacraments Baptisme the Lords-Supper such Censures Excommunication admonition or then he hath left the Specialities of written and unwritten Word to the arbitriment of men and that there be Excommunication or no Excommunication and this Doctrinall and the like he hath left to mens devising to wit Crossing is a Dedication of the childe to Christ now Jerome Advers Helvid saith Vt hec que scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt
Magistrate in matters Ecclesiasticall QUEST 1. That Christ hath a spirituall Kingdom not only in the power of preaching the word but also in the power of the keys by discipline COncerning the Christian Magistrate we are to consider two heads the one negative what he cannot do in the matters of Christs Kingdom 2. Positive What he ought to do for the opening of the former We are to cleare whether or no all externall scandalls Ecclesiasticall as well as civill are to be punished by the Civill Magistrate and that as in Civill scandals that disturbeth the peace of the Common-wealth the Magistrate hath a twofold power one to command what is good and just another to reward and punish so the Lord Jesus in his Kingdom hath not onely a directive power to teach and forbid but also a power by way of Discipline upon the external man ecclesiastically to reward and punish to binde and loose in an externall Court on earth It is granted by the Adversaries that Christ as King hath a power of binding and loosing but meerly internall purely spirituall in regard of the Conscience by the Preaching of the Word but for any externall power to take in and cast out of the Visible Kingdom of Iesus Christ his Visible Church This they deny and so refuse all externall Ecclesiasticall censures of receiving into the bosome of the Church and casting out by rebukes or Excommunication and therefore that there is no externall Court in the Church to punish Ecclesiasticall scandals all scandals and externall offences of the Church are to be punished by the Christian Magistrate onely In opposition to which error I say 1. Conclusion There is not only a rebuking of an offender in the Church by private admonition as between Brother and Brother common to all Christians Col. 3. 16. Levit. 19. 17. And of the Pastor only he applying the Word by way of Preaching to such and such offenders and closing the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven upon impenitent sinners which is acknowledged by the Adversaries But there is also a Church-rebuking by way of censure which must presuppose an Ecclesiasticall Court and a rebuking of a Publique sin put forth by many whereas one only not a Church or multitude may Preach the Word and so rebuke by way of Preaching which I make out from the Word of God 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rebuke or punishment in the old Translation it is Objurgatio in the Newer Increpatio Piscator Muleta is a chastisement whether this punishment was actuall excommunication as many Learned Interpreters do not improbably gather out of the Text or if it was a Rebuke of the Church in order thereunto Certain it included a rebuking not of one man but a Church-rebuking inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And by the Representative Church of Corinth gathered together with Pauls spirit and the power of the the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. And so presupposeth a Court or Convention of many inflicting this punishment 2. The Adversaries who deny that there is such a thing as Excommunication say it was onely a rebuke but if it was Excommunication it must include a rebuke coming from the many who do excommunicate 3. It is such a rebuke as must be taken off and pardoned by many as ver 7. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him ver 10. To whom ye forgive any thing I also forgive So here is a rebuking put upon an offender by many convened in a Court who did rebuke by way of judiciall Authority and the power of the Lord Iesus Ergo it was some higher censure which was inflicted by many and taken off by many then that which was inflicted by one by way of Preaching where there is no necessity that many either rebuke or comfort the rebuked for one Pastor is to give out the sentence of Death or Life rebuking and comforting toward any one offender or a person Repenting whether many be convened to consent and joyn or not Yea I may being a Pastor of Iesus Christ dispense rebukes and comforts by way of Preaching against the will and minde of the whole flock But a rebuke and a forgiving by many cannot be dispensed except these many convene together in the Name of the Lord Iesus in a Church way and consent 2. If the convened Church must be heard and obeyed when she rebuketh a Brother for a fault done between Brother and Brother and that upon the Testimony of two or three witnesses then is the Church a Court that is to rebuke an offender and so to convene him before her and that is some other censure then by way of Preaching but the former is true Matth. 18. 16 17. 3. If the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch convened in a Synod do give forth an Ecclesiasticall rebuke on false Teachers as those that troubled the Churches and perverted their Souls with false Doctrine then is there rebuking of offenders by a Church or Churches beside a Pastorall rebuking by one single Brother or Pastor But the former is true Act. 15. ver 24 25. The Proposition is clear in that a select company of Apostles Elders and Brethren doth not only Doctrinally conclude against their errour who did hold the necessity of Circumcision but also against the Persons and their Schismaticall way of troubling the Church by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in making a side and Faction in the Church ver 2. 24. And this not any one single man could do in an ordinary way except we say that it was an idle and unnecessary remedy which the Apostles used to quench the sire as if any one man might have done all this or as if they had rebuked these men publikely not having heard and convinced them by the Word of God or as if an offence touching conversation and against the second Table had risen betweene Church and Church no lesse then in the present case of an offence in matter of doctrine that the Apostles would not have taken the same course all which are not to be imagined And in very deed this was not a point of meer doctrine but also of peace and charity violated by a Faction ver 2. And a scandall in eating things strangled was raised in the Churches Acts 15. 24. 1 Cor. 10. 28 29. Rom. 14. 14 15 16 17. 4. If Timothy be to rebuke publikely those that sin publikely and that judicially upon the Testimony of Witnesses Then is there a publike Church-rebuking by way of censure beside the pastorall rebuking But the former is expresly said 1 Tim. 5. 19 20. This must be a rebuking in a Church-court except we say Timothy his alone was the Church and a Monarch of the Church who hath power to lead witnesses against Elders 2. Conclusion There is such a censure as excommunication in the hands of the Church by
sendeth his Apostles and Pastors to the end of the world as is clear if we compare Matth. 18. 18. and Matth. 16. 19. with Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. 23. Mar. 16. ver 15 20. Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Luk. 24. 45 46 47 48. 5. It is against the course of the Text that we should restrain this to private pardoning of light injuries between brother and brother 1. Becase Christ labours to decline this that one shall be both his brothers judge to put him in the condition of an Heathen and Publican and binde his brothers sins in Heaven and Earth and also that he should be his party and accuser Now Christ will have the private brother do no more personally but admonish his brother and gain him 2. If that prevail not then he is to admonish him before two or three witnesses See here the brother is not both party and judge but witnesses have place 3. If that prevail not the businesse is to ascend higher even to the Church which undoubtedly is an Organicall body 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 8. 6 7 c. Act. 20. 28 29 30. Whereas two or three private Christians are not a Church but an homogeneal body Now who would believe that Christ is to bring down the businesse which is so high as before the Church to the lowest step again to a private binding and loosing to one brother who both as judge and party judgeth his brother yea and may do this though there were no Chuâ—ch on earth What power hath the Church above the offended brother or the offender if the one may binde the other under guiltinesse in earth and heaven 2. Erastus will have light and private offences only spoken of here Now Christ speaketh of offences that God taketh notice of in Heaven and earth 3. Christs way is a wise and meek way that that which one cannot do and the offence that two three four cannot remove the Church shall remove but Erastus maketh one private man to remove it and to Excommunicate and binde in heaven and earth I might cite Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom The ophylact Hyeronimus and all modern interpreters both Popish and Orthodox for this interpretation not any of them dreaming of the insolent opinion of Erastus who misapplieth Augustine and Theophylact for his own way as Beza cleareth CAP. IV. Quest 1. That the place 1 Corinthians 5. doth evince that Excommunication is an Ordinance of God THE Argument for Excommunication may be thus framed from 1 Cor. 5. If Paul command that the incestuous man should be delivered to Satan ver 5. purged out of the Church least as leaven he should corrupt the Church ver 6 7. That they should iudge him ver 12. And put him avvay from amongst them ver 13. So as they vvere not to eat vvith him ver 9. 10. Then is there a divine command for Excommunication for the Commandments of the Apostles are the Commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2. But the former is true Ergo so is the latter There is no ground or shadow of reason to expound this expelling of the incestuous man by the preaching of the word without any Church-censures for all that is required in Excommunication is here 1. This putting out was not done by one single Pastor as putting out by the preaching of the word is done but by a company and Church ver 4. In the name of the Lord Iesus vvhen ye are gathered together and my spirit 2. Paul should have written to any one Pastor to cast him out by preaching but here he writeth to a Church 3. He forbiddeth company or eating with such like men v. 10. Now this is more then rebuking by preaching 4. This is a judging of the incestuous man and a casting of him out of their society which is another thing then preaching the word Erastus and others expound the giving to Satan of a delivering of the man to Satan to be miraculously killed as were Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. 5. And because at this time there was no Christian Magistrate to use the sword against the man therefore he writeth to the Church that they by their prayers would obtain of God that Satan might take him out of the midst of them Ans This insolent interpretation wanteth all warrant of the word For 1. To deliver to Satan hath no Scripture to make this sense of it to pray that Satan would destroy the man 2. It wanteth an example in the old or new Testament that the whole Church are fellow-Agents and joynt causes in the bodily destruction of any or in working of miracles such as was the killing of Ananias and Saphira The Apostles wrought miracles and that by their Faith and Prayers and Christ and the Prophets but that the Believers who should have mourned for this scandall 1. Who were puffed up 2. Who were in danger to be leavened with the mans sin and had their consent in Excommunication should joyn in a miraculous delivering to Satan is an unparalleld practise in the word 3. To deliver to Satan cannot be expounded here but as 1 Tim. 1. 20. Where Paul saith he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan now that was not to kill them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might receive instruction and be disciplined by this medicinall Church-revenge not to blaspheme I know of no instructing of these who are dead if there be two deliverings to Satan let Erastus and his expound it to us 4. The Apostle expresly saith he wrote to them not to keep company with such men nor with Fornicators covetous men Drunkards Extortioners Idolators Now Erastus his minde must be that the Apostles and Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica grievouâ—ly sinned against God in that they did not miraculously kill all the Drunkards the covetous persons the fornicators whereas they are commauded to admonish them as brethren 2 Thess 3 14 15. and to pray for them if they sin not against the holy Ghost 1 Ioh. 5. 16. 1 Tim. 2. 3. 5. Paul rebuketh this as a morall fault amongst the Corinthians such as is not to mourn for this mans fault and to keep him as leaven in the midst of them and not to cast him out Whereas in all the Scripture you finde none ever rebuked because they put not forth in Acts an extraordinary and miraculous power to work miracles working of miracles came upon persons called thereunto by extraordinary rapts and were in men not as habits under the power of free-will but as immediate Acts of God even as fire-flaughts are in the Aire So I conceive while I be better informed 6. And shall it not follow that now when the Churches have Christian Magistrates it is the will of our meek saviour that they kill with the sword all the Drunkards Fornicators and all that walketh unorderly which should make the Church of Christ a Butcher-house whereas we are to admonish all such as brethren 2 Thess 3.
House when others went astray I take to be a prophecie of these Pastors under the New Testament to wit the Apostles of Iesus Christ and Pastors and teachers that Christ left in his Church for the edifying of his body Ephes 4. 11. 12. When these Scribes and Pharises did sit in Moses his chaire for a while Mat. 23. but onely as porters and inferiour Officers in Gods house yet they were to be heard while God should cut them off as he prophecied Zach. 11. 8. We cannot say as some doe that persons were deprived amongst the Iewes of Church communion in the holy things of God because of Ceremoniall not of Morall uncleannes but now under the new Testament only Morall uncleannes can exclude persons from the holy things of God and therefore to argue from ceremoniall uncleannes in the old to morall uncleannesse in the new is no good consequence I answer the Ceremoniall uncleannesse in the Old which did exclude from the holy things of God doth strongly conclude that morall uncleannesse under the New Testament doth exclude from the holy things of God if that exclusion of the Leaper out of the campe seven dayes and the touching of the dead though imprudently did typifie some other exclusion from the holy things of God as no question it did then the consequence must be strong 2. It is also false that morall uncleannesse did not exclude from the holy things of God under the Old Testament For 1. what was more ordinary then that sacrifices should be offered for sins of ignorance for trespasâ—es and while this was done the person was not admitted to partake of the holy things of God 2. Whence was the Lords frequent complaints of wearying his soule with sacrifices solemne assemblies feast dayes and new Moones when they were morally uncleane and their hands were full of blood and they had not put away the evill of their doings did not love judgement and justice Isaiah 10. 11 12 13 16 17 18 19. And when God complaineth so of them Ier. 7. 8. Will ye steale murther and commit adultery and sweare falsely and burne incense unto Baal and walke after other Gods whom ye know not 10. And come and stand before me in this house which is called by my Name Ergo Murtherers and adulterers were debarred from entring into the Congregation of the Lord and partaking of the holy things of God while they repented Let none say by prophecying or the keyes of knowledge in preaching the Word they were declared unworthy to enter into the Temple but that will not conclude that it was the Priests office by power of discipline to exclude them from coming unto the Sanctuary of God Ans But if the Porters were set at doores of the Lords house to hold out the uncleane and if the Lord charge the Priests with this crime that they Ezek. 44. 8. set keepers of the charge of the Lords house for themselves that is for their owne carnall ends and not for the honour of the Lord And that ver 7. They brought into the Sanctuary of the Lords house uncircumcised in heart that is such as were morally uncleane then had the Priests a power to debarre from the Sanctuary such as were morally uncleane and if the Priests are said to beare rule by their meanes Ier. 5. 31. Then the Priests did beare rule and governe though they abused their Power and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to have dominion over any Psal 72. 8. Psal 110. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 24. Levit. 26. 17. And the Scripture gives a power of judging and governing to the Priests And 2 Chron. 30. 6 7. The Posts that Hezekiah and the Congregation of Israel sent through the Land commandeth a morall preparation to those that were to keepe the Lords Passeover to wit that they should turne againe unto the Lord God of Abraham and should not be like their Fathers nor like their Brethren that trespassed against the Lord God of their Fathers And ver 11. divers of Ashur and Manasseh and Zebulun humblid themselvs and came to Ierusalem to keepe the feast of the Passeover This proveth clearly that people under the Old Testament were no lesse to try and examine themselves by the King and Priests commandment carried to them by Postes before they should eate the Passeover then they are to try themselves before they eate and drinke at the Lords Supper onely the adversaries say the Priests by preaching were to debarre from the Passeover those who were morally unclean but not to debarre those who were morally uncleane so they were not typically and ceremonially unclean by any power of Discipline or by Porters set at the gates to keepe them out of the Sanctuary But I answer 1. How are the Priests Ezek. 22. 26. reproved for violating the Law of God and prophaning his holy things in that they put no difference between the holy and prophane the clean and the unclean Surely the Priests prophaned in the highest way the holy things of God in admitting into the Sanctuary those who were not onely ceremonially but morally uncleane as murtherers adulterers Who cryed the temple of the Lord Ier. 7. And they put no difference betweene the Holy and Prophane when they admitted to the holy things of God and into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in heart for they doe more pollute the holy things of God who partake of them being morally uncleane and uncircumcised in heart then those who are onely uncircumcised in flesh Object But the Church under the New Testament can no other way but morally and by preaching as it would seeme onely debarre scandalous persons from the Seales and Prayers of the Church for should a scandalous person or an excommunicate person obtrude himselfe on the Lords Supper against the will and sentence of the Church the Church cannot use any bodily violence to hinder such prophane intrusion upon the holy things of God because the Churches weapons are not carnall but spirituall bodily violence can be no spirituall weapon that the Church as the Church can use so do the Remonstrant Arminians argue and some other for the congregationall way Ans This Argument is against all Church-censures but though the Church as the Church cannot hinder scandalous intruders upon the holy things of God by bodily violence it doth not follow Ergo The Church can keep the holy things pure no way but morally that is by preaching only for we can give a third way The rebukes admonitions and Excommunication or delivering to Satan are all transacted without any bodily and externnll violence Christs Kingdom resigneth all such carnall weapons to the Magistrate who is the only Governour of the Church of Christ as the Opponents say All Church Censures are by way of Declaration applied to such men by name and there co-action though penall is not by bodily violence but by acting upon the conscience of men and putting them to shame Hence 2. We argue if beside
the Gospel to them if they were amongst us except that such as are to communicate according to the will of Christ are Christians members of the Church who doth try and examine themselves and Jews and Turks though dwelling and born amongst us are not such yet Erastus would that such should never be admitted to the Lords Supper though they should desire it Officers also have a command not to dispense some parts of the word to all as we are not to rebuke open Scorners Should any of our Church turn Iew and blaspheme Christ and pertinaciously after conviction persist in his Apostacy might not Erastus aske by what command of Christ will ye not Preach the Gospel to such an one Christ made no exception but said Preach to all Nations why do you make Exceptions might we not answer Christ hath given a power of dispensing the Gospel to all yet hath he excepted some because it s against the will of Christ that such can obey the Gospel We are bidden pray for all yet are there some that we are not to pray for because they sin unto death so is the case here in some kinde 7. It is for our instruction that the Priests were rebuked for that they admitted into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in flesh and heart that they put no difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and prophaned the holy things of God Ezek. 44. 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. And this was a shadow of things to come as was observed before teaching us that farre lesse should the Pastors of the New Testament suffer the holy things of God to be prophaned 8. We read that Iohn Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sinnes and professed â—aith in Iesus Christ it would then appeare to be the will of Christ that every one should not be admitted to the Lords Supper though some say the Apostles baptized single persons not in Church communion so that Pastors administer the Sacraments by reason of the power of order as they are Pastors not by power of jurisdiction as having warrant from any Church in regard Churches at the beginning had the Word and Sacraments before they had any Church Government yet I conceive the Lords Supper is a Seale of a Church-communion 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. and the like I say of Baptisme typed by Noahs Arke 1 Pet. 3. 19 20 c. and though the Apostles partly by priviledge partly through necessitie the parts existing before the whole were necessitated first to baptize and then to plant Churches yet the Churches being once constitute these are Church priviledges to be dispensed both by the power of order and the power of jurisdiction CHAP. VI. Quest 2. Some speciall Reasons of Thomas Erastus against Excommunication examined THomas Erastus a Physitian who medled not much with Divinity save in this in which he was unsound in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame and nothing but a device of Pastors affecting domination 1. Object Onely Petâ—r killed Ananias onely Paul excommunicated Alexander and Hymeneus onely Paul said he would come to the Corinthians with the rod and for a long time onely Bishops excommunicated Presbyters gave advise onely Ergo This power is not in the Church Ans The consequence is naught Christ said only to his Disciples in person Go teach and Baptize Is it a good consequence therefore that none hath power to teach and Baptize but only the Apostles Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians to mourn for the incestuouâ— mans fall therefore no Pastors have power to exhort in the like kinde 2. We grant the Apostles did many things out of their Apostolick power which in a constitute Church the Church onely may doe as Paul his alone disputed against Circumcision of the Gentiles Act. 15. 2. What Ergo Paul in a Synod and a Synod hath not power to dispute and determine the same the contrary is evident Act. 15. 12 22 23. 3. It is false that the Authority and rod with which Paul said he would come to the Coriuthians 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apostle the same he giveth to Timothy and to all the Elders 3. If Bishops exercised the same power for many ages Erastus must shew us Bishops who could kill miraculously such as Ananias and Elimas and work miracles now beside that Erastus must with his new opinion hold up a new creature called a Prelate unknown to the Apostles or Ierome and the Fathers he must parallel Bishops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apostles Obj. 2. The Apostles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven and so bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments so also do the Ministers daily and yet Christ in his word commanded not those to be debarred from the Lords Supper Ans It is very true the Apostles and Pastors of Christ that now are denounce eternall wrath and that authoritatively against those that are invisibly to men heart-hypocrites who yet before the Church who know not the heart go for Saints and are neither excluded from Sacraments nor so much as rebuked But it is a vain collection that therefore externally scandalous are not to be debarred from the Supper and Excommunicated The Prophets 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God yet Heathens cannot be Excommunicated and yet I hope Erastus dare not deny but Christ hath forbidden that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sacraments Though I dare provoke any Erastian and attest them by their new Doctrine to shew me a warrant from Christs Testament why the Church should refuse the Seals to a Turke they will say A Turk is not willing to receive and therefore the Seals may be denied to him and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though scandalous if he desire it and professe repentance But I answer Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals What if he should be willing and require to be Baptized yet remaining ignorant of Christ and the Gospel we should not Baptize him Now by the Doctrine of Erastus we have no more re warrant to deny the seals to him then to deny them to Judas we desire a Scripture from the adversary which will not conclude with equall strength of reason against the giving of the seals to any scandalous member of the Church it is true a Turk ignorant of Christ though he should desire the seals is uncapable and he is unwilling vertually in regard he as yet refuseth the knowledge of the Gospel and so is the scandalous professor no lesse uncapable though we may grant degrees of incapacity for he is vertually unwilling to receive Christ in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-sins 2. Though a Turk should be unwilling as its like enough he will be yet we desire a Scripture why we cannot make offer of
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth
their office Preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments which is against the word Heb. 5. 7. Mat. 9. 38. 10. 5. 28. 19 20. Joh. 21. 20 21. Rom. 10. 14 15. 3. Where doth Erastus reade in the New Testament that Kings may not write Canonick Scripture as King David did and build a Typicall Temple to the Lord as Solomon did and give out Laws of Divine institution as Moses did Kings in the Old Testament did these and he can finde the contrary no where written 4. If the Church as the Church cannot chuse a Senate of Elders to Govern themselves without wronging the Magistrate how did the Apostolick Church without so much as asking advice of the Civill Magistrate set up a new Gospel new Sacraments new officers a new Government Did the Lord Iesus and the Gospel teach them to spoil Cesar Christ had said the contrary Give unto Cesar those things that are Cesars 5. To subject Magistrates to Excommunication is no more to subject them to externall dominion then to subject them as Erastus doth to rebukes warnings and threatnings for the former hath no more of coaction of dominion or of coercive power then the latter yea if to subject Kings to the rebukes of the Ministers of Christ be nothing but to subject them to internall and spirituall dominion no more is suspension from the Sacraments and Excommunication any thing but internall and spirituall dominion In this sense that neither of these two are bodily dominions no more then rebuking of Kings 2. Yet both these work upon the conscience in a spirituall way for the humiliation of the King and putting him to shame and fear 2 Thes 3. 14 15. that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord as rebukes do work 1 Tim. 5. 20. Gal. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Iude ver 23. Yea to say to a King He shall be buried with the buriall of an Asse as Ieremiah did cap. 22. And to call the Rulers Princes of Sodome Isa 1. 10. And King Herod a Fox and Rulers and Princes Dogs Psal 22. ver 16. and Bulls and Lyons ver 12. 13. and Wolves ravening for the prey Ezek. 22. 27. putteth no lesse shame upon Magistrates before men and so externall dominion on them and over them then Excommunication and debarring from the Seals of the Covenant doth Now Erastus subjecteth Magistrates to rebukings threatnings and reprehensions no lesse then we do Well Erastus will have one single Minister to exercise externall dominion over the Magistrates because this is manifest out of the Word but because he would flatter Princes as much as he can he denies that a Colledge of Elders may rebuke the Magistrate or convene him before them though he were the most flagitious Prince that lived and yet one man may summon him before the Tribunall of Christ and charge him to come to hear a Sermon and rebuke him in the face of the Congregation and denounce the Iudgements of God against him openly Is not this the Lord arming one single man against the Magistrate to put shame and confusion on him for his sins And if many Pastors convened should do this This were to arm the subjects against the Magistrate and to take the power from him that God hath given to him as Erastus talketh CHAP. XXII Quest 18. Of exclusion from the Sacrament of profession of repententance the judiciall Law bindeth not Christians The sword not a mean of conversion Of Idolaters and Apostates in the judgement of Erastus IN this Chapter Erastus disputeth against a Treatise written in the German Tongue in which he acknowledgeth there is more learning and truth then in the other writtings All the opinions that Erastus ascribeth to this Author justly or unjustly I know not but Erastus his faith may be justly suspected I cannot defend Erastus Touching those to be admitted to the Sacrament we speak alwayes de illis solis c. of those only who rightly understand the Doctrine of the Gospel and do approve and imbrace the same and who desire with others to use the Sacraments aright in regard of the externals of which only the Church can judge for the heart is rightly knowne to God only so the Author and we agree Ans The agreement is but poore by your owne relation But 1. Let Erastus answer what if the Christian Magistrate as Achab be a dog and sell himselfe to do wickedly What if he understand not the Doctrine of the Gospel Magistrates as Magistrates by vertue of the throne or place are not priviledged to be Orthodox and holy Let one Iulian once a Christian yet turning a sow an enemy to the Gospel be witnesse if we descend to the Iustices and to Master Constables it may be we finde even of those dogs and swine in their conversation though their place be a power lawfull and ordained of God We thinke saith Erastus the custome of the Church should be observed What by the custome of the Church onely by no precept or command of Christ should the holy things of God the pearls of the Gospel be denied to dogs and swine contrary to Christs command Mat. 7 2. Erastus must exclude the Magistrate out of the lists of his disputation in six books and say If the Christian Magistrate be ignorant and scandalous and yet desire to use the Sacraments right and professe he will learne to know God and to beleeve soundly and walke holily Yet the Sacraments are not to be denied to him Tell Erastus in sincerity who should debarre the Magistrate For in all your six books you by these words de illis solis c. professe that you plead not that he should be admitted to the Sacraments who shall exclude him not he himselfe for his credites sake he shall desire to come to the Sacraments as many for gaine and loaves follow Christ Ioh. 6. will they not follow him also to be seen of men as the Pharisees prayed in the streets 2. Let Erastus say when our Saviour said Give not holy things to dogs Did he mean to accept the persons of Kings and Iudges and professe though Kings and Iudges be dogs and swine yet deny not holy things to them 3. Hath Christ appointed no way in the New Testament as he did in the Old to debarre unclean men from our Passeover Or shall there be no Government no charge in the Ministers of the New Testament to keep the holy things of God from pollution If Master Iustice be an incestnous man a drunkard a dog shall he not be cast out of the midst of the Church Vzziah though a King yet for bodily leprosie was separated from the people of God and men of high places though doggs and swine shall be admitted to all the holy things of God under the New Testament 2. Erastus will have all admitted who desire to use the Sacraments right As touching all externalls of which onely the Church doth judge But 1. Where did we assert that the
saith he But the Magistrate himselfe is the apostate the heretick the idolater 2. He that may debarre from the seals may admit to the seals he that may do both Ex Officio is the formall dispenser of the seals by office that the Magistrate is not He that may put out or take in into the house by supream power is the Lord of the house He who by office may admit some to the Table and debarre other some is the Steward But the Magistrate is neither the lord of the Church nor the steward of the house by office We do not hold this consequence the Lord commanded ill doers to be killed Ergo He ordained in that same commandement that they be Excommunicated Nor do we say all those who were to be Excommunicated were to be killed as Erastus saith Nor that Excommunication in the New Testament succeedeth in place of killing in the Old Testament we see no light of Scripture going before us in these Erastus It is a wonder that you say that the godly Magistrate doth procure the externall Peace of the Common-wealth but not the salvation of the subjects that the Presbyters do only care for Ans The Sword is no intrinsecall mean of the saving of any mans soul It is true the godly Magistrate may procure a godly life but as a cause removens impedimentum removing idolatry heresie wolves and false teachers from the flock and commanding under the paine of the Sword that Pastors do their duty But Christ ascending on high gave Pastors and Teachers to gather a Church but not Magistrates armed with the Sword Erastus The Magistrates Sword is a most efficacious mean to bring men to the knowledge of God nothing more effectuall then affliction and the crosse when right teaching is joyned therewith examples teach us that in danger of death men have seriously turned to God who before could be moved by no exhortations But you say all die not in the Lord nor repent nor say I do they all die in the Lord who are taken away by diseases or are excommunicated yea Excommunication maketh many hypocrites Ans 1. Erastus here extolleth the Sword of the Magistrate as a more effectuall mean to salvation then exhortations or the Gospel But I read that Pastors are the Ministers by whom we beleeve and that they are workers with God and fellow-builders and Fathers to convert edifie to salvation and beget men over again to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 5 9. 1 Cor. 2. 4 15. Ambassadors of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Friends of the Bridgroome 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ioh. 3. 29. Angels Rev. 2. 1. But I never read any such thing of the Magistrate and that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. The arme of the Lord Esay 53. 1. Sharper then a two edged sword lively and mighty in operation Heb. 4. 12. You never read any such thing of the Sword of the Magistrate the rest are before answered Erastus Some may be changed in a moment as the publican Luke 18. Zâ—cheus The repenting woman Luke 7. If therefore they professe repentance they are not to be debarred from the Lords supper Ans Put it in forme thus Those who may be changed and translated from darknesse to light in a moment and say that they repent are to be admitted to the Lords supper I assume But doggs and swine and doggish and furious persecutors who are to be debarred from the Sacraments As Erastus saith pag. 207. may be changed in a moment and say they repent Ergo those are to be admitted to the Sacraments who are not to be admitted to the Sacraments let Erastus prove the Major proposition 2. We finde no such sudden change in the Publican Zacheus or the repenting woman as Erastus seemeth to insinuate 3. Christ who knoweth the heart and can change men in a moment can at first welcome persons suddenly converted Ergo Must the stewards and dispensers of the mysteries upon a may be or a may not be reach the pearls of the Gospel to doggs and swine whom they see to be such It is a wide consequence He that bringeth his gift to the Alter may in a moment be changed Ergo He should not leave his gift at the Altar and go and first be reconciled to his brother He is presently without more adoe to offer his gift his heart is straighted in a moment if we beleeve Erastus But the rather of this that the man is in a moment changed He is to be debarred least his scandalous approaching to use the holy things of God make the work of conversion suspitious to others 4. This argument presupposeth that unvisible conversion giveth a man right in foro Ecclesiâ— in the Churches court to the seals of the Covenant and so there should be no need of externall profession at all which is absurd Erastus Shall not then idolaters and apostates be debarred as wâ— saith he deny an idolater and an apostate to be a Member of thâ— Church of Christ so we thinke the man that defendeth his wickednesse is not to be reckoned amongst the Members of the Church Anâ— as we think the former are to be banished out of the society of Christians so we think the latter are not to be suffered in that society Ans The Idolater that maketh defection and the apostate were once Members of the Church what hath made them now no Members Who should judge them and cast them out the Magistrate I answer there is no Christian Magistrate If the Church must do it here truly is all granted by Erastus that he hath disputed against in six books even this very Excommunication But if there be a Christian Magistrate what Scripture is there to warrant that he should cast out a Member out of Christs body Here is an Excommunication without precept promise or practise in the word we read that the Church of Corinth congregated together hath a command to judge and cast out a scandalous Member 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 11 12 13. out from amongst the midst of them Let Erastus say as much from the New Testament for his Magistraticall casting ouâ— 2. What reason is there by Erastus his way for casting out an idolater and a man that defendeth his owne wickednesse 1. May not God convert those suddenly as he did the thiefe on the crosse and Saul Ergo They should not be cast out 2. The Magistrate cannot more cut off those from being Members of Christs body then he can remove their faith and internall communion with Christ Now for this cause Erastus saith the Church cannot Excommunicate pag. 1. 2 Thess 3. and 4. 3. Christ and the Apostles did neither cast out Iudas nor Scribes Pharisees or Publicans out of the Church though they were worse then idolaters 4. No helps of salvation are to be denied even to idolaters and to men that defend their owne wickednesse but their remaining in the Church amongst the godly is a helpe of their salvation
and God inviteth them to repentance and the staying in the Church And the Sacraments are to Erastus means of repentance and this casting out must be to save them for no power is given of God to the Magistrate or Church for destruction but for edification Now to put them out of the Church that they may be saved is as Erastus conceiteth to cast a lascivious Virgin out of the company of chaste Matrâ—ns to the end she may preserve her chastity I speak here all in the language of Erastus who useth all those against casting any out of the Church by Presbyters but they stand with equall strength against his casting out of idolaters and apostates out of the Church and so do the rest of his Arguments Therefore this conclusion of Erastus is a granting us the whole cause after in six books he hath pleaded none should be Excommunicated he falleth on Bellarmines Tutissimum igitur c. when he had written six books against justification by faith Lastly why should idolaters apostates and obstinately wicked men be excluded from the dispute of Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments for he knoweth that Beza and Protestant Divines do make these the speciall though not the whole subject of the dispute Now Erastus concluding his six books doth hereby professe he hath never faithfully stated the question when he excludes those from the subjectum questionis who especially heareth not the Church and ought to be Excommunicated Thus have I given an account as I could of the wit of Erastus against the freedome of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus CHAP. XXIII Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall Discipline QUEST XIX Whether or no the Christian Magistrate be so above the Church in matters of Religion Doctrine and Discipline that the Church and her Guides Pastors and Teachers do all they do in these as subordinate to the Magistrate as his servants and by his Authority Or is the spirituall power of the Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ only VVEE know that Erastus who is Refuted by Beza Vtenbogard whom Ant Walens Learnedly Refuteth Maccovius opposed by the Universities and Divines of Holland Vedelius Answered by Gu. Apolonius and others and the Belgick Arminians in their Petition to the States and Hu. Grotins against Sibrandus Lubert Divers Episcopall Writers in England do hold That the Guides of the Church do all in their Ministery by the Authority of the Christian Magistrate I believe the contrary And 1. We exclude not the Magistrate who is a keeper of both Tables of the Law from a care of matters of Religion 2. We deny not to him a power to examine Heresies and false Doctrine 1. In order to bodily punishment with the sword 2. With a judgement not Antecedent but Subsequent to the judgement of the Church where the Church is constituted 3. With such a judgement as concerneth his practise lest he should in a blinde way and upon trust execute his office in punishing Hereticks whether they be sentenced by the Church according unto or contrary to the word of God as Papists dream 3. We deny not but the Prince may command the Pastor to Preach and the Synod and Presbytery to use the keys of Christs Kingdom according to the Rules of the Word But this is but a Civill subjection though the object be spirituall But the Question is not 1. Whether the Christian Magistrate have a care of both Tables of the Law 2. Whether he as a blinde servant is to execute the will of the Church in punishing such as they discern to be Hereticks we pray the Lord to give him eyes and wisdom in his Administration 3. Nor thirdly Whether he may use his coercive power against false Teachers that belongs to the controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience 4. The Question is not Whether the Magistrate have any power of jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience they grant that belongeth to the Preaching of the Word But the Question is touching the power in the externall Court of Censures 5. The Question is not Whether the power of exercising Discipline be from the Magistrate I mean in a free and peacable manner with freedome from violence of men we grant that power and by proportion also that exercise of Discipline is from him But whether the intrinsecall power be not immediately from Christ given to the Church this we teach as the power of saying peacably from danger of Pirats and Robbers is from the King but the Art of Navigation is not from the King But the Question is whether the Magistrate by vertue of his office as a Magistrate hath Supream power to Govern the Church and immediatly as a little Monarch under Christ above Pastors Teachers and the Church of God to Iudge and determine what is true Doctrine what Heresie to censure and remove from Church-Communion the Seals and Church-offices all scandalous persons and that if Pastors or Doctors or the Church Teach or dispense censures they do it not with any immediate subjection to Christ but in the Name and Authority of the Magistrate having power from the Magistrate as his servants and delegates To this we answer negatively denying any such power to the Magistrate and doe hold that the Church and Christs courts and Assemblies of Pastors Doctors and Elders hath this power onely and immediately from Iesus Christ without subordination in their office to King Parliament or any Magistrate on earth by these Arguments 1. Because in the Old Testament the Lord distinguished two courts Deut. 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement 10. Thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and inquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee c. There be here two Courts clearly one court of Priests and Levites that were Iudges another of the Iudge Now the King by vertue of his Kingly office might not usurpe the Priests office 1. Vzziah was smitten with Leprosie for so doing 2. It is evident in Moses his writing that Aaron and his sonnes the Priests and Levites were separated for the service of the Tabernacle to teach the people to carry the Arke to sacrifice to judge the Leper and to judge between the clean and the unclean to put out of the campe out of the congregation the unclean and to admit the clean Lev. 1. 7 9 12 c. and 5. 8. and 7. 7. and 13. 3 4 c. 23. Numb 5. 8. c. and 18. 4 5. 2 Chron. 29. 11. You hath the Lord chosen to stand before him 1 Sam. 21. 1 2. Lev. 21. 1. Iosh 3. 8. 1 Kin. 8. 3. 1 Chron. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 5. 7. and 7. 6. and 8. 14. Zeph. 3. 4. Hag. 2. 11 12. Mal. 2. 7 Deut. 10 9. and 21. 5. Num. 1.
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian
the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are â—què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should â—ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we
1 2 3. ver 8 9 10. cap. 3. 8 9 10. Coming behinde in no gift 1 Cor. 1. 7. In Covenant with God casting out the incestuous 1 Cor. 5. Separated from Idols 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. Espoused to one husband Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. Established in the faith and increasing in number daily Act. 16. 5. Yea the Churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galile and Samaria and were edified walking in the â—ear of the Lord and in the comforts of the holy Ghost and were multiplied Act. 9. 31. Now if the Christian Magistrate be their only Head and chief Feeder and all Elders but his servants Edifying à sub Magistratu from and under the Magistrate How were they edified and the compleat house of God the house wanting a head and the Church of the living God without the chief feeder and shepheard the Magistrate when all this time the Lord set spirituall Pastors and watchmen over them It is true it might be some defect that they wanted a Christian Magistrate who was their Nurse-father and keeper and avenger of both Tables of the Law But this defect was 1. A defect of the Church as men who may be injured and do violence one to another as men if they want one who beareth the sword to be avenged on evil doers But it is no defect of the Church as the Church 2. There might be some defect in the Church as a Church in this regard that without the Magistrate his accumulative power the edification of the Church extrinsecally might be slower Church Laws lesse vigorous extrinsecally without the sword and evil doers might infest the Church more but there should be no privation or intrinsecall defect or want in the Church either of an officer or integrall part of the Church because they wanted the Magistrate 3. When the first three hundreth year the Churches wanted Christian Magistrates afterward Constantinus convocated the Councell of Nice against Arrius yet professing that he was Episcopus without After him the Empire being divided into three Constantinus Constantius and Constans the second adhered to Arrius oppressed the godly Constans and Constantinus lived not long Though Jovianus Theodosius elder yonger Gratianus Martianus were favourers of the Church yet most of the Northern Kings were persecuters In the sixth hundreth year they began to be obstinate favourers of Heresie In the West Antichristianisme in the East Mahumetisme rose for the most part the Church wanted godly Magistrates and alway hath wanted Whatever power or means of life Christ hath given to his Church or pastors for the edifying of their soules either in Doctrine or Discipline by these is the holy Ghost efficacious on the hearts and conscience of the people of God as immediatly given by Iesus Christ without the mediation or intervention of any other means But Christ hath given power and means of life to preach the word to admonish rebuke Excommunicate to the Church and Pastors by which the holy Ghost worketh efficaciously on the hearts of the people of God which God hath given immediatly to the Church and Pastors especially in the Apostolick Church when there were no Magistrates and the holy Ghost is no wayes efficacious in the hearts of the children of God by the Laws Statutes and sword of the Magistrate Ergo God hath given to his Church and Pastors not to the Magistrate power and means of life in which the holy Ghost is effectuall and that immediatly and not to the Magistrate Or thus Whoever is the supream officer and head of the Church having under him all Church-officers as his servants by such God is effectuall in the consciences of men But Pastors Teachers Elders are such and no wayes the Magistrate Ergo The Proposition is thus made good by the word of reconciliation and the rod of the Lords power in the hands of men The holy Ghost worketh efficaciously in men Now the question will only be to whom this word of reconciliation is committed and the rod of God the Scripture saith to the Ministers never to the Magistrate 2 Cor. 5. 18. And hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation ver 20. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification 2 Cor. 2. 13. If I come again I will not spare 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye Shall I come unto you with a rod or in love 1 Tim. 5. 17. Act. 20. 28. 29. 30. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not you judge them that are within Matth. 16. 19 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 21 22. This word is no where committed to the Magistaate nor is the holy Ghost efficacious by the Laws and sword of the Magistrate to convert souls we know not Magistrates to be Ministers by whom we believe but Ministers only 1 Cor. 3. ver 5. Nor is the sword a kindely and intrinsecall mean of conversion This Argument may be further confirmed by all the notable differences that the Scripture holdeth forth to be between the Magistrate and the Ministers and Church As 1. The Church judgeth only those that are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. The heathen Magistrate may â—udge both those that are within and without the Church and every soul is under his power Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15. Matth. 22. 21. And by these same Scriptures the Christian Magistrate being a lawfull Magistrate having under him both believers and heathen may and ought to judge both Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot judge those that are within by the word as the Church doth but only in some common coactive way by the sword to compell them to do their duty 3. The Magistrates Kingdom is of this world and he may fight with his sword to defend his own subjects and his subjects may fight for him But the Church and Kingdom of Christ are not of this world nor can the Church as the Church and the Ministers thereof fight or use the sword as is clear Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 4. The Magistrate beareth not the Sword in vain but he beareth the sword in vain over the consciences of men or to judge those that are within for the Church judgeth those that are within with no such weapon as the bloody Sword There is neither sword nor dagger nor any weapon of War required in the Church of Ephesus their censuring of grievous Wolves or false Teachers Act. 20. 28 c. Nor in the Apostles and Elders determining truth against perverters of souls Act. 15. 21 22 c. and 16. 4. Nor in the Church of Thyatira their not suffering Jezabell to teach Rev. 2. 20. Nor in Pergamus their not suffering those that held the Doctrine of Balaam Rev. 2. 14. Erastus l. 4. c. 6. p. 285. saith The Church can kill no man with the Sword There was no sword ever
dreamt of in rejecting an heretick after the first and second admonition Tit. 1. 10. Let our Adversaries shew what influence the Magistrates sword hath here yea say they The Magistrate may banish the heretick ou◠of the Church True Ans Not out of the Church as the Church but out from amongst his subjects as his subjects whom he is to defend in peace and godlinesse 2. It is evident Titus had no power of the sword but was an Evangelist Paul wrote not to Titus to banish the heretick the rejecting here is a spirituall censure performed by previous admonitions 3. What can the Magistrate as the Magistrate do to this 4. The Magistrate is a Lord and hath by Gods appointment a Lordly dominion over those that are under him the Minister is only a Minister a Servant a Preco or Herald and hath dominion in the Church Luk. 22. 24 c. Now those over whom the Magistrate hath a civill dominion as a Magistrate over those he may exercise that Lordly dominion of the sword But the Magistrate as the Magistrate may use no Lordly dominion of the sword over the Church as the Church to Preach Exhort Rebuke Admonish Excommunicate to judge those that are within as the Church may do 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot be the supream and highest Church officer having under him Church officers as his servants and deputies to Preach and censure as à sub under and from him because as a Magistrate he carrieth not that which hath any power over the conscience that is he carrieth no◠the word of the spirit as a Magistrate but the sword bodily to punish evil doers 5. He who by office is chief overseer and watchman in the Church he must by office keep his own vineyard and not be put to keep the vineyard of others Cant. 1. 6. He must watch for the souls of those whom by office he keepeth as one that must give an accompt Heb. 13. 17. He must as a speciall watchman by his office Take heed to grievous Wolves not sparing the Flock speaking perverse things Act. 20. 29. And as a watchman he must blow the Trumpet and give early and seasonable warning to the people of the sword Ezek. 34. 1 c. Yea he must watch for the souls of ministers and teachers and by office rebuke admonish censure and punish them and by office judge of their Doctrine and Discipline and is over the people in the Lord and to admonish them as 1 Thes 5. And worthy of Honour for well Ruling 1 Tim. 5. 17. But these the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot do 1. He keepeth another vineyard of the Civill state he is not Pastor to the Church as the Church over which the Holy Ghost hath set him Act. 20. 28. 1 Peter 5. 1 2 3. he is not to give an accompt for the soul◠and for the souls of Pastors by his office he may as a Christian be his brothers keeper to teach admonish Col. 3. 15. and exhort Heb. 3. 13. he is not by office to blow the trumpet as Ezekiel was Ezek. 33. 7 8. Ezek. 3. 17 18 19 20. he is not over the people in the Lord to admonish them as a Magistrate as a Magistrate he only is either to praise and reward well doing or take vengence on evill doing Rom. 13. 4. nor doth Paul think Nero 1 Tim. 5. 17. worthy of double honour all those are proper to Church-officers the proposition is necessary because if the Magistrate be the eminent and supream watchman over the Pastors as his under deputies and servants then must the Magistrate more eminently keepe the vineyard and watch for the souls both of Pastors and people feed the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath set him be over the people in the Lord be worthy of double honour as one that ruleth well and is worthy of double honour and that by office Now 1. The word never warranted him in the Old Testament to sacrifice to burne incense to Minister before the Lord to carry the ark But God separated the Priests and Levites for this only and was it such a sinne for Vzziah to burne incense and for Vzziah to touch the Ark and for any to bear the Ark but the Levites and are not these things written for our instruction are we all now to bear the Ark and are we all to dispense the word and Sacraments When Paul will not have women to teach in the Church and when God hath no lesse in the New Testament separated some by the laying on of hands and appointed a Ministery in the New Testament then he did in the Old 2. Where hath God in Old or New Testament set downe that all those qualifications in an eminent manner and as principally due to the Magistrate as he hath described the qualification of the officers of the New Testament in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Ephesians Ch. 4. v. 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Tim. 2. 1 Cor. 12. Rom. 12. 3. Did Christ put upon Church-officers in the New Testament all the proper titles priviledges and peculiar Characters of their calling as they are the deputies of Claudius Tiberius and Nero so they had been Christian Princes this the adversaries must prove and must all the Epistles of Paul to the Churches of Christ and of Iames and Peter Iohn and Iude which concern Church-officers be written First and principally to the heathen Emperours as they be Church Magistrates and Church-officers jure though they be in very deed enemies of the Gospel de facto It must put Erastus and all his to paines to prove that Magistrates as Magistrates were separated in the Old Testament to sacrifice to burne incense to bear the Ark of the Lord and Priests and Levites and Prophets were only the under servants and instruments of Kings and the like they must do in the New Testament But this is carefully to be observed that the adversaries though they speake of Government and some yield as Master Prynne doth that there is such a thing as Excommunication especially 1 Cor. 5. yet the truth is they deny all Church-government for I desire to know why they give to Ministers of the Gospel a power to try who are hereticks apostates and unworthy partakers of the holy things of God Yea such as may ordaine Ministers and reject hereticks after admonitions if Iesus Christ hath given this power of Government beside preaching the word I aske quo jure by what Scripture if by no warrant of Christ then it is unjustly given to them and the Apostles and Teachers then had no right to it if there be a right that by office Pastors should know what is soundnesse in the faith and integrity of conversation and so who are to be called to the Ministery who not who are to be excluded totally from the Church as Erastus and Master Prynne say who not Then what warrant hath the Magistrate to limit the
skill'd Physitian forbiddeth him to drink wine the King is to obey him as a Physitian by vertue of the sixth command as the King would not kill himselfe And yet by vertue of the fifth command the Physitian being the Kings subject is subject to the Laws of the King The Queen of Scotland as a wife was to be subject to her Husband in the Lord as the Word of God commandeth Ephes 5. 22. and her owne Husband not being King but a subject was to obey his Wife the Princes and supream Magistrate according to the Word of God Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Tit. 3. 1. Yea all Arts have a sort of collaterall and co-equall dignity and we are to believe a skilled Artist in his owne Art though this Artist be a servant a vassal a slave to those who do yeild to him in his owne Art CHAP. XXV Quest 21. Objections touching the subordinations of Magistrate and Church removed THere is nothing more hated by the Adversaries then the pretended emulation of those two superlatives and highest powers Some Object 1. Are not all powers on earth subject to the Magistrate Ministers of the Gospel not excepted doth not the Magistrate command the Pastors to preach the Word Ans All power deviating offensively and to the disturbance of societies in Morals is subject to the Civill power and the Sword and every power failing against the Law and Gospel within the bosome of the Church is subject to the Word of God in the mouth of the Ministers who are nothing but Servants and Heralds so that the subjection is to God not to the Church and in a spirituall and Ecclesiasticall way See P. Martyr Lo. Com. l. 4. c. 13. seq It s but a poor evasion of Vedelius to say That the Magistrate is subject to the Church Catachrestice abusive unproperly and abusively 1. Because the Ministers as the Ambassadors of Christ do properly and not abusively preach the Gospel to Magistrates 2. Magistrates are not unproperly the sheepe of Christ yea they are to the adversaries chief Members of the Church Ergo they are that way subject as other Members as Pareus saith Com. Rom. 13. Nor 3. Will that prove any thing that the Pastors are Ministers not Lords for to people and Prince as they have souls to be saved they are Ministers and by this people should abusively be subiect as well as Magistrates But Vedelius freeth Magistrates from subjection to Pastors because they are subject to the Word of God not to Pastors but so are the people subject also the same way Obj. 2. Then may the Church censure all sinnes even those that are most proper to the civill judge such as sorcery parricide sodomie for the which the Magistrate is to draw the sword and for which the Lord made the land to cast out seven great Nations Ans The case is one within the Church and another without the Church 2. It is one in the case of a confused or backsâ—â—ding Church another in the Church rightly constitute and pure without the Church God intendeth nothing either in the intention of the worker or the work but the externall peace of humane society Then I grant the Magistrate is at the first without any previous labours of religious men to save the soul of the offender to take care of peace and the conservation of humane society But within the visible Church where the Gospel is preached it is presumed that God intendeth salvation in regard of the intention of the work the Gospel being preached to all within the visible Church if therefore any within the visible Church fall in horrible scandals and such as are capitall in the intention of Gods dispensation without the Church God intendeth nothing but peace But in regard of the intention of Gods dispensation within the Church where the Gospel is preached he intendeth both peace by the godly Magistrates care and eternall life by the preaching of the Gospel Because therefore life eternall is more necessary then externall peace it is necessary that the Church first labour to try cognosce of and cure the mans soul by rebukes threats conviction and if need be by excommunication that the souls of many may be saved from the contagion of scandal before the Magistrate punish either to death if the scandal so deserve or by any coactive way by the sword the genuine fruit whereof is not repentance and gaining of the mans soul except by accident and through the co-operation of a higher hand above nature even of free grace but the externall peace of the common-wealth hence in a constitute Church the Magistrate is not to proceed with the sword against the body of any Member of the Church while the Church first try and attempt how to save his soul therefore the Magistrate is to sentence none as punishable by the sword while first he be laboured on by the Church and upon a previous sentence of the Church then must the Magistrates judging of a scandalous Church-member be subsequent and the Churches judging antecedent But 2. If the Church be remisse this is a defect and somewhat extraordinary if the Magistrate command the Church to do their duty and they neglect to do it the Magistrates cognizance then may be antecedent and not consequent and the case of a Church erring in a fact is as if in that fact there were no Church Obj. 3. Those are subordinate to the Church whose judgement and sentences are subjected to the Church to be tryed or condemned by the Church but the judgement and sentences of the Magistrate are subjected to the Church Ergo and by the like they prove Pastors to be subjected to the Civill Magistrate because their preaching their dispensing of the seals their sentences in their Presbytery are subjected to the Magistrate so as he may absolve or condemne Ans Vedelius shall never prove the Major as touching the subjection or subordination in question he is subject to the Magistrate whose sentence or judgement is subject in an antecedent cognizance and in a coactive corporall way it is true But now the assumption is false in a constitute Church the sentence or thing sentenced or judged by the Church is subject to the Magistrate in a subsequent cognizance and in a corporall coactive way only But not in an antecedent cognizance and by a way of Ecclesiasticall censuring we acknowledge a subordination of the Churches sentence to the Magistrate in regard of the Magistrates externall care to punish iniquity in any not in regard of intrinsecall judging and dealing with the conscience the Church is to give a reason of their sentence from the Word of God to the Magistrate when he demandeth it Obj. 4. Ministers as Ministers are subjects of the King Ergo the King judgeth them as Ministers Ans I deny the antecedent The Ministery as such is an Ordinance of God and cannot be judged nor are Ministers nor Painters as Painters nor Musitians as Musitians nor Saylors
fail in their judging the Magistrate is to command the Church to judge it over againe but the Magistrate cannot judge it himself as there is a complaint made to the Magistrate that the Pâ—inter hath not drawn the image exactly according to the samplar the Magistrate judgeth not of the Art of the Painter nor can the Magistrate as the Magistrate draw the image himselfe But the Magistrate may judge of the Painters breach of promise who did â—action to draw it exactly according to the samplar and hath not kept faith to the man who payeth him wages and therefore the Magistrate may either punish his morall error his breach of promise not his error of Art the faculty or company of Painters must judge of of that or then command the Painter to paint the same image again according as the Painter convenanted But it may be objected You then make the Magistrate to meddle no more with matters of faith and preaching truth or falsehood and giving out Ecclesiasticall rules in Church government as Act. 15. then he meddleth with painting according to the principles of Art now painting according to Art belongeth not at all to the conscience of the Magistrate but sound preaching right ruling in Gods house belongeth in a far nearer relation to the conscience of the godly Magistrate I Answer As touching the formall judging Ecclesiastâ—cally and as concerning this that the Magistrate should say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me or his dispensing of Word and Sacraments or his burning incense before the Lord it no more belongeth to him as a Magistrate to do these in his owne person formally because God hath not called him to act these then it belongeth to him to paint an Image to sew shooes to siâ— at the helme of a Ship and stir and guide her to such a Port as is clearer Heb. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 7. 17. 21. Rom. 10. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and 3. 1 2 3. Act. 13. 23. and 20. 28 29 30. Heb. 13. 17. 2 Chro. 26. 18 19 20 21. But in another consideration as sound or unsound dispensing of Word and Sacraments as right or unjust ruling in the house of God may more or lesse hurt or benefit the souls of men which he is to care for indirectly in ordine ad penas vel premia civilia et corporalia it belongeth more to the Magistrate to take care of the Church of Religion of preaching and governing Gods house then any painting or Arts in the earth Again the Church proceeding in these things that are against common iustice in all judicatures no lesse then in the Church as to condemn the party never heard or not convinced either by confession or under two sufficient witnesses or to do manifest unjustice in the manner of proceeding leaveth a clear place to the wronged party by the Law of nature if not to appeal yet to flee and have re-course to the Christian Magistrate who is Parâ—ns Patrie the father of the Common wealth 6. The question may either be of any really wronged by the Church whether he may appeal to the Magistrate or whether he who either beleeveth or thinketh or falsly lyeth and saith that he was wronged may appeal to the Magistrate 7. An Appeal is different from a Declinature a Declinature is properly a refusing to be judged because the judge is incompetent and the businesse belongeth not to him those who follow Erastus and deny all power of censures to the Church doe decline but not appeal from the Church thinking the Church hath no power at all to judge or censure the scandalous An Appeal is properly from the same inferiour judicature to a superiour judge in eadem serie in the same kind and it is either proper or unproper Proper it is when a particular Church doth appeal to a Synod of many Churches in the same place Unproper when either a wronged person hath recourse to one or many Pastors of Authority as Chrysostome Flavianus Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome that he would request the Church to proceed orderly Or 2. The godly Magistrate would command that the Church would unpartially proceed to right an oppressed man as Cabeljavius saith Or 3. When there is no Synods to be had then as Triglandius saith well from Beza the Christian Magistrate may provide â—it meanes of releeving the oppressed 8. This would ever be remembred that in case of the Churches erring in judgement which must be thought of as a sort of extraordinary case the godly Magistrate may do more then what ordinarily he can doe and so may the Church when the Magistrate oppresseth in judgement as great Iunius saith 9. We grant when any complaineth to the Magistrate that they are oppressed in judgement by the Church that the Church is obliged to give an account of their doings but that from common charitie to remove the scandall and that they owe to all Christians as may be evidently collected from 1 Pet. 4. 15. but this will not prove a subordination to common Christians as to Iudges nor yet to the Magistrate 2. The Magistrate when his judging is deemed scandalous is to give an account to the preachers of the Gospel who watch for his soul as King Saul gave an account to Samuel with a false Apologie I grant that he had obeyed the Commandement of the Lord but if Saul had been faultlesse in sparing â—gag and the cattell yet was he obliged to give an account to Samuel But that will not prove that King Saul was subordinate to Samuel to be judged of him because Prophets are but servants and Ministers to declare Gods will yet is it all the subordination that we require in this according to that And the people beleeved the Lord and Moses Now all the Arguments before alledged to prove that Pastors as Pastors are not subordinate in their pastorall acts to the civill Magistrate do also prove that there is no appeal from the Church in an Ecclesiasticall businesse to the civill Magistrate For 1. If two Painters contend touching any controversie in the mysterie of their Art they cannot appeal to the King as Iudge the King then should formally be a painter and which is absurd not by accident but as a King and so here if the King were the judge to whose determination we might appeale from the Church in a Church controversie sure the King as King should be a Church Officer if the Priests in controversie touching burning incense or offering strange fire to God should appeal to the decision of the King as the King sure the King in that as King should be an eminent High Priest and right of burning incense to the Lord should belong to him in as farre as the Kings lips in that controversie should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law from his mouth which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ezek. 22 26. and 44. 23 24. Deut. 17. 11. 2. The Church of Antioch should have
when he contributes his power to those things that materially conduce to a supernaturall end though he doe not contribute any thing that formally conduceth to such an end 2. So you may say a Christian Husband as a Husband a godly Physitian as a Physitian a Printer who printeth the Bible do nothing serviceable to Christ as Christ and in promoting Christs Mediatory Kingdom when the one begetteth children that being borne in the visible Church are made heires of the Kingdome of Christ and the other when by his Art and skill he preserveth the life of a godly and zealous Preacher The third when by his Art he publisheth in print the Testament of Christ the Physitian doth somewhat as a Physitian that is serviceable to Christ as Mediator yet I hope it is no Ecclesiasticall businesse to restore to health a godly Minister nor to beget a child who is made an heir of Grace nor to print the Bible so a Philosopher as a Philosopher doth convince one that worshippeth bread that the man leaveth his error and this is materially service to Christ and a promoting of Christs Mediatory Kingdom but neither Husband Physitian Printer or Philosopher are in these acts the Vicars and Deputies of Iesus Christ as the Magistrate is holden to be by the Adversary Nor 2. do they as Ecclesiasticall persons formally advance the kingdom of Christ as do the preachers of the Gospel far lesse more principally do they advance Christs Kingdom as the Magistrate is supposed to do Nor 3. hath their thus promoting of Christs Kingdom any influence upon the conscience as the Magistrate must have if he forbid sin as sin now the Magistrate as such doth nothing to promote formally the mediatory Kingdome of Christ for he may doe and doth all hee doth as a Magistrate yea suppose he were a Turk set over Christians as their Magistrate granting that Christ was a true Prophet yet may he as a Magistrate punish those who shall teach that Christ was a false Prophet and an impostor and though his Magistraticall acts be serviceable to Christ materially yet not formally 1. Because this Magistrate denieth Christ to be the Saviour of the world and yet as a Magistrate he justly punisheth the man that blasphemoâ—sly calleth Christ a deceiver and an impostor 2. Because as a Magistrate he believeth him not to be God and so ex intentione operantis he punisheth him not for a wrong done to Christ as Christ and as the Saviour of mankind but as a wrong done to the common wealth and as a disturber of the peace thereof Hence these Propositions touching the Magistrates relation to the Mediator Christ and his Church Propos 1. The Magistrate as a Magistrate is not the Vicar nor Deputie of Iesus Christ as Mediator 1. Because this is the heart and soul of Popery that the Papists teach that Christ as Mediator hath left a temporall an earthly and visible Monarch as his Vicar on earth Now that learned and singular ornament of the Protestant Churches Andreas Rivetus hath well said Christ hath instituted neither Kings nor Princes in the Church as his successors nor any Vicars with a domination but onely Ministers and Servants who are to discharge their Embassage in the Name of the onely Prince Christ for an Embassage cannot institute other Ambassadors either Kings or Princes but onely Ministers who do serve not reigne in the Kingdom of Christ he himselfe onely reignes the Servants of this great King promote the Kingdom of their Prince nor do they ever usurpe the royall power Yea all the arguments of Protestants that are brought to prove that the Pope a Bishop and a Church man because he is a Bishop and a Steward in the Church and in Christs spirituall Kingdom that is not of this world cannot be an earthly Prince and Monarch having power either directly or indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia to dispose of Kingdomes and crownes and enthrone and dethrone Kings doe also prove that the King cannot be head of the Church nor the Magistrate an Officer of the Church Doe not Protestant Divines condemn that blasphemous speech of Cardinall Bertrandus that Christ who was a temporall Lord on earth should not seem a discreet and wise Prince if he had not left a Temporall Vicar behinde him in the Church and that of Armacanus to be false that Christ by birth was the true King of Iudea and so a Temporary Prince hence say they there should be a temporary Prince and an earthly Monarch the successor of Christ as King and Mediator This Becanus the Iesuite maketh a speciall ground of the Popes Headship of the Church and for this Suarez disputeth yea the Iesuite Aegid Conninck saith It is the common and received opiâ—â—â—n of all the Romish Doctors that Christ as man hath a true Kingly power and a direct dominion over all the Kingdomes of the world to give them lawes and to exercise all Kingly power over them though de facto he abstained from it and is not upon this pillar builded the Popes Supremacy and that which Augustinus de Ancona saith Idem esse dominium dei Papâ— it is the same dominion which God and the Pope hath because it is the same jurisdiction of the Ambassador and of the Lord who sent him I deny not but many Papists give to Christ an indirect Kingly power and to the Pope they give the same indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia as Vasquez and Pet. Waldingus and others but this we say if Iesus Christ forbid a preacher of the Gospell remaining a preacher to be a civill Magistrate or temporall Lord as he doth both by precept and and practise Luke 22. 24 25 26. and 12. 13 14. Ioh. 18 36. and 6 15. then upon the same ground he must forbid the civill Magistrate to be a Church Governour as if God should forbid a Physitian to be a Painter because the two callings cannot lawfully consist in the person of one man he should also forbid a Painter to be a Physitian then the Arguments against a Monarchy and Magistraticall power in the Bishop of Rome must fight against any Ecclesiasticall power in a Magistrate if then the Pastors doe as Pastors rebuke exhort excommunicate and censure as directly subordinate to the Magistrate then Pastors as Pastors discharge their office as inferiour and under Magistrates and so they partake in so farre of a temporall dominion being direct instruments under Temporall Lords and if the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe command them to dispense Word and Sacraments and discipline and make and unmake Pastors and regulate and limit them and make Lawes to them then the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth partake of an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and both are forbidden by Christ in the places cited 2. If the Magistrate be the onely supream Church Governour under Christ the government of the Church must be a visible Monarchy and the Magistrate must have both the Swords Temporall and
Christ mediator for he denieth expresly Ioh. 18. 36. that he hath such a Kingdom as Mediator or that he was instructed with the sword as Mediator Luk. 12. 13. Now as God and Creator of the world Christ could not deny but he had a Kingdom worldly and that he hath a regnum potentiae an universall Kingdom of power as Lord of Hoasts to dispose of all the Kingdoms of the world and to rule amongst the children of men and to rule over the children of men and to give them to whomsoever he will Dan. 4. 25. 8. 18. â—er 27. v. 6 7 8 9. Psal 24. 1. Psal 50. v. 12. Nor is this Kingdom and Power given to Christ nor is he made Prince and a King as God but as Mediator to give repentance to the House of Israel and forgivenesse of sins Act. 5. 31. I grant it is said Phil. 2. 9. God hath highly exalted Christ and given him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and of things in earth and things under the earth What doth not this say the adversaries comprehend a royall power given to Christ and hath not Christ from this power to substitute Magistrates in his place as his vicars under him and as little mediators I answer it doth in no sort follow for that is a spirituall power as is clear Rom. 14. v. 9. For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived that he might be Lord both of dead and living v. 11. For it is written as I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confesse God So it is clearly expounded of Christs exalting at the right hand of God Act. 5. 31. for spirituall and supernaturall ends I grant as Mediator and King he breaketh his enemies Devils and men Psal 2. 9. With a rod of yron and dasheth them in pieces like a potters vessel and maketh his enemies his footstool Psal 110. 1. But that is no carnall power such as earthly Kings useth it is a spirituall power for the reason is given ver 2. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Sion By which v. 5. as a great Anti-royalist He strikes through Kings in the day of his wrath Now Christ as Mediator sendeth not out Kings and Princes to conquer souls to him with their sword Renowned Salmasius saith When Christ sent his Apostles first to preach the Gospel and to lay the foundation of the Christian Church did he send out with them lictors pursevants men of war with a bundell of rods and with axes to compell men to come in to his Kingdome Commanded he to smite them with swords and axes who would not receive the Gospel No yea he would not have them to take with them a staffe a scrip or shoes But though Christ subdue all his enemies Devils and wicked men it shall never follow that Christ is for that King and head of Devils and wicked men For Christ is as Mediator King and Head or mediatory King and Head of those that are the subjects and redeemed conquest of this King and of those who are members of the body of which he is Head now this body is his Church only Col. 1. 18. He is the Head of the Body the Church Eph. 1. 22 23. And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Which is his Body the fulnesse of him that filleth all The Body of Christ to be edified Ephesi 4 12. Till we all all that body of the Saints to be perfected v. 11. come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ v. 16. from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the edifying of it selfe in love Now never Divine can say that Devils and wicked men who shall bow to Iesus are the subjects of this Kingdom of Christ who have right to the fruits of the Kingdom Righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. far lesse that they are of the Body that is Christs Body Christs fulnesse Christs Body to be perfected edified to Come in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect man c. Arg. 6. These Megistrates that are the mediatory vicars deputies and heads of the Head Iesus Christ and his Kingdom these are of his Body and subjects under the King and Mediator Christ the chiefe Head and King For it is not to be presumed that Christ will appoint these to be heads and vicars of his Body and little Kings over his Kingdom as he is Mediator who are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom But Magistrates as Magistrates are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom no more then Husbands as Husbands Fathers as Fathers are members and their should have been Husbands and Fathers though the Lord Iesus never had been Mediator advocate and Priest of a redeemed Church Obj. But are Pastors and teachers and Elders as such members of the Christian Church Ans If eyes and ears be members of the body and watchmen members of the city then are they ex officio by their office members of the Church But if the Magistrate as a Magistrate be a member of the Church then all Magistrates Heathen and Turkish are members of the Christian Church ex officio by vertue of their office Arg. 7. That opinion is not to be holden which layeth ground that Christ Mediator is a temporary King hath under him Magistrates even heathenish who have nothing to do with a Mediator to bear a temporall sword for a supernaturall and spirituall end as Christâ— under heires he himselfe being the first heir of all such and so maketh heathens within the verge of the mediatory Kingdom as if Christ were as Mediator a King to Heathen and all and every one of mankind who must have Magistrates and so maketh the Kingdome of men as men and the Kingdom of Grace commensurable and of alike latitude and extension and maketh nature and grace of equall comprehension But such is the former opinion the proposition cannot be denied except by Arminians Socinians Papists who do maintain an universall redemption a grace universall a Catholick Kingdom of Grace comprehensive of all and every man of Pharoah Evil merodach Belshazer all the Kings of Romans Persians Assyrians Chaldeans and of Turk India and such as worship the Sunne and Moon the Devil and the work of mens hands The assumption is granted by Master Coleman who saith Christ is the rightfull King of the whole earth he meaneth Christ as Mediator to whom the Father hath given a Kingdom Obj. Doth not Christ as King make all
his enemies his footstool and subdue all things to himselfe Ergo his Kingdome is as large as all things Ans The Lord Iesus Christs power Kingly and his power mediatory which includeth a power as God for he is Mediator and a mediatory King according to both natures doth no way make him King of Devils of Hell of sin of the reprobate and damned no more then Davids power over Ammonites and Moabites makes him King and feeder of the Ammonites and Moabites Never Divine said that Christ was King of Devils and King of Hell though he subdue Devils and Hell and make them his footstool Col. 2. 15. But as hability and gifts was not sufficient to make Christ a Priest but he behooved to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authority and a lawfull calling Heb. 5. 4 5. so he behooved to be called set and established on the Holy-hill of Zion as a King of the Fathers making Psal 2. 5 6. Psal 89. 26 27 28 29. Luk. 1. 32 33. ver 68 69. 54 55. And therefore though as King and an eternall King he subdue all things even his enemies yet it followeth not he is King and Mediator and Head of his enemies Arg. 8. All those whom Christ maketh officers Legats and Ambassadors of his mediatory Kingdom they have either the word of the Kingdom committed to them as Pastors and Doctors and of old Apostles Evangelists Prophets that they may make work on the consciences of men to make them Kings and Priests unto God or they are by the word of admonition and rebuke to deal for the same end as governours and Elders 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. for the officers of the Kingdome and sword or scepter of the Kingdome the Word of God Psal 45. 4. Rev. 19. 15. Heb. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. which are the means are congruously proportioned to the end the gathering of the Saints the perfecting of his body Eph. 2. 11 12. But never did Christ appoint the Magistrate with his sword and his temporary rewards and praise of well doing to have any action on the conscience of men or to co-operate for so high an end directly and kindly for sure the sword cannot reach that end except indirectly and by accident in some imperated acts He may procure that there be such means as word and seals and Church-officers and so be an intrinsecall mean to set up those which are the spirituall and truly intrinsecall means and this is all Object 1. Was not this the first step of papal tyranny that the Church-men would be exempted from the power of the Magistrate and sâ—t themselves up as supream collaterall Independent powers in all Ecclesiasticall affairs as the Magistrate was supream in all politick businesse Ans It is a calumnious consequence Pastors and Teachers will not be judged by the Magistrate in things meerly Ecclesisticall â—o stand to his Ecclesiasticall decision as if his lips ex officio should preserve knowledge Ergo Pastors and Doctors do exempt themselves from the Lawfull power of the Magistrate in his civill judging by the sword it is as if they would say Church-men refuse to submit to an usurped and unlawfull power of the Magistrate Ergo they refuse to submit to their lawfull power 2. They bring not one word to prove that this was the first step of papal tyranny now a supremacy and independency in doctrinals and civill things the adversaries deny not If King Ahab finde the Priests of Iehovah turn Priests of Baal and the Prophets prophesie lies we and the adversaries agree that King Ahab hath a supream independent power to judge and punish them with the sword and if King Ahab will take on him to burne incense to the Lord the Priests and Prophets of the Lord have an immediate supream independent power to rebuke King Ahab for usurping that which is independently and incommunicably proper to the Priests onely and they may refuse to bee judged by King Ahab when he would judge them for giving out this sentence It belongeth not to King Ahab or King Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron 2 Chron. 26. Will they say this supremacy of the Priests is a step to papall Tyranny 3. This is rather papall Tyranny it selfe that the Magistrate as head of the Church and as an Ecclesiasticall person may as a Magistrate governe in all externalls the Church as he pleaseth with a royall supream independent power and because the Magistrate may send others to rule for him 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Ergo he may commit this royall power to a creature called a Prelate as to his Deputie in his name to judge as Phocas gave first a supremacy to Boniface the third which no Bishop of Rome had before and judge if this be not the first step to Papall Tyranny They possibly may say The Magistrate can commit no Magistraticall power to any Churchman for Christ for bad them to take on them the civill domination of the Lords of Gentiles Luke 22. 26 27. Ans But this is an Ecclesiastick not a civill administration and if it be a lawfull Ecclesiasticall supremacy why may not the Magistrate who hath power to send Deputies to act in his name depute a lawfull Ecclesiasticall power to Ecclesiasticall persons Pastors and Doctors who in the mind of the adversaries are all but the Deputies of the Magistrate in all that they doe Obj. 2. But is it not Popery that the Magistrate shall be obliged as a Lictor to execute the decrees of the Church Ans I know not if the Lictor with blind obedience be to behead Iohn Baptist or if Doeg should kill the Lords Priests because King Saul commandeth him 2. This Argument concludeth that neither Magistrate nor people should beleeve Articles of faith because the Church and Pastors saith so but because Iehovah saith so nor is the Ruler to beleeve or execute what the Church decrees because they decree it but because he beleeveth it is the will of Christ what they give out in Name of Christ 3. Is it not Popery that the Pastors and Teachers should execute the lawes of the Magistrate both in dispensing Word Sacraments and Discipline for they may not as Pastors and Doctors judge whether the Ecclesiasticall decrees of the Magistrate be the will and minde of Jesus Christ or no. The Magistrate in doctrine and discipline is the onely supream judge here as in all causes civill as he exerciseth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a dominion in the on Luke 22. 27. so also in the other except the Adversaries shew us a difference Yea as Mr. Pryn with the Erastians say Because there is no certain form of the government of the Church in Scripture he hath an Arbitrary power as Magistrate to appoint any government in the Church not contrary to the Word any Officers Prelates and Cardinals any ceremonies as pleaseth him and may impose them on the consciences of Pastors
glory on every Assembly on Mount Zion for we are witnesses of Your Honours Travels for both that glory may dwell in our Land Your Honours at all respective observance in the Lord S. R. To the Ingenuous and Equitable Reader IT lieth obvious to any ordinary underderstanding worthy Reader that as alwayes we see a little portion of God so now the Lord our God in his acting on Kingdoms and Churches maketh Darknesse his Pavilion to finde out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Demonstrative Causes and true Principles of such bloody conclusions and horrible vastations as the Soveraign Majesty of Heaven and Earth hath made in Germany Bohemiah and the Palatinate as if they were greater sinners then we are and why the windows of Divine Justice have been opened to send down such a deluge of blood on Ireland and why in Scotland the Pestilence hath destroyed in the City and the Sword of the Lord not a few in the fields their Lovers and Friends standing aloof from their calamities is from the Lord who is wonderful in Counsel but to finde reasons to quiet the understanding is not an easie scrutiny matters are rolled on invisible wheels It is enough to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Men no Angels can hunt out the tracings of Divine Providence Nor can we set a day of Law nor erect a Court to implead this Lord who is not holden in Law to answer for any of his matters It were our wisdom to acknowledge that the actions of our Lord ad extrà are so twisted and interwoven thred over thred that we can see but little of the walls and out-works of his unsearchable counsels sure Divine Providence hath now many irons in one fire and with one touch of his finger he stirtâ—â—h all the wheels in Heaven and Earth I speak this if happily this little piece may cast it self in the eye of the Noble and Celebrious Judges and Senators who now sit at the â—eâ—m for I hope they consider it is but a short and sorry Line or rather a poor Circle Job 1. 21. Gen. 3. 19. between the Womb and the Grave between Dust and Dust and that they then act most like themselves Psal 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods when they remember they are sinful men and when they reckon it for gain that the King of Ages gives them a Diurnal of 24 hours to build the House of the Lord to cause the heart of a Widow Church though her Husband live for evermore to sing for joy and are eyes to the blinde and legs to the lame and withall do minde that when the Spirit is within half a Cubit or the sixth part of a Span to Eternity and Death cannot adjouâ—n for six hours to repent or do any more service to Christ in the body the welcom and testimony of God shall be incomparably above the Hosanna's of men Undeniable it is that we destroy again what we have builded if we behead the Pope and divest him of his Vicarious Supremacy and soader the Man of Sins head in the Ecclesiastical Government to the shoulders of any Man or Society of men on Earth It is not an enriching spoyl to pluck a Rose or Flower from the Crown of the Prince of the Kings of the Earth Diamonds and Rubiâ—s picked out of the Royal Diadem of Jesus Christ addeth but a poor and sorry Lustre to Earthly Supremacy it is Baldnesse in steaâ— of Beauty An Arbitrary power in any whether in Prince or â— relats is intolerable Now to cast ouâ— Domination in one and to take it in in another is not to put away the Evil of our doings but to Barter and Exchange one sin with another and mockingly to expiate the Obligation of one Arrear to God by contracting new Debt Again how glorious is it that Shields of the Earth lay all their Royalty and Power level with the dust before him that sitteth on the Throne and to make their Highnesse but a Scaffold to heighten the Throne of the Son of God Yea if Domination by the Sword be the Magistrates Birth-right as the Word of Truth teacheth us Luke 22. 25 26. Psal 82. 1 6. Rom. 13. 4. and the Sword can never draw blood of the Conscience It is evident that the Lord Jesus alloweth not Carnal weapons to be used within the walls of his Spiritual Kingdom and if Power be an enchanting Witch and like strong Drink which is dolosus luctator a cosening Wrestler we are to be the more cautelous and circumspect that it incroach not upon Jesus Christ for fear that we provoke the eyes of his glory and cause Jerusalem to be plowed and Zion become heaps and many houses great and fair desolate Let the Appeal be to the Spirit that speaketh to the Churches in the Word The Golden Reed can measure every Cubit of the Temple as well the outer Porch as the Holy of Holiest and all the dimensions the length and bredth of the City which is named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord is there If the Scripture be no Rule of Church Government but the Magistrates Sword be upon the shoulders of Christ as the prime Magistrate we come too near to the Jewish Earthly and Temporary Mesâ—iah And if Excommunication and Censures and that Ministerial Governing which was undeniably in the Apostolick Church be Fictions we are in the dark I confesse we know not whether the Vessels of the House should be of Gold and Silver or if they should be but Earthen Pitchers It is said That all this is but a Plea for a Dominion of an higher Nature even over the Consciences of men by Censures But why a Dominion Because a power of Censures Surely if they were not Spiritual Censures and such as hath influence on the Conscience we should yield a Domination were the businesse But this power of Censuring Spiritually is as strong as Authoritative in Dispensing Rebukes Threats Gospel-charges and Commands in the Word Preached as in Censures The power is Ministerial only in the Word not Lordly and why should it be deemed a Dominion and an Arbitrary power in the one and not in the other If the will of the Magistrate may carve out any Government that seems good to him and the Word of God in this plea be laid aside as perfect in Doctrine but imperfect and uselesse in Government we fall from the Cause But if the Word of God stand as a Rule in matters of Church-Government then the Question is only on whose shoulders the Ark should be carried and by whose Ministery doth Jesus the Lord and King of the House punish if I may use this word Scandalous men And whether doth the Head of the Church Christ in laying Judgement to the Line and Righteousnesse to the Plummet use the Magistrates Sword for a Spiritual and Supernatural end of the Service and Ministery of his Church or doth he send Pastors and Teachers as his Ambassadors for this end But if you were not
Disputing your self and not Christ say some to make Preachers the Alpha and Omega of mens Consciences and the Circle which beginneth and endeth at it self you would be satisfied if Scandals be punished by the Magistrate Is not the Magistrate a Christian as you are Paul was glad that the Gospel was Preached he made no account by whom But I should be grieved that such a hard conclusion should be drawn out of such innocent Principles This were to extract Blood out of Milk a Domination out of a meer Ministery and I confesse Self is a great Sophist in Debates and that any man is inclinable to miscount himself and to think he may stand for an hundred when the product is scarce one if not a cypher I conceive nothing is here taught that may reach a blow to the Honour and Majesty of the Godly Magistrate The Magistrate is a Christian as well as the Preacher and in some sense so all the People were holy as were Moses Aaron and the Levites Uzziah who burned Incense was a Member of the Church of the Jews and Circumcised no lesse then the Sons of Aaron Yet I hope these stretched themselves beyond their line when they usurped what was due to the Priests and Levites It s another thing to punish evil doing with the Sword the Magistrate is to do this But there is a Spiritual removing of Scandals by the saving of the Spirit in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. Matth. 18. 15. 2 Cor. 10. 8. and a gaining of the Soul of an Offender This Spiritual removing of Scandals doth only bring Christ and the Gospel in request in the hearts of both such as are within and without the Church as Scandals raiseth up an evil report of Christ and the Truth Now the Sword can never this way remove Scandals and because Christ hath appointed Spiritual means and Spiritual Censures to restore the Lord Jesus to his Honour 2 Cor. 2. It is presumption with all submission I speak it for men to horse out and decourt such Censures Spiritual as the Apostles in the Spirit and Wisdom of Christ used as most sutable to that end and which the Lord commandeth in the second Command and to substitute in their room nothing but a Sword void of all activity on the Conscience I do also here plead for the perfection of the Word of God against Humane Ceremonies which are deservedly by the Honorable Houses of Parliament and Reverend Assembly laid aside Religion needeth not any such Ornaments except men would make the Worship of God when naked under shame and so under sin for Justice Married shame and sin once But as Roses Lillies the Sun and other glorious Creatures are most beautiful without Garments and not capable of shame so is the Worship of God I confesse Ceremonies were the Seas and Rivers that Prelats delighted to swim in and if their Element be dried up they have the lesse pleasure to live But if they would repent of their bloody Persecution that their Souls might be saved no matter Ceremonies as they have nothing of Christ in them so have they been injurious to Magistrates It is but a Ceremony that the Emperour kisse the sole of the Popes foot because there is indented on it a curious Crucifix And when Prelacy was yong and its beard not grown a Deacon was sent to Theodosius the Emperor by the Prelats to chide him because he presumed to sit in the Chancel a place too holy for Lay-men What I have here said against Erastus a friend too dear to worthy Bullinger and Rodolp Gualther often we love both the Friend and his Error I humbly submit to the Judgement of the Godly and Learned But I conceive I am unwilling that Error should lodge with me willingly and I professe I am afraid that wrath is gone out from the Lord against the Rulers if they shall after a Reformation obtained with the Lives Blood Tears and Prayers of so many of the Saints whereof a great number are asleep in the Lord rear up a building to the Lord so maimed and lame as Jesus Christ shall say Offer it now to your Governour will he be pleased with you or accept your persons But it is a Controversie say some whether the Government of the Church of the New-Testament belong to the Magistrate or to the Church to which I say 1. It was a Controversie created by men willing to please Princes with more power in the Courts of Christ then ever the Law-giver and Apostles gave them and that against the minde of glorious Lights the first Reformers and the whole Troops of Protestant Divines who Studied the Controversie against the usurped Monarchy of the Man of sin more exactly then one Physitian who in a cursory way diverted off his road of Medicine of which he wrote Learnedly and broke in on the By upon the deepest Polemicks of Divinity and reached a Riders blow unawares to his friends 2. In things doubtful Conscience hath refuge to the surest side Now it s granted by all and not controverted by any That in the Apostolick Church the Government of the Church of the New Testament was in the hands of Apostles Pastors Teachers and therefore Conscience would sway to that in which there can be no Error except on supposal of abuse and Christian Rulers would not do well to venture upon Eternity Wrath the Judgement to come confiding on the poor Plea of an Erastian Distinction to incroach upon the Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ This very God of Peace build Zion and make her an Habitation of Peace Yours in Jesus Christ S. R. A Table of the CONTENTS of the Book Introduction SECT 1. CHrist hath not instituted a mutable Church-Government Page 1 2 Some things moral some things natural in Gods worship Ibid. Physical Circumstances are all easily known and numbred p. 2 Circumstances and such and such Circumstances p. 3 Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved by Scripture as being supposed p. 4 5 1. Argument to prove that the platform of Ch. governmâ—is not mutable at mens wil p. 7 The Script way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable is it self unalterable p. 8 2. Argument p. 9 The Scripture shall not teach when we sin in Church-policy when not if the platform be alterable at mens will Ibid. There is no reason why some things positive are alterable in Ch. -policy some not p. 10 3. Argument ibid. The place 1 Tim. 6. 13. touching the unviolable coÌ„mand given to Timothy discussed p. 10 11 12 Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positions of policy p. 11 Widows p. 12 SECT 2. 4. Argument p. 13 Christ is the head of the Church even in the external policy thereof p. 13 14 A promise of pardon of sin made to the right use of the Keys proveth Discipline to be a part of the Gospel p. 15 16 The will of Christ as King is the rule of the Government of his house p. 17 18 Things
of policy because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore alterable at the will of men p. 19 20 Order requireth not a Monarchical pâ—elate p. 21 22 How the care wisdom of Christ hath left an immutable platform of Discipline p. 22 23 Christ the onely immediate King Head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars p. 24 25 SECT 3. 5. Argument p. 26 27 Moses and David might not alter or devise any thing in Worship or Government nor may the Church now p. 27 28 Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials as were in the Old p. 29 30 How Moses his doing all according to the patern proveth an immutable platform The Objections of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Pryn answered at length p. 30 31 32 33 34 c. Gods care to us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide theÌ„ natural Reason in all morals of Church-Discipline p. 33 34 The occasional writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable p. 35 36 Papists pretend as Formalists do that things are not written in the Word because of the various occurrences of providence p. 36 37 That there was no uniform platform of Government written in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now p. 39 40 Fundamentals because successively delivered are not alterable p 41 42 The Church of Ierusalem as perfect in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern p. 42 43 The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable p. 45 46 The Argument of Moses his doing all in the Tabernacle to the least pin according to special direction further considered p. 47. 50 The Ark of Noah proveth the same ib. Formalists acknowledge Additions to the Scripture contrary to Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. the same way that Papists do p. 51 -56 c. Moses and Canonick Writers are not Law-givers under God but Organs of God in writing and meer reporters of the Law of God p. 62 63 Papists say that the Church is limited in the making of Ceremonies both in the matter and the number and so do Formalists p 62 63 64 Four wayes Positives are alterable but by God onely p. 64 All things never so small are alike unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture p. 64 65 By what authority Canonical Additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses p. 65 Canonick Writers how immediately led by God p 66 The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same p. 67 What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing lawful according to Hooker p. 68 The Fathers teach that all things are to be rejected that are not in Scripture p. 69 70 â—t derogateth nothing fâ—om the honour of God in Scripture that hee be consulted in the meanest things p. 70 How things are in Scripture p. 71 Some actions are supernaturally moral some naturally or civilly moral some mixt p. 72 Some habitual reference to Scripture is required in all our moral actions p 73 Works of Supererogation holden by Hooker p. 77 Whether our obedience be resolved in all Church policy in This saith the Lord in his Word or in This saith the Church p. 79 Two thingâ— in the external worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals or Circumstantials p. 80 SECT 5. The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent in Church-policy not to purpose in this question p. 81 82 c. SECT 6. What are Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Religion Service Worship Love Adoration p. 82 83 84 85 Two acts of Religion imperated and elicite p. 83 Honouring of holy men is not worship p 84 The Religions object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civil object except the intention concuâ—s maketh not religious adoration of a civil object p. 85 86 What Worship is p. 86 87 Worship is an immediate honouring of God but some worship honoureth him more immediately some lesse p. 87 88 A twofold intention in worship p. 88 89 Vncovering the head is veneration not adoration p. 89 Consecration of Churches taken two wayes condemned p. 90 Master Hookers moral grounds of the holinesse of Temples under the N. T. answered p. 92 The place 1 Cor. 11. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in c. maketh nothing for hallowing of Churches p. 93 Nor the place Psa 74 8. p. 94 The Synagogue not Gods house as the Temple was ib. Question 1. The negative argument from Scripture valid p 95 Not to command is to forbid p. 96 How far Davids purpose to build the Temple was lawful p. 97 Of additions to the Word p. 98 Even perfecting additions of men are unlawful p. 99 Every moral action is to be warranted by the Word p. 102 What is man's in worship is not lawful p. 103 Not all actions in man as actions of meer nature of arts or trades of sciences but only moral actions are regulated by Scripture p 104 Helps of faith and the formal object of faith are different p 105 What certitude of saith is required in all our actions of our daily conversation p. 107 The Scripture a Warrant for the morality of our acts of the second Table p. 107 Many actions of the second Table are purely moral all actions of the first Table are purely moral p. 107 108 What ever is beside the Word of God in morals is contrary to it p. 109 The vanity of the perfection of Scriptures in Essentials not in Accidentals p. 110 Whatsoever is not of faith how true p. 110 111 Doubting condemneth p 113 Papists say the Scripture in general is perfect but not in particulars and so Form lists p 114 What is onely negative in Gods worship cannot be commanded ibid. Opinion of sanctity and divine necessity not essential to false-worship ibid. The distinction of worship essential and accidental of Gods general and particular will is to be rejected p. 118 119 The distinction of divine and apostolike traditions rejected p. 125 126 Circumstances not positive religious observances as ceremonies are p. 127 Ceremonies usurpe essential properties of divine Ordinances p. 128 129 130 We owe subjection of conscience collateral onely to Gods Ordinances p. 135 The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies p. 136 The place Matth. 15. concerning the traditions of the Elders discussed p 137 138 Ceremonies Magical p. 141 If the third command shall enjoyn decency in general then must it enjoyn this special decency Crosse and Surplice p. 141 142 Iewish and Popish Ceremonies are fruitlesse professions of unlawful worship p. 142 143 Whether the Ceremonies be Idolatry p 144 Of religious kneeling ibid. Four things in adoration ibid. Intention of worship not essential to worship p. 145 Religious bowing of its nature and not by mans arbitrary and free
appointed yet is it not Morall that a Pastor be such or such a Country man so he be apt to teach and holy Crossing signifying the dedication of the Baptized Childe to the service of Christ must be Morall but what sort of River the â—â—ter of Baptisme be is meerly Physicall not Morall So there be two sort of things in Gods Worship things either meerly Morall or meerly Naturall And here also we consider things Circumstantiall as Time Place c. And circumstances are either meerly Physicall or 2. meerly Morall or 3. mixt partly Morall partly Physicall Circumstances meerly Physicall are such adjuncts of divine worship as are common and unseparable concomitants of both civil naturall and Religious or Sacred actions performed by men and as they are such contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the action or Agent in the performance thereof such as I take to be the seven individuall proprieties of every man Forma figura locus tempus strips patria nomen under Forme and figure The first two I comprehend such a proportion of body a man of a high stature or low a man beautifull or not beautifull to which I crave leave to reduce all externall Formes of habites as cloathes the head covered or not covered the situation of the body as as they are in themselves meer Physicall acts kneeling sitting standing the eyes cast down to the earth or lifted up the hands lifted up or not lifted up the knocking on the breast or not knocking motions of the soul that are naturall Time Place Family Country Name as such a person Thomas not Iohn the son of such a man not of such a man 1. All these are common concomitants of Civill Naturall and Religious actions for all actions performed by man of what kinde soever as naturall to eat sleep or civill to declaime an oration before the people or religious to preach or pray must be done by some persons Iohn or Thomas men of some Family in some time in some place for they are not actions eternall and so must be done in time and place so the Agents must have some habite some gesture in the doing of all these actions and they are unseparable Adjuncts of all these actions because neither actions naturall civill nor Religious can be performed but by some persons in some habite and gesture in some time in some place and lastly they are meere circumstantials and contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the actions as they are but common and unseparable circumstances for because he preacheth in time or in place simply the preaching is neither Morally good nor ill better or worse because Thomas prayeth in Gown or Cloak in this place rather then that place so it be not Locus ut sic of intention such a Religious place before the Image of Christ or the Father or the Virgin Mary the praying is neither the more or the lesse acceptable to God because of these common and unseparable adjuncts Hence there can be no such force in these circumstances as to make the actions indifferent Such as contend for the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies say our circumstances of time place and the like is nothing but a meerblinde for we cannot say they enumerate all these circumstances for habite gesture person are not meer circumstances and they mustcome in under the lap of this general c. or the like To which I answer that to my knowledge all these that are meer Physical circumstances are particularly enumerated such as are 1. Time 2. Place 3. Person or Agent 4 Name 5. Family 6. Condition as Country Family House 7. Habits or Garments 8. Gestures as sitting standing lifting of the eyes or hands knocking on the breast kneeling and there is no blinde in this enumeration for there be no other particulars that can be enumerated except this time of the day eight or ten of clock this place not any other this person not another and these are only considered here as circumstances not as such and such circumstances but the truth is the enumeration of Symbolicall Rites as Crosse Surplice and the like is really a blinde and is an enumeration with a wide belly and includeth species and not individuals only as Symbolicall Ceremonies such as are Crossing Bells Oyle Salt Spettle Milk turning to the East toward the people from the people toward the Altar with a high voice with a low voice and a thousand the like yea all the old Ceremonies of Moses with a new face all the toyes of the Masse of the Dedication of Churches which would fill a Volumne like the Rationale of Durandus 2. Some Circumstances are meerely Morall for as Divines distinguish Time and Place in Time as Time and as such a Religious Time the Lords Sabbath Tempus tempus ut sic and Place as Place or such a Religious place Locus locus ut sic So we may distinguish here between circumstances in common or in grosse and such and such circumstances As time is a common adjunct of Divine Worship But such a time to wit the Lords-day is both the time of Worship and Worship it self So there is place of Worship and there is such a Religious place The holy of holiest the Temple A habit is a meer accident of Worship the person John or Thomas is also an accident but if God command such an Ephod as Aaron and the Priests were to wear this is not a meer circumstance that the person who administreth the Lords-Supper be John or Thomas is a meer circumstance but that this person be a called Pastor not a private man is more then a circumstance And therefore these circumstances taken in common and their Universall nature are meerly Physicall circumstances but taken in their particular and determinate restrictions as such circumstances they may be meerly Morall circumstances such as are the common adjunct of the time of Worship the place and the Sabbath time and the Temple for Iewish Worship The former are circumstances meerly Physicall the latter meerly Morall I mean as they are restricted other wayes The Temple of Jerusalem served as our meeting places do to sence off the injuries of Heaven and Sun but that is as a place not as such a place 3. There be some mixt circumstances as these same Physicall circumstances clothed with their own seasonable conveniences so time for Worship and due and convenient time is required there may be some Scandalous and Superstitious time for Worship A habit in the Preacher is required and that a grave one a place is required for private Worship and a fit place such as is not the Market-street for private Praying the inconveniency of the circumstance may vitiate the Worship I did say that Christ Iesus hath set down in the Word a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in all Morals I say in all Morals because the Word doth not teach us any thing of circumstances Physicall as Physicall Scriptura talia non ponit sed
alterable and may put out Pastors and Teachers because God hath put out Apostles we have a new world of alterable Church-Policy 5. Reverent Beza referreth the Commandment to the Platforme of Discipline So Ambrose in Loc. and Chrysostome Homil. 18. so Diodat This Commandment which is ver 11 12. Or generally all other Commandments which are contained in this Epistle Popish Writers confesse the same though to the disadvantage of their Cause who maintain unwritten Church-Policy and Ceremonies So Lyra and Nicol. Gorran Mandatum quod Deus ego mandavimus the Commandment of the Lord and of me his Apostle Corneâ—a lapide Quicquid tibi O Episcope hac Epistolâ prescripsi demandavi hoc serva Salmeron alii per mandatum intelligunt Quecunque mandavi spectantia ad munus boni Episcopi SECT II. THE Adversaries amongst these things of Church-Policy do reckon such things as concerne the outward man and externals only and therefore Bilson Hooker and the rest as Cameron and others will have Christs kingdom altogether Spirituall Mysticall and invisible and Christ to them is not a King to binde the externall man nor doth he as King take care of the externall government of his own house that belongeth say they as other externall things to the Civill Magistrate who with advise and counsell of the Church Bishops and their unhallowed Members may make Lawes in all externals for the Government of the Church and all these externals though Positive are alterable yea and added to the word though not as additions corrupting but as perfecting and adorning the word of God and his worship In opposition to this our fourth Argument shall be he who is the only Head Lord and King of his Church must governe the politick externall body his Church perfectly by Laws of his own spirituall policy and that more perfectly then any earthly Monarch or State doth their subjects or any Commanders or any Lord or Master of Family doth their Army Souldiers and members of their Family But Christ is the head and only head of the Church for by what title Christ is before all things he in whom all things consist and is the beginning the first borne fram the dead and hath the preheminence in all things and he is onely soâ—ely and absolutely all these by the same title he is the Head and so the onely Head of the Body the Church Col. 1. 17 18. And he is the head of his Politick body and so a head in all externals as well as of mysticall and invâ—sible body for if his Church be an externall Politicall body and ruled by Organs Eyes Watchmen Rulers Feeders and such as externally guideth the flock as it is Eph. 4 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 16 17 18. A society to which Christ hath given the keys of his House and so externall power in a visible Politick Court on earth to binde and loose to take in and put out to open and shut the doors of his visible Politick house then this Politick body must have a head in externall policy and this head in externals must as a head governe by Laws all the members in their externall society for a body without a head is a monster and a Politick body without a head Politick and one that ruleth Politically is a Monster And Christ is the King yea the only King of his own Kingdom either as this Kingdom is mysticall and invisible or as it is Politick externall and visible on earth as these Scriptures proveth 1. Mat. 28. 18. Iesus â—aith unto me is all power given in Heaven and in earth I hope this power is only given to Christ not to Pope or earthly Prince It is the name above all names Phil. 2. 9. King of Kings Rev. 17. 14. And upon this Kingly power Christ doth an exâ—ernall Act of Royall power and giveth not only an inward but also a Politicall externall power to his disciples ver â—9 Go Teach and Baptize all Nations Is this only inward and heart-â—eaching and inward Baptizing by the spirit I think not God hath reserved that to himself only Isa 54. 13. Ioh. 6 44. 45. Joh. 1. 33. and Ioh. 20 21. 22. Upon this that the Father sent Christ and so set him his King upon his holy hill of Zion Psa 2. 6. Christ performeth an externall Politick mission and sendeth his disciples with power in a Politick externall way to remit and retain sins in an externall way for there is clearly two remittings and retainings of sins in the Text None can say of the Church it s my Church but he who is King of the Church and Christ saith Matth 16. 18. that it is his Church and upon this it is his Kingdom and the keyes are his keys and they are keys of a Kingdom visible and Politick on earth as is evident ver 19. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth in an externall Politicall court of Church Rulers as it is differenced from an internal and mysticall binding in Heaven shall be bound in Heaven c. For it is clear that there is an internall binding in Heaven and a Politicall and externall binding on earth and both are done by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven But Christ can have or give no Politicall or exâ—ernall keys of an externall and Politicall King but as he is a King Yea and Excommunication doth not only binde the inward man in Heaven but also the externall man on earth excluding him from the Society of the Church as a Heathen and a Publican and purging him out from the externall communion of the Church as if he were now no brother Matth. 18. â—7 18. 1 Cor. 5. 7. 10 11 12. Now this externall separating and judging of an offender by the Church is done by the keys of the Kingdom Ergo by Christ as a King ruling the externall man Politically and so by the key of the house of David which is laid upon Christs shoulder Isa 22. 22. And by a Royall Act of him upon whose shoulder is the Government Is 9 6. Who sitteth upon the throne of David to order the kingdom to establish it with judgement justice For the Church doth bind and loose in the externall Court either by a Commission from him who as head of the Church and who as King gave to her the Keys of the Kingdom or by a generall Arbitrary power given to the Magistrate and Church to do in these things as they please so they do nothing contrary to the Word though not according to the Word as they are to do in Doctrinals if the former be said then must the externall Government be upon the shoulder of Christ as King which is that which we teach If the latter be said then might the Magistrate Church appoint such an Ordinance as excommunication and so they may by their Artitrary power make a Gospel Promise of
Papists as Vasquez Becanus and others say that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament but that the holy spirit shall to the end of the world teach other new things as occasion shall require And this he bringeth as an Argument to prove that there must be unwritten Traditions not contained in Scripture even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Positives of Church-Policie 3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law do more respect occasions of Providence customes Laws and the manners of people they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged for the Morall Law should be rather alterable at the Churches lust then Ceremonials for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching what is Sabbath breaking whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath the Jews held the affirmative Christ the negative touching obedience to Superiors Homicide Polygamie Incest Fornication Oppression Lying Equivocating Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing which clearly did adumbrat Christ who was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world yea all significant Symbolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence and depending on the meer will of the Instituter Surplice or white linnen signifieth the Priests holinesse without any regard to time place or nationall customes for Christ might have made an immutable Law touching the Symbolicall and Religious signification and use of Saints-dayes white linnen Crossing and all the rest of humane Ceremonies which should stand to Christs second coming notwithstanding of any occurrences of Providence no lesse then he made an immutable Law touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse mysteries as humane positives 4. The assumption is false for divers Ceremoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to occasions of Providence and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences 5. If positives of Policy be alterable because the occasions of such are alterable by God it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Providence in his hand must change these Positives and not the Authority of the Church and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God not by men which is now our question for Christ hath given a Commandment Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick and Celebrate the Lords Supper but the Church doth not then change the Law nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God but God liberateth us himself Hooker But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this point is that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant and such as their Laws had not provided for and so for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God so that by this reason if we may devise one Law they may devise twenty Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith there was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven what to do Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us but they would as learned Master Prynne with them saith take out of our hand the Apostolick Church that it should be no rule to us for saith he There was no Vniforme Church-government in the Apostles times at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren Acts 1. 13. no Elders or Deacons Their Churches increasing they ordained Dâ—acons Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church after that widowes in some Churches not at all In the primitive times some Congregations had Apostles Acts 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists Prophets workers of miracles Healers c. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes Ans 1. What Hooker saith is that which Bellarmine Sanderus Horantius and all Popists say for their Traditions against the perfection of the word to wit that the word of God for 2373. years between Adam and Moses saith Horantius was not written so Turrianus Bellarmine and the reason is just nothing to say the Jews might devise twenty Laws where we may devise one because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant such as their written Laws had not provided for This must be said which is in question and so is a begging of the controversie that the Iews of their own head and Moses without any speciall word from God or without any pattern shown in the mount might devise what Laws they pleased and might punish the blasphemer and the man that gathered stâ—cks on the Sabbath and determine without God the matter of the Daughters oâ— Zelophehad as the Formalists teach that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth in the Antichrists head and the Kings Court the Surplice the Crosse in Baptisme and the like Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer that it is true there was no written Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years Yea nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai But withall what God spake in visions dreams and apparitions to the Patriarchs was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven as the written word is to us so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition which was the same very will and truth of God which Moses committed to writing if then Formalists will assure us of that which Papists could never assure us we shall
receive both the unwritten Traditions of the one and the unwritten Positive inventions of Crosse and Surplice devised by the other as 1. Make us sure as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs and to Moses nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment as Papists say their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word and though beside Scripture yet not against it And the very will of God no lesse then the written word and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures by the Prophets and Apostles and though beside yet not contrary to the vvord But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord not contrary to the vvord of God out of the mouth of Papists to maintain unvvritten Traditions which to them is the expresse word of God then out of the mouth of Formalists for their unwritten Positives which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God by their own grant 2. Let the Formalist assure us that after this some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture touching the Surplice and Crosse that they are the very minde of God as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition should in Gods due time be written in Scripture by Moses the Prophets and Apostles I think they shall here fail in their undertakings Hence the Argument standeth strong the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine Worship or Government nay neither the Patriarchs nor Moses nor the Prophets of their own head without Gods immediate Tradition or the written Scripture which are all one Ergo Neither can the Church except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimilicude of Gods gâ—iding his Châ—rch is his fancy This variety we admire as it is expressed Heâ— 1. 1. But Hooker would say for he hath reference to that place God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets and now to us by hiâ— Son But test of all he hath revealed his Will by the Pope of Rome and his cursed Clergy that we should Worship Images pray to Saints and for the dead beleeve Purgatory c. and now by humane Prelates he hath shown his will to us touching Crossing Surplice Now Papists as Horantius Sanderus Malderus Bellarmine and others say Most of the points that are in Question between them and Protestants and particularly Church-Ceremonies are unwritten Traditions delivered by the Church beside the warrant of Scripture 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time Deacons were not at the first Elders were not ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church But this is nothing against a Platform of Vniform Government which cannot be altered in Gods Word For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne because points of Government did grow by succession of time cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apostles did ordain in Scripture is alterable by men then because 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation were not all delivered at first by God there is no Uniform no unalterable Platform of Doctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture For first the Article of Christs death and incarnation was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked of his being put to death for out Transgressions though he himself was innocent his justifying of many by Faith were after delivered by Isaiah Chap. 53. And by succession â—f time many other Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law in the Moral Positives thereof were delivered to the Church But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals no man can infer 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith set down in the Old Testament 2. None can hence infer because all points Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first the refore the Church without any expresse warrant from God may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith as they take on them to adde Surplice Crossing c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word 3. Our Argument is close mistaken we argue not from the Patern of Government which was in the Apostles times at the laying of the first stone in that Church then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece but from the whole frame as perfected by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church as it is such a Church for Apostles were necessary then as was community of goods miracles speaking with tongues c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church as the first Christian Church and since the Law was to come from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isai 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem before his Ancients gloriously Isai 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion from henceforth and for ever Micah 4. 2 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which they had heard from Christ therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule a patern and copy for the Government of the Visible Kingdom and Church of Christ in which Christ was to reign by his own Word and Law Miâ— 4. 2 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church in so far as it was a Christian Church and they were to act all not of their own heads but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth in these things that are of perpetual necessity and in such as these the first Church is propounded as imitable Now we do not say in Apostles which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture in Miracles speaking with Tongues and such like that agreed to the Apostolike Church not as a Church but as such a determinate Church in relation to these times when the Gospel and Mystery of God now manifested in the flesh was new taught and never heard of before did require Miracles gift of Tongues that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles we do not I say urge the Apostâ—like Church and all the particulars for Government in it for a rule and patern to be imitated And if Master Prynne deny that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles times because God himself added to them Deacons Elders which at first they had not removed Apostles miracles gifts of healing and tongues then say I
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
is Peter knew Christ was come in the flesh and that his Iudaizing did not lay bands on his conscience he preached the contrary Act. 11. And if Peter did Iudaize as Formalists observe Ceremonies and the Galathians were circumcised the same way for they knew Circumcision had no Typicall Relation to Christ to come they believed he was already come then without cause Paul Gal. 2. and 5. did rebuke and argue either Peter or the Galathians of sinfull Iudaizing which to say were to speak against the Gospel But certainly the Vniformity and immutability of all these Ceremonies was that then when the Gospel was sufficiently Proclaimed to all to be under the Law of Ceremonies in any sort was damnable and so is it now And as the Apostles and Church then set up no Ceremonies no Surplice no Crossing because they had no word of Christ to warrant them neither can we do the like now and they complyed for a time with the Iewish Ceremonies being yet indifferent but not but by warrant of the commandment and resolution of the Apostles and the like are we obliged unto now had we a Warrant of the like indifferency of Prelates Surplice Crosse and that we were obliged to use them to gain the weak in regard 1. They were once obligatory Ordinances of God 2. And if the day light of the Gospel were not yet sufficiently risen to shine upon those who are not wilfully ignorant and had not yet acknowledged the Gospel to be Gods word we should also be obliged to Ceremonies yea we durst not yield to any Law to lay them aside as many Formalists who hold them lawfull have done Mr. Prynne From the Creation till Moses there was no one Vniversall set Form of Church-Government to be observed in all the world Nor one Form of Discipline under the Tabernacle another under the Temple Ans All this concludeth not what is in question it s but the Popish Argument This is to be concluded that Enoch Seth Noah Abraham the Patriarchs and Moses did set up a Church-Government of such timber as Humane Prelates Crosse Surplice without any expresse Warrant from Gods mouth and which they might alter by their own spirit for this Argument is God might alter Ergo The Church now may alter without a warrant from God And shall we believe that the Patriarchs and Moses by their own spirit without any Commandment of God might at their pleasure set up and put down Prophets Circumcision Tabernacle Temple Laws for Sacrifices Priests Levites Arke putting the Leaper in or putting him out of the Campe cutting any soul off from the Congregation of the Lord as our men will cry up and down Ceremonies and put on them the weight of a Talent or a Feather without any word of God The Scripture cryeth the contrary so often saying And the Lord spake unto Moses saying speak thou unto the children of Israel Could Formalists say that and Christ spake unto the Prelats and the Church and said Command the Pastor to crosse the Infant and appoint unto your selves a Prelate over the Pastors I should gladly agree to the mutable frame of humane Government Mr. Prynne There are but for the most part generall rules prescribed to us for the very ordering and regulating of our thoughts words actions lives apparell Children servants families calling c. in the Word Ergo there be but generall rules for Discipline and Church-Government which admit variety the former do more immediately concern every man the other more remotely Ans If the Word of God do not more particularly regulate our thoughts as Psal 10. 4. Psal 5. 9. Isa 55. 7. Ier. 4. 14. Act. 8. 22. And our words and actions by which we must be judged Isa 3. 8. Ier. 8. 6. Mal. 3. 13. Ier. 9. 3. Matth. 12. 36 37. Rev. 22. 12. Rev. 20. 13. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Prov. 5. 21. 1 Sam. 2 3. Psal 119. 9. Prov. 3. 23 24. Then the Scripture doth warrant Surplice and Crossing and kneeling to Creatures and humane Prelats which are changeable and alterable circumstances and adjuncts of Worship that may be and may not be and things indifferent it shall follow that for the most part it is indifferent to do evil or well sin or not sin in thought word and actions and we have no warrant in Scripture for eschewing sin or not eschewing it in the most of our actions I confesse there is little need to walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accurately Eph. 5. 15. And to cleanse our wayes Psal 119. 9. according to the Word If words thoughts and actions may go at random as if they were variable and indifferent Ceremonies God throweth not men in hells torments to be eternally miserable for circumstances 2. For the acts of our calling if they be Morall they are regulated as particularly by the word as to believe love and fear God or the creature if artificiall they are not of our consideration 3. That Morall acts of decent usage of the Ordinances do not immediately concern men is admirable to me Mr. Prynne To the Argument of Moses his doing all according to the patern shown in the Mount It is Answered 1. The Tabernacle wa◠no part of the Church of the Israelites but only the place of meeting for Worship answerable to our Churches and Chappels and so was the Temple But I pray you God prescribed the height length bredth form of Tabernacles Ark Altar of every Pin Ergo Hath Christ as punctually prescribed to all Christians and Nations in expresse words the form matter dimensions of all Christian Churches Temples Chappels Tables Challices Pulpits Pews not varying in one pin 2. God named the men Bezaliel and Aholiah who should make the Tabernacle and all the implements thereof 3. God expressed the frame fashion colours of the holy Garments of Aaron and his sons shall it follow Ergo only the Artificers whom God nameth immediately and none but Embroyderers Goldsmiths Carpenters c. Not Pastors and Elders are to build up the spirituall Churches of Christ Ergo The form matter and colour of Ministers and Elders garments are particularly set down in the New Testament 4. The Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made by mens hands not spirituall buildings of mens spirits 5. All these of the patern were delivered to Moses the Temporall Magistrate not to Aaron the Priest Ergo the Church under the Gospel is not a spirituall building whose maker and builder is God and all is to be ordered by the Civill Magistrate and Lay-Artificers not by Pastors I wonder also you alledge not Noahs Ark And all in the New Testament are not so particularly set down as in the Old Ans The Tabernacle was no part of the Church but being a Type and the implements of it to the least pin particularly expressed by God to Moses far more must we have from God an expresse for every Ceremony not to retort this also that a Corner-Cap or a Surplice is no part
of the Church and is indeed a teaching sign and so should not be counted a Positive of Church-Policy 2. Most false it is that the Tabernacle and Temple were nothing but a meeting place of the people for Worship as our Churches or Chappels are 1. Because it is to Argue the Holy Ghost of want of wisdom to spend so much Canonick Scripture in setting down things idely not tending at all to edification and teaching us nothing of God and in specifying the Form Height Length Bredth Curtains Candlesticks Sockets Rings of naturall places that contained their bodies for what should it edifie us if God should describe so particularly all the Churches and meeting places of the people under the New Testament Now certain it is Whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. 2. Many things in the Tabernacle as Candles in day light Rings Sockets Shew-bread belonged nothing to a naturall place as our Chappels or Meeting houses do 3. Expresly the Scripture maketh them more then places to wit Holy Religious and Typicall signes of Divine institution as the Tahernacle was a Type Heb. 8. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 1 2. c. Heb. 10. 1 2 3. And the Temple a Type of Christs body Ioh. 2. 19. Ioh. 1. 14 15. And all these were Types and shadows of Heavenly things Heb. chap. 8 9 10. Gal. 4. 1. 2. c. Col. 2. 16. 17. Which our Churches and Chappels are not being only places common to sacred and Civill actions 2. God therefore can no more in expresse words set down the form matter dimensions of Christian Churches and Chappels then of the Synagogues of the Iews which had no Morall use for edification and instruction 3. Yea because the Tabernacle and Temple and their implements were teaching shadows of good things to come and our Churches and Chappels are not so nor have they any Morall or Religious use or influence on our spirits as the Tabernacle and Temple had therefore the Lord who is expresse in all Morals which of their own nature do teach and edifie he behoved to name Bezaliel and Aholiah and the form and colour of the Priests garments which also are Typicall and could not name our Elders or the colour or form of their Garments 4. All these weak retortions suppose that the Tabernacle and Temple were types of our meeting houses for Worship which is a meer conjecture they were no more types of our Chappels then of the Iewish Synagogues we may not expound types at will but as the Holy Ghost expoundeth them to us in the New Testament And this is a conjecturall Exposition and a dream to make Bezaliel and Aholiah types of Embroyderers and Tradesmen 5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands and that they are things different from the spirituall things that they signifie as the sign and the thing signified as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord because all of them Bread Wine taking eating breaking pouring out the Wine drinking are teaching and edifying signes and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men to devise signes to teach themselves so in like manner should the Lord expresly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Testament and as Moses might devise none of his own but was tyed to follow the patern which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount So are we now under the New Testament tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word and it is laid on us Not to be wise above that which was written and it is of perpetuall equity The supream Law-giver never left it to the wisdom of Angels or Men or Prophet Apostle or Church to serve and Worship God as they thought good But he himself particularly prescribed the way signes and means And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ incarnate and come in the flesh already therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe and practise no more either in Doctrinals or teaching types or Positives of Church-Policy then our Patern in the Mount the Scripture hath warranted to us to be the will of God and in this and this only standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions and not in these loose consequences that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them not ours for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Iewish High Priest their Surplice from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests their Humane Holidayes from the Iewish dayes their kneeling to bread from their bowing toward the Ark. 6. It is not true that the Tabernacle and Temple were meer corporall things no more then bread and wine in their spirituall relation are meer corporall things The Lords end use and intent in the Tabernacle and Temple was that they should be to the people Images and shadows of heavenly and spirituall things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. 7. That all the things of the Tabernacle were delivered to Moses as a King and not as a Prophet and writer of Canonick Scripture Heb. 3. 5. Heb. 8. Luk. 24. 44. 27. Luk. 16. 31. is an untruth except Formalists make the King so the head of the Church in prescribing Laws for the Policy thereof as they make him a Canonick writer as were David Moses Solomon from whose example they would prove the King to be the head of the Church But I judge Moses saw the patern in the Mount and God face to face as a Prophet whose words are Scripture to us Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knevv face to face And as a Prophet not as a King his face did shine Exod. 34 27 28 29. And he was commanded as a Prophet to write the Law not as a King Numb 12. 6. 7. Moses is made the most eminent Prophet that was in the Old Testament And why Because God spake to other Prophets by Dreams and Visions But he spake the Law and written Scripture to Moses mouth to mouth This should not be a comparison between Prophet and Prophet but between Prophet and King by this learning 8. We judge Noahs Ark doth prove the same it being a speciall type of the Church 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. And he built it by Faith Heb. 11. 7. And so by a Word of God and at Gods speciall direction in all the length bredth formes of it and not of his own head Gen. 6. 14 15 c. And is commended by the spirit of God for so doing Gen. 6. 22. Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him so did he And Formalists should deserve the like Testimony if it could be said of them And as the Lord commanded the
perfect though it teach us not any thing of tradionals in speciall yet in generall it doth hold forth the traditions of the church So Tostat Abulens in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit saith Hic commendatur lex ex perfectione quia perfecto nec addi potest nec auferri debet Here the Law of God is commended saith he from its perfection and that is perfect to which nothing can be added and from which nothing should be taken Yea so far forth is the scripture perfect in the Articles of Faith that Castro in summa c. 8. Canus locor Theolog. l. 2. c. 7. and l. 4. c. 4. and Tannerus tom 3. in 22. disp 1. de fide Q. 1. dub 7. saith We are not now to wait for any new revelation of any verity unknown to the Apostles Et nihil novi definiri ab ecclesia Apostolis incognitum and all verities now revealed were implicitely believed by the Apostles and contained in Vniversall generall precepts as that the Saints are to be worshipped that Canonicall Books containeth the word of God the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter and Catholick pastors c. and he saith Quod ecclesia non posset novum fidei articulum condere communiter etiam docent Scholastici in 3. dis 25. he subscribeth to that truth of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 17. In ecclesia nulla nova Dogmata procudi sed pretiosam divini Dogmatis Gemmam exsculpi fideliter cooptari adornari sapienter ut intelligatur illustrius quod antea obscurius credebatur No new points of saith or manners are forged in the Church but the precious pearl of divine truth is in it polished faithfully applied and wisely illustrated that they may be more clearly understood which before was more obscurely beleeved so that to say the perfection of scripture consisteth not in particularizing all the small positives of policy is no more then Papists say of the perfection of the scripture in their traditions 2. Moses speaketh both of the Morall and Ceremoniall Law called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Statutes rights and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgements and Laws whatsoever extolled by David Psal 119. As his delight his joy his heritage his songs in the house of his pilgrimages and of both he saith that there is life in keeping them Now the Ceremonies of Moses had an exceeding great excellency in looking to Christ and being shadows of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. And our Ceremonies have the same aspect upon Christ Why but the day of the commemoration of Christs Death Nativity Ascension Dedication to Christ by a Crosse in the Aire should have the same influence and impression on our hearts if they be lawfull that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon Davids spirit Christ being the object and soul of both 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws Moses faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the Nations Why but these same Ceremonies looking with a broader and fuller face on Christ already come if Christ have put any life of lawfulnesse in them then their dim shadows of old should also be our wisdom in the hearing of Pagans who know not God 3. It is a wonder to me that the learned Master Prynne should say that the place Deut. 4. speaketh nothing of Church-Government and Ceremonies but only of Doctrines of Canonicall Books For that is as much as to say the place speaketh nothing of Divine Ceremonies but only of divine Ceremonies for what a number of Divine Ceremonies and Laws are in the Law of Moses which were given by the Lord himself as is clear by the words ver 1. Now therefore hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and judgements that I teach you that ye may live and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments which the Lord my God commanded me v. 8. And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgements so Righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day Now of all this Law the Lord saith v. 2. Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I commanded you Neither shall ey diminish The Learned and Reverend Mr Prynne must restrict this word of the Law which can admit of no addition to some speciall Law either the Morall only or the judiciall and Ceremoniall only not to the former for then additions to the Decalogue only should be forbidden this never man taught Stapleton indeed Relect. Prin. fid Doctrin cont 4. Q. 1. Art 3. restricteth it to the Ceremoniall Law only but Moses maketh it a Law as large v. 2. as the word which God Commandeth And as saith he v. 5. the statutes and the judgements which the Lord Commanded me v. 8. All this Law Deut. 31. 9. This written Law delivered to the Priests and kept in the Ark the Law that all Israel heard read v. 11. Of which it is said v. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing of the words of this Law in a Book untill they were finished Now this was the whole five Books of Moses And were there nothing of Church-Government in Moses Law What shall we then say of the High Priest his calling Office habit of the Priests Levites their charge calling attire of the Law of the Leaper his healing his extrusion out of the Camp of the Law of those that were defiled with the dead of their qualification who were to be Circumcised who were to eat the Passeover or who not who were to enter into the house of God and Congregation who not not a few of these touching Church-Government are included in the Law that God Commanded Israel as their wisdom 4. That there were many additions made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses is nothing to purpose except it be proved that these additions were made by the Church without any word of God the conâ—rary whereof is evident for the Temple and whole patern thereof was delivered in writing by the Lord to David 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. If Formalists will have no Laws made but by Moses as the only Law-giver they have as good reason to say That Moses was the only Canonick writer and none but he which is absurd Or 2. That Moses by his own spirit was a Law-giver and had active influence in excogitating the Law We conceive that Protestants are to own this Doctrine which Tostatus imputes to us as Hereticks Com. in Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister relator verborum dti esset non legem conderet As if Moses were a meer servant and a naked reporter of the Lords Law and words and not a Law-maker For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions we judge that all the Canonick writers were meer patients as the people are for God is the Commander and Moses the person Commanded and a meer servant Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3.
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
warranted by Scripture it followeth only to him that so doth it is unlawfull Rom. 14. 14. In that he doth Bonum non benè a thing lawfull not lawfully 4. It is unpossible to deduce all truth out of any truth For then because the Sun riseth to day it should follow Ergo Crosse and Surplice are Lawfull I might as well deduce the contrary Ergo they are unlawfull Hooker Some things are good in so mean a degree of goodnesse that men are only not disproved nor disallowed of God for them as Eph. 5. 20. No man hateth his own flesh Matth. 5. 46. If ye do good unto them that do so to you the very Publicans themselves do as much They are worse then Infidels that provide not for their own 1. Tim. 5. 8. The light of nature alone maketh these actions in the sight of God allowable 2. Some things are required to salvation by way of direct immediate and proper necessity finall so that without performance of them we cannot in ordinary course be saved In these our chiefest direction is from Scipture for nature is no sufficient director what we should do to attain life Eternall 3. Some things although not so required of necessity that to leave them undone excludeth from salvation are yet of so great dignity and acceptation with God that most ample reward is laid up in Heaven for them as Matth. 10. A Cup of cold Water shall not go unrewarded And the first Christians sold their possessions and 1 Thess 2. 7. 9. Paul would not be burdensome to the Thessalonians Hence nothing can be evil that God approveth and he approveth much more then he doth Command and the precepts of the law of Nature may be otherwise known then by the Scripture then the bare mandat of Scripture is not the only rule of all good and evil in the actions of Morall men Ans 1. The Popery in this Author in disputing for a Platform of Government that is up and down and changeable at the will of men made me first out of love with their way for his first classe of things allowable by the light of Nature without Scripture is far wide for Eph. 5. 20. That a man love his own flesh is Commanded in the sixth Commandment and the contrary forbidden otherwise for a man to kill himself which is self-hatred should not be forbidden in Scripture the very light of nature alone will forbid ungratitude in Publicans and condemn a man that provideth not for his own But that this light of nature excludeth Scripture and the Doctrine of Faith is an untruth for Hooker leaveth out the words that are in the Text and most against his cause He that provideth not for his own is worse then an Infidel and hath denied the Faith Ergo the Doctrine of Faith commandeth a man to provide for his own What Morall goodnesse nature teacheth that same doth the Morall Law teach so the one excludeth not the other 2. It is false that Scripture only as conâ—adistinguished from the Law of Nature doth direct us to Heaven for both concurreth in a speciall manner nor is the one exclusive of the other 3. For his third classe it s expresly the Popish Works of supererogation of which Hooker and Papists both give two Characters 1. That they are not Commanded 2. That they merit a greater degree of glory Both are false To give a Cup of cold water to a needy Disciple is commanded in Scripture Isa 57. 9 10. Matth. 25. 41 42. And the contrary punished with everlasting fire in Hell For Paul not to be burdensome to the Thessalonians and not to take stipend or wages for Preaching is commanded for considering the condition that Paul was in was 1 Thess 2. 6. To seek glory of men was a thing forbidden in Scripture and so the contrary cannot be a thing not commanded and not to be gentle v. 7. As the servant of God ought to be even to the enemies of the truth 1 Tim. 2. 24. Not to be affectionately desirous to impart soul Gospel and all to those to whom he Preached as it is v. 8. is a sin forbidden and for the merit of increase of glory it is a dream Hence I draw an Argument against this mutable form of Government The changeable Positives of this Government such as Crossing Surplice and the like are none of these three enumerated by Hooker 1. They are not warranted by the Law of nature for then all Nations should know by the light of nature that God is decently worshipped in Crosse and linnen Surplice which is against experience 2. That these Positives are not necessary to salvation with a proper finall necessity as I take is granted by all 3. I think Crosse and Surplice cannot deserve a greater measure of glory for Formalists deny either merit or efficacy to their Positives The Jesuit Tannerus confirmeth all which is said by Hooker as did Aquinas before him And Eâ—kiâ—s in his conference with Luther and Oecolampadius who say for imagery and their Traditions that it is sufficient that the Church say such a thing is truth and to be done and the scripture doth not gain-say it SECT V. Morall Obedience resolved ultimately in Scripture FOR farther light in this point it is a Question What is the formall object of our obedience in all our our Morall actions that is Whether is the Faith practicall of our obedience the obedience itself in all the externals of Church Government resolved in this ultimately and finally This and this we do and this point of Government we believe and practise because the Lord hath so appointed it in an immutable Platform of Government in Scripture or because the Church hath so appointed or because there is an intrinsecall conveniency in the thing it self which is discernable by the light of nature Ans This Question is near of blood to the Controversie between Papists and us concerning the formall object of our faith that is Whither are we to believe the scripture to be the Word of God because so saith the Church or upon this objective ground because the Lord so speaketh in his own Word Now we hold that scripture it self furnisheth light and faith of it self from it self and that the Church doth but hold forth the light as I see the light of the Candle because of the light itself not because of the Candlestick Hence in this same very Question the Iews were not to believe that the smallest pin of the Tabernacle or that any officer High-Priest Priest or Levite were necessary nor were they to obey in the smallest Ceremoniall observance because Moses and the Priests or Church at their godly discretion without Gods own speciall warrant said so But because so the Lord spake to Moses so the Lord gave in writing to David and Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. And so must it be in the Church of the New Testament in all the Positives of Government otherwise if we
observe Saints-dayes and believe Crossing and Surplice hath this Religious signification because the Church saith so then is our obedience of conscience finally resolved in the Testimony of men so speaking at their own discretion without any warrant of scripture 2. To believe and obey in any Religious Positives because it is the pleasure of men so to Command is to be servants of men and to make their will the formall reason of our obedience which is unlawfull If it be said that we are to believe and Practise many things in naturall necessity as to eat move sleep and many circumstantials of Church-Policy because the Law of naturall reason saith so and because there is an intrinsecall conveniency and an aptitude to edifie to decore and beautifie in an orderly and a decent way the service of God and not simply because the Church saith so nor yet because the Lord speaketh so in the Scripture and therefore all our obedience is not Ultimately and finally resolved into the Testimony of the Scripture I Answer That there be some things that the Law of Nature commandeth as to move eat sleepe and here with leave I distinguish Factum the common practise of men from the jus what men in conscience ought to do as concerning the former morall and naturall mens practise is all resolved in their own carnall will and lusts and so they eat move and sleep because nature and carnall will leadeth them thereinto not because God in the Law of nature which I humbly conceive to be a part of the first elements and principles of the Morall Law or Decalogue and so a part of Scripture doth so warrant us to do and therefore the moving eating drinking of naturall Moralists are materially lawfull and conforme to scripture for God by the Law of nature commandeth both Heathen men and pure Moralists within the visible Church to do naturall acts of this kinde because the Lord hath revealed that to be his will in the Book of nature But these Heathen do these acts because they are suitable to their Lusts and carnall will and not because God hath commanded them so to do in the Book of nature and this is their sin in the manner of doing though materially Et quod substantiam actus the action be good and the same is the sin of naturall men within the visible Church and a greater sin for God not only commandeth them in the Law of nature but also in Scripture to do all these naturall acts because God hath revealed his will in these naturall actions as they are morall to naturall men within the visible Church both in the Law of nature and in the scripture and De jure they ought to obey because God so commandeth in both and in regard all within the visible Church are obliged to all naturall actions in a spirituall way though their eating moving sleeping be lawfull materially Et quod substantiam actus yet because they do them without any the least habituall reference to God so commanding in natures Law and scripture they are in the manner of doing sinfull otherwise Formalists go on with Papists and Arminians to justifie the actions of the unregenerated as simply Lawfull and good though performed by them with no respect to God or his Commandment 2. As concerning actions of Church-Policy that cannot be warranted by the light of nature and yet have intrinsecall conveniency and aptitude to edifie and decently to Accomodate the worship of God I conceive these may be done but not because the Church so commandeth as if their commandment were the formall reason of our obedience but because partly the light of the Law of reason partly scripture doth warrant them but that Crosse and Surplice can be thus warranted is utterly denied Again I conceive that there be two sort of positives in the externals of Government or worship 1. Some Divine as that there be in the Publique Worship Prayers Praising Preaching Sacraments and these are substantials that there be such Officers Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons that there be such censures as rebuking Excommunication and the like are morally Divine or Divinely Morall and when the Church formeth a Directory for worship and Government the Directory it self is in the Form not simply Divine And if it be said that neither the Church of the Jews nor the Church Apostolique had more a written Directory nor they had a written Leiturgy or book of Common Prayers or Publick Church-service I answer nor had either the Iewish or Apostolick Church any written Creed or systeme written of fundamentall Articles such as is that which is commonly called the Apostolick Creed but they had materially in the scripture the Apostolick Creed and the Directory they had also the same way for they practised all the Ordinances directed though they had no written Directory in a formall contexture or frame for Prayers Preaching Praising Sacraments and Censures never Church wanted in some one order or other though we cannot say that the Apostolick Church had this same very order and forme But a Leiturgy which is a commanded imposed stinted Form in such words and no other is another thing then a Directory as an unlawfull thing is different from a Lawfull 2. There be some things Positive humane as the Ordering of some parts or worship or Prayer the forme of words or phrases and some things of the Circumstantials of the Sacrament as what Cups Wood or Mettall in these the Directory layeth a tie upon no man nor can the Church in this make a Directory to be a Church Compulsory to strain men And this way the Directory is not ordered and commanded in the frame and contexture as was the Service-Book and the Pastor or people in these are not properly Morall Agents nor do we presse that scripture should regulate men in these But sure in Crossing in Surplice men must be Morall Agents no lesse then in eating and drinking at the Lords-Supper and therefore they ought to be as particularly regulated by Scripture in the one as in the other Quest But who shall be judge of these things which you say are Circumstantials only as time place c. and of these that Formalists say are adjuncts and Circumstances of worship though also they have a Symbolicall and Religious signification must not the Church judge what things are indifferent what necessary what are expedient what Lawfull Answer There is no such question imaginable but in the Synagogue of Antichrist For as concerning Norma judiâ—andi the Rule of judging without all exception the scripture ought to be the only rule and measure of all practicall truths how Formalists can make the Scripture the rule of judging of unwritten Ceremonies which have no warrant in Scripture more then Papists can admit scripture to regulate and warrant their unwritten Traditions I see not we yield that the Church is the Politick Ministeriall and visible judge of things necessary and expedient or of things not necessary
that he dishonoreth God 2. The Jewes to this day as of old used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour But by the contrary covering was a sign of honour If therefore the Jews being made a visible Church shall receive the Lords Supper and Pray and Prophecy with covered heads men would judge it no dishonouring of their head or not of dis-respect of the Ordinances of God Though Paul having regard to a Nationall Custome in Corinth did so esteem of it Antonius Corduba a Franciscan enumerateth nine externall acts of Adoration but speaketh nothing of uncovering the head as 1. Sacrificing 2. Martyrdome 3. Giving and Receiving the Sacraments 4. Suiting of Pardon 5. Suiting of Grace 6. Smiting the breast 7. Building of Churches 8. Institution of Feasts 9. Vows and Oaths Prelaticall Formalists side with them in Building and Consecrating of Churches and Holy-dayes which are but will worship as used by them And for Martyrdome it is formally an act of Christian fortitude not worship the confession of Gods truth a Concâ—mitant of Martyrdome is indeed worship How suiting of Pardon and suiting of Grace are two externall acts of Adoration I see not for by this way if we regard the multitude of things that we suit there should be moe then two Consecrating of Churches is taken two wayes 1. For a meer dedication or Civill destination of any thing to its end and use As when a house is builded a garment is first put on when we refresh our selves with a draught of water we may pray for a blessing on these and on all the Creatures for our use and the very habituall intention of the builder of an house to dwell in is a Civill dedication of it to that use for which it is Ordained Prayer added to it for a blessing of it in the use maketh not a Consecrated thing for then my clothes every day put on my sleep my dayly walking in and out my Physick my meals my horse my ship I sail in should all be Holy Consecrated and Religious things which I were to Reverence as Religious things for all these may be blessed in their use But here is that we condemn in Religious dedication of Churches 1. That the end being sacred to wit the habituall worshipping of God in that place 2. The praying for the Church or house of worship to say nothing of the vain Ceremonies used in the dedication of Churches These two are applyed to make the Church holy and to denominate it the house of God and capable of Religious veneration and salutation Then certainly all the Synagogues of Judea should be Religiously holy as was the Temple 2. And Prayers should be more acceptable to God in the Synagogue for the houses sake then prayers in any other place 3. God shall binde himself by promise to hear prayers in the Synagogue or made with the face toward the Synagogue as he did toward the Temple we were obliged in the New Testament to pray with our faces toward the Churches or meeting places in the New Testament and we should have one famous and celebrious Church for all Iews and Gentiles more holy then all the little holy Temples now consecrated as holy places and where shall this be And what typicall signification shall it have It must signifie Christ to come or already come both is unlawfull 2. Again if habituall Dedication by vertue of Prayer make a place holy by the same reason actuall Dedication should make a place holy and the belly of the Whale should have been holy because there Jonah prayed and every place a believer prayeth shall be holy his closet a private corner of his Orchard or Garden where he prayeth shall be holy for these may be habitually destined and appointed if you call this Dedication for prayer only and it shall be unlawfull to do any civill businesse there more then it is unlawfull as Formalists teach to do any other civil businesse in the Churches or places of meeting in the New-Testament 3. God himself appointed the place the Time when it should be built the person by whom by Solomon not David the length the breadth the Chambers Porches Ornaments of the only holy place at Jerusalem he hath no where appointed and prescribed these for the meeting places of the New Testament but hath said that all places are alike as touching any Religious holinesse Ioh. 4. 23. 1 Tim. 2. 8. 4. Shall we think God is not acceptably served and that the Synagogues of the Iews of which we read not any patern or rule for Dedication are Prophane because they are not Dedicated by the Bishops laying the first foundation stone of the house Or because they want the ornaments of whorish Ceremonies that Durandus enumerateth or because they have not the surpassing beauty of admirable Temples that Christians now a little overswelling with the zeal of prosperity builded for the worship of God out of superlative detestation of Dioclesian and Maximinus who had demolished all the Churches which Christians had leave to build under tollerable Emperors such as Severus Gordianus Philip and Galienus as Eusebius teacheth Or that we are to give a Testimony of as cheerfull affection for the beautifying of Temples void of all typicall relation to the glory of Iesus Christ as David did show 1 Chron. 28 14. 2 Chron. 2. 5. And that it is Morall and perpetually obligatory under the New Testament that we bestow charges upon sumptuous Temples upon these fancied grounds of Master Hooker For his first Morall ground is Nothing is too dear to be bestowed about the furniture of Gods service 2. Because sumptuous Temples serve to the world for a witnesse of his almightinesse whom we outwardly serve and honour with the chiefest of outward things as being of all things himself incomparably the greatest 3. It were strange that God should have made such store of glorious creatures on earth leave them all to be consumed on secular vanity allowing none but the baser sort to be imployed in his own service 4. Rarest and most gorgeous treasures are too little for earthly Kings 5. If the corruptible Temples of the holy spirit are to be served with rich almes what should be done for houses to edifie the living Temples redeemed by Iesus Christ To all which I say 1. The Temple of Ierusalem in its glory proportion and beauty was a Positive worship and so must be warranted by the positive Warrant of the Word and the like Warrant must all our Churches in the New-Testament have 2. If we must extend our liberality and bounty towards God to the highest and to testifie the greatnesse and Almightinesse of him whom we serve then did David and Solomon in both fail there were more glorious and rich houses on earth and divers times have been builded to the honour of false gods and to declare the Royall magnificence of mortall Kings God never for his own honour appointed such a banquet as
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
because what it teacheth is a lie for what it teacheth is Scripture Isa 52. 11. That these who beareth the Vessels of the Lord that is Pastors should be holy but it is a Doctrine of lies because it representeth Pastorall holinesse by humane institution without all warrant of the Word of God And when Paul calleth holidayes Elements Gal. 4. 6. He meaneth that they spell to us and teach us some truth as Estius saith That holidayes do teach us Articles of Faith To which meaning Paludanus Cajetan Vasquez say God may well be painted in such expressions as Scripture putteth on God as in the likenesse of a Dove as a man with hands eyes ears feet all which are given to God in Scripture 4. It is essentiall to the Word to set down the means of Gods worship which is the very scope of the second Commandment and therefore the Iews washings and Traditions are condemned because they be Doctrines of men appointed by men to be means of the fear or worship of God as Math. 15. 9. Mar. 7. 8. Isa 29. 13. Hence we owe subjection of Conscience to Ceremonies as to lawfull means of Worship 1. Stirring up our dull senses And 2. as lawfull signes representing in a Sacramentall signification holy things 3. As teaching signes 4. As means of Gods fear and worship Whereas God as Ainsworth observeth well in the second Commandment forbiddeth all images and representations 2. All shapes Exod. 20. 4. Temniah 3. Forms of figures Tabuith Deut. 4. 16. 5. Any type of shadow Tselem Ezek. 7. 20. 16 17. 6. Any pictured shape Maskith Levit. 26. 1. Any Statue Monument Pillar Mattesebah any Graven or Molten Portraict Hos 13. 2. 5. We are obliged to obey the Word Exod. 20. 7. Prov. 3. 20 21. Prov. 8. 13. Ier. 6. 16. Ier. 5. 7. 2. We owe to the Word belief Luk. 1. 20. Love Psal 119. 49. 81. Hope 3. And are to expect a reward therefore Psal 19. 11. Rev. 2. 7. 10. 27 28. Gal. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 23. Coloss 2. 18. Hebrew 11. 25. Psal 34. 9. Psalme 58. 11. Then if Decency be commanded and order in the third Commandment Ergo this and that orderly mean of Worship as Surplice But can we say I hope in the Surplice O how love I crossing and Capping can we believe in Ceremonies as means of Gods worship 6. The word is Gods mean to work supernaturall effects to convert the soul Psal 19. 7. To work Faith John 20. 3. To edifie Act. 20. 32. To save Rom. 1. 16. The obedience to Gods word bringeth Peace Psal 119. 165. Comfort v. 50. Gen. 49. 18. Isa 38. 3. But Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull minde must be apt to remove Naturall dulnesse which is a supernaturall effect and so to bring Peace joy comfort Organs are now holden by the same right that they were in Moses-Law then they must stir up supernaturall joy There must be peace and comfort in practising them Hear how this soundeth This is my comfort O Lord in my affliction that thy Surplice Organs and holy-dayes have quickened my dull heart Now what comfort except comfort in the Scriptures Rom. 15. 4. Ceremonies be innocent of all Scriptures What joy a proper fruit of the Kingdom of heaven Rom. 14. 17. can be in saplesse Ceremonies yea observe 1. Who truly converred from Popery who inwardly humbled in soul doth not abhor Ceremonies by the instinct of the new birth 2. What slave of hell and prophane person call not for Ceremonies 3. Who hath peace in dying that Ceremonies were their joy 7. All Lawfull Ordinances may by prayer be recommended to God for a blessed successe as all the means of salvation Psal 119. 18. Matth. 26. 26. Act. 4. 29 30. 2. We may thank God for a blessed successe which they have by the working of the spirit of Grace 2 Cor. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 4 5. 2 Thes 1. 2 3. Ephes 1. 3. 3. We are to have heat of zeal against prophaning of word Sacraments Prayer or other Ordinances of God But what faith in praying Lord work with Crossing Capping Surplice For where the word is not nor any promise there be no Faith Rom. 10. 14. What praising can there be for Ceremonies working upon the soul What zeal except void of knowledge and light of the word and so but wilde-fire Gal. 4. 17 18. Phil. 3. 6. 2 Sam. 21. 2. can there be though the Surplice be imployed to cleanse Cups and Crossing be scorned If the subject be nothing the accidents be lesse if Surplice be not commanded nor forbidden the reverent or irreverent usage thereof cannot be forbidden nor commanded true zeal is incensed only at sin and kindled toward Gods warranted service 8. I take it to be Gods appointment that the Spirit worketh by a supernaturall operation with his own Ordinances in the regenerated but we desire to know how the Spirit worketh with Ceremonies Formalists are forced by these grounds to maintain the Lawfulnesse of Images So 1. They be not adored 2. If they be reputed as indifferent memorative Objects and books to help the memory But 1. It shall be proved that at first Papists did give no adoration to Images nor doth Durandus Hulcot Pic. Mirandula acknowledge any adoration due to them but proper to God before the Images as objects 2. We may liken God and Christ to a stock so we count it indifferent to make or not to make such an image yet likening him to any thing is forbidden Isa 40. 18. Also we esteem it Idolatry interpretative to take Gods place in his word and to make any thing to be a mean of grace except Gods own Ordinances Against all these Formalists have diverse exceptions As 1. Our Ceremonies say they do not respect the honour of God immediatly and in themselves but by accident and as parts of Divine worship by reduction as it containeth all the adjuncts of worship Ans Such Logick was never heard of 1. If he mean a Surplice in the materials to wit Linnen and Crossing Physically considered as separated from their signification do not tend immediatly to the honour of God but as an adjunct he speaketh non-sense for so Bread Wine eating drinking Water in Baptisme do not immediatly respect the honour of God but only as they have a Morall consideration and stand under Divine institution But yet so the materiall of worship is not the adjunct thereof but the matter as the body of a living man is not one adjunct of a man If he mean that Ceremonies in a Morall not in a Physicall consideration do not immediatly respect the honour of God but reductively and by accident Let him show us if the Surplice doth not as immediatly and without the intervening mediation of any other thing signifie and stir up our mindes to the remembrance of Pastorall holinesse as eating all of one bread doth immediatly stir up our mindes to the remembrance of our Communion of love that
unlawfull teaching means doth bring to our memory because they have no warrant of Christ to speak or spell us the very language and minde of God which God hath spoken in his word by his holy Prophets and Apostles Yea though crosses and afflictions work only upon us as occasions and externall objects yet are we to submit our Conscience to them as to warnings because they be sent as Gods Messengers appointed by him as Mic. 6. 9. Hear the Rod and who hath appointed it 4. Ceremonies work saith Burges as sensible objects and as other Creatures yea but he is far wide the Creature doth book as the word is Psal 19. v. 1. the glory of God and that which may be known of God is made manifest in them and God hath manifested 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things by the Creatures Rom. 1. 19. But Ceremonies are not books of Gods writing God hath not written nor booked this upon a Surplice Be holy ye who bear the Vessels of the Lord he hath written it in Isaiahs book c. 52. 11. And we submit to the teaching of the Creatures though they work not upon the soul as the Word and Sacraments do because God hath appointed such books to teach us Erg◠we are in no sort to submit to the Devils books Printed by Prelats or to their Ceremoniall Volumnes because God hath written nothing upon them and here by the way I say it is unlawfull yea and Hypocrisie to be devouter then God will have us as to enlarge the Phylacteries and make them above Gods measure Numb 15. 38. To be humble by a mean not appointed of God Ioh. 13. Or to do what God only should do as to make Annointing Oyl besides Gods Oyl Exod. 30. 31 32 33. Or to set a threshold and a post beside Gods own threshold Ezek. 43. 8. is presumption Lastly Gods spirit worketh not with Ceremonies and so they are as the offering of Swines blood and the slaying of a man and so Abomination to God Isa 66. 1 2. The holy spirit is merited to us by Christ Ioh. 16. 14. He shall receive of mine and shew unto you But who can say that the grace of joy in the holy Ghost wrought by the droning of Organs and the holinesse taught by Surplice is a work of the spirit merited by Christ as our High Priest 3. God hath made no promise that he will work by Ceremonies for the spirit worketh not without the Word so then I might resist the working of the spirit and not sin against the Word and this is Anabaptists Enthusiasme If God work not by them they be vain and fruitlesse and the Idol is unlawfull for this that it profiteth not Also the spirits action is either naturall or supernaturall here If naturall it is a naturall work and a naturall spirit and to be rejected If supernaturall we may devise means to produce supernaturall effects mens Ceremonies can produce supernaturall joy comfort peace and acts of grace purchased to us by Christs merit this is a miracle 3. They say All this may be said against your Circumstances of time and place for they are appropriated to Religious uses and not for that made holy parts of Divine Worship 2. Time and place are new things as our Ceremonies are 3. Spirituall signification maketh Ceremonies so much the better but hindreth them not but that they may be Rites of meer Order Burges Ans Time Place Pulpit Table-cloath are new Physically often not new Morally or Religiously they have no Spirituall influence in worship A civill declamation hath the same time place pulpit with a Preaching for then if for application you call them Religious as D. Ammes saith well An hill whereon a Preacher Preacheth a Iudge perswadeth a Law a Captain speaketh to his Souldiers is both a Sacred a judiciall a Military hill 2. Signification spirituall maketh Ceremonies capable of being ordered for Surplice wearing and Crossing being Doctrinall as teaching signifying stirring up the dull affections as doth the Word and Sacrament they require order and decency Now things of meer order requireth no ordering as time place require not other time place to circumstance them right 2. This is that which Papists say as Suarez that by consequent only they have signification putupon them Now fourthly The place Matth. 15. where Christ reproveth the Traditions of Pharisees as Doctrines of men The Jesuit Vasquez his Answer is their Answer Vasquez Tom. 2. in 12. disp 152. cap. 4. That Christ reproveth them not because they kept the Traditions of the Elders Sed quod in falsis praeceptis Divinae legi contrari isputarent esse summam Religionis Because they believed all Religion to stand in their Traditions which were contrary to Gods Law and for their own omitted Gods Commandments And Suarez Tom. de legib lib 4. cap. 2. He reproveth what they added Tanquam nova as new things Corduba Ad. victor rel 1. de potestate Ecclesiae q. 3. Prop. 6. But Chrysostom Hom. 32. in Matth. Thinketh better that they had no power to make Laws yea he condemneth the Laws written in their forehead But this exposition is false 1. They brought in Traditions at first for vain glory to be called Rabbi Matth. 23. 7 8. Ergo they thought them not at first of Religious necessity 2. Mark saith cap. 7. 5. Why walk not thy Disciples according to the Traditions of the Elders Therefore the externall practice and not the internall opinion of necessity and holinesse is condemned as is clear And when the Pharisees saw some of the Disciples eat bread with unwashen hands they found fault The challenge was for an external omission of an outward observance which may be seen with the eyes Ergo these Traditions are not condemned by Christ because they were contrary to Gods Word or impious but in this that they were contrary because not Commanded for in the externall Religious act of washing hands there was no other impiety of a wicked opinion objected to Christs Disciples for if the Pharisees eye had been satisfied in that the Disciples should wash before they eat they would not have contended with Christs Disciples about the Piety of these Traditions nor about any inward opinion that they added under this Reduplication as new as Suarez saith But the Church which cannot erre including the Jewish Pope the High Priest can adde nothing as new contrary to Gods Law nor is there any question betwixt the Pharisees and the Lords Disciples Whether the Traditions of the Elders should be esteemed the marrow and sum of all Religion as Vasquez saith But only anent externall conformity with walking in the Traditions of the Elders or not walking as is most clear in the Text It is true Christ objected they accounted more of mens Traditions nor of Gods Commandments as Papists and Formalists do But that was not the state of the question betwixt the Disciples of Christ and the Pharisees 2. Christ rejecteth
Barnabas Angels and Cornelius forbade men to worship them 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life farre more to adore a dumbe and livelesse creature August ps 113. Chrysostome is against Images 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them 2. God must be honoured as he willeth himselfe 3. It is a depressing of soules to worship Images It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him it is mockerie that man should be the creator of God the Creator of all things Cyrillus Alexandrin who lived An. 415. saith We neither beleeve the martyrs to be gods nor doe we adore them Damascen a superstitious man much for Images acknowledgeth two things 1. That Images are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten traditions 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent the Cherubims were made for signification not for imitation or adoration i Gregorius Magnus though he be alledged by Papists for adoration of Images Yet in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images and alloweth onely the Historicall use of them as is observed by Fran. White by Hospinian and Catol testum veritatis and this man being the first who brought Images into the Church hath this Caveat atque indica saith he to Sirenus quod non tibi ipsa visio historiae quae pictura teste pandebatur displicueri◠sed illa adoratio quae picturis fuerit in competenter exhibita si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita sed hoc solicitè admoneas ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem conjunctionis percipiant in adoratione solius Trinitatis prosternantur It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images though he make them onely bookes to the rude This same Gregorius will have the signe of the crosse adored because when the Devill came to a Iew sleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll the Iew being afraid signed himselfe with the Crosse and the Divell fled but when doth Iewes come in any Christian Churches or Idoll-Temples who abhorre the name of Christ and so hate both the Crosse and Christ and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan In the eighth age Beda Imaginum cultus adoratio the worshipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull 1. Because they have no office in the doctrine of the Gospell 2. We are forbidden to adore salute or worship them 3. The d Church is not taught to seeke the Lord by Images but by faith and good workes 4. The Apostolique Church did not worship God in Images 5. Images want documento antiquitatis antiquity example and the Scripture 6. We frustrate God of worship due to him 7. Peter Paul Angels forbad to worship them but God only We forbid the Church saith the civill Law to be obscured with Images Have the Image of God saith Ephrem in thy heart non colorum varietate in ligno not in Images and colours Who can make saith Damascen a representation of the invisible God Gretserus saith the Iewes would not admit of Ensignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images should be hidden under them So said Josephus before him Their own men say with us Hulcot who lived an 1346. saith Latreia divine worship belongeth to God onely the Image is not God neither the Crosse saith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula Concl. 3. nor the Image of Christ is to be adored adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas with divine worship the guise of Thomas Aquinas Peresius Ajala a Popish Bishop for adoration of Images saith he there is neither Scripture nor Church tradition nor consent of Fathers nor good reason to make it good For saith Gabriel Biel The image either considered in it self as it is mettall or stone or as it is a holy signe is a sensible Creature to which Latreia Divine honour should not be given and the Romish Decrees saith We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worshipped The Doway Doctors say Idols have eyes and cannot see c. Now if they have Images of God and Christ which can see and hear and speak we exceedingly desire to know Alexander Allensis Durandus say That images in themselves and properly are not to be Worshipped Geo Cassander wisheth That they had continued in majorum suorum sententia in the minde of their forefathers and that the Superstition of people in Worshipping images had been suppressed The Councell convened by Constantius Capronimus condemneth Worshipping of Images or placing them in Churches 1. Because it is forbidden in the second Commandment 2. The Picturing of Christ is a dividing of the two Natures 3. It is against the Ancients Epiphanius Nazianzen Chrysostome Athanasius Amphylocius Theodorus Eusebius Pamphili The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies Adrian Bishiop of Rome writeth to the Councell of Nice That the Emperour Constantine being a Leaper and labouring to cure his Leprosie by shedding of innocent Babes blood Peter and Paul appeared to him by night in a Vision and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylvester and that he to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul This is as true as the Image of Christ spake to Tho Aquinas at Naples Bene Scripsistti de me Thoma Why is not all Evangell that Aquinas hath written then For their own Platina saith The story of Constantines Leprosie is a fable and Socrates saith That Constantine was sick when he was 65. years and he maketh no mention of his leprosie so Hospinianus saith and our own Simson saith That Sylvester and Marcus his successor were both dead before Constantine was Baptized Genebradus a Papist saith down right that the Councell of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Councell But Bellarmine Suarez Sanderus ' Alanus deny that the Doctrine of the second Nicene Councell for Adoring images is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford they say it is onely expounded and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifest Yea saith Nauclerus Sabellicus and Blandus The Councell of Frankford reserveth due honour to images and saith nothing against the Councell of Nice But this is to deny daylight at Noon-day For Annonius is most clear in it and Abbot Vspergens the Book of Charles the Great saith the same The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of purpose to condemne the second Synod of Nice called the seventh pretended and false Synod Aventinus saith expresly Scita Grecorum in Synodo Nicena decreta de imaginibus adorandis in concili◠francofurtensi rescissa abolita sunt and Vspergensis saith in this Synod it was decreed Vt septima universalis Synodus nec septima nec
that Christ should direct the Jews who were to be dispersed through all the earth to go up to Jerusalem for judgement seeing Ierusalem was to be laid equall with the ground and the Iews their state Church policy and the Scepter now removed from Iudah let wise men judge 11. The complaining to an Heathen Magistrate or the punishing of an offender by the sword by no Scripture is such a binding on earth by the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as this is expounded Matth. 16. 19. And such a binding as is ratified in Heaven and that by the joynt Prayers of two or three on earth as is here spoken ver 18 19 20. A Heathen Magistrates Sentence though never so just should not be valued except it were confirmed by the Prayers of the Church as the Sentence of Excommunication must be 12. The Iewish Saenedrim was now to take an end and expire with all the Iewish policy it is not to be imagined that Iesus Christ would appoint a perishing remedy for a perâ—etuall and ever-enduring disease now offences and scandals between brother and brother were to be in the world to the end ver 15. If thy brother offend c. And Christ saith Offences must be and the remedy here is morall and perpetuall as 1. That Christ shall have a Church visible on earth against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail 2. That we first deal to gain our brother in private ere to his greater shame he be brought in publick before the Church 3. The Lords ratifying in Heaven what his servants shall binde and loose on earth 4. The agreeing of two to pray together the convâ—ening of two or three in the name of Christ with a promise of the presence of Christ all these are Morall and perpetuall The Lord never did the like of this before or after 13. In all the New-Testament we do not read that Christ who was the end of the Law and the body now come in the flesh to abolish all Ceremonials and temporary Laws of the Iewish Church and policy as Iewish did institute any old-Testament Law such as the Sanedrim was for offending brethren if it be said that this was but the right expounding of an old divine Law now almost buried through the corruption of men then must Erastus shew that this was an old Law of divine institution that the Iews were to keep this threefold order in gaining an offending brother and that this is now abolished and that the power of the Magistrate in Church-businesse by this place is not established to the end of the world both which are contrary to the Principles of Erastus not to say that there is not in this whole Chapter or Luk. 17. where the same purpose is handled any shadow of reason to assert that Christ is restoring any Ceremoniall or Iudiciall Law to its genuine and sound meaning and sense but by the contrary Christ speaketh of the Morall and perpetuall Doctrine of scandall and how we are to deal with an offending brother to gain him to repentance either by our selves or the Church and to forgive private injuries even to seventy seven times Lastly since Publicans and Romans converted to the Christian saith from Paganisme even at this time were Brethren who might both give and take scandals it shall follow that Christ commandeth Gentiles to submit to the Jewish Magistrates this was against Christian liberty and to take from Cesar those things that are Cesars which is unjust But saith Erastus Publicans were not in Iuda excluded from sacrifices Luâ— 18. A Pharisee and a Publican went up to the Temple to pray Christ himself did eat with Publicans and sinners therefore this phrase Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican cannot expresse this Let him be excommunicated except you say that all heathen and Publicans were so served by Christ and the Iews as if they had been excommunicated Ans 1. Publicans that were by Nation Heathens were excluded from sacrifices and the Temple jure by Gods Law but not de facto because the Iews being under bondage to the Romane Emperour and spoiled of their Liberties and Laws might not put their Laws in execution against Heathen and Publicans it is sufficient to us saith Beza that Publicans were execrable and hatefull to the Iews and say I that Heathen and Publicans remaining such are without the Church and not to be reputed as brethren but enemies to the true Church of God and this is that which to us is Excommunication I do not doubt but Publicans went to the Temple to pray but that is but to Argue A facto ad jus not the right way A jure ad factum Publicans ought not to have done so 2. Christ the Supream Lawgiver who is above the Law did often dispense with sacrifice and positive Laws for a work of mercy and if he touched the dead and touched the skin of the Leaper and suffered his disciples to pluck the ears of Corne on the Sabbath day what marvell then he did eat with Publicans and sinners contrary to the Letter of a positive Law Knowing his own whom the Father had given to him from eternity were to be brought in to himself by his familiar conversing with them why should not the Physitian converse with the sick the shepheard with the lost sheep the Redeemer with his ransomed ones But this is no warrant that therefore the cleansed Leaper should not shevv himself to the Priest or that an obstinate offender should not be reputed as a Heathen and not admitted into the Sanctuary 3. That simple Publicans or Heathen remaining such should sacrifice I never read sacrifices were offered for Iobs friends who were not within the visible Church But 1. by Gods own speciall and immediate command as we read Iob 42. 7 8. A positive Law for it which yet was requisite for ordinary worship of that kinde we read not 2. I think Iobs friends cannot in knowledge Religion Profession be esteemed meer Heathens and therefore as God tied not himself to a positive and standing Law here so neither was Christ being the same God equall with the Father so restrained from not familiar conversing with Heathen and Publicans but he might leap over a Ceremony to save a lost soul Object 6. But the adversaries say Christ here useth words proper to the Iewish Synedry and the Old-Testament as witnesses Ecclesia or congregation Heathen Publican and these are not New Testament words nor was there such a thing as a New Testament Church on earth at this time and Christ having not yet ascended to Heaven nor sent down the holy spirit cannot be thought to hold forth the power and jurisdiction of a thing yet destitute of all being such as was the Christian Church nor can he here speak of Christs spirituall Kingdom Ans 1. Christ did well to use these words Witnesses Church Congregation Heathen Publican as well known to his hearers and these
15. And to wait on them with all patience if God peradventure may give them repentance 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spirits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former reasons by delivering to Satan cannot be meant a miraculous tormenting of the body by Sathan with the saving of the life Such as we read was the case of Iob for the delivering to Sathan is to cast out of the Church and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world of which Sathan is Prince Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert as the essentials of excommunication are 1. Here is a member of the Church one vvho is within 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall and had his fathers wife ver 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ v. 4. was delivered to Sathan that his soule may be saved for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication and to be purged out of the Church lest he should infect the Sheepe ver 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him nor to eate with him ver 9. 10 and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican ver 12. 13. and that by a convened court having the name and authority of him who is King of the Church ver 4. and more wee doe not crave Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan is no mean of salvation Answ A morall delivering to the efficacy of error and a reprobate minde is not a mean of salvation nor is excommunication such a mean nor in the power of the Church but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable communion of the Saints and of the prayers of the Church and meanes of grace such is a means and mighty through God to humble CAP. V. Quest 1. Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments beside the Pastorall rebukes inflicted by one VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel to debar the unclean from the society of Gods people and from communion with them in the holy things of God Numb 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast or the carcase of unclean cattell or the carcase of unclean creeping things and if it be hidden from him he also shall be unclean and guilty 6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord having his uncleannesse upon him even that soul shall be cut off from the people 21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing as the uncleannesse of man or any unclean beast or any abominable unclean thing and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which pertain unto the Lord even that soul shall be cut off from his people In the which observe that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excommunication not by death also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make a Covenant to cut off either by death or any other way as by banishment by which a thing leaveth off to be in use though it be not destroyed as when a branch is cut off a tree 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea we have Isa 50. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is that Bill of cutting off or divorce Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced but putting her from her husband as our Saviour saith It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage yet the word is Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrews have another more ordinary word to signifie death as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath in dying he shall die And it is expounded he shall be cut off from the midst of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Lev. 7. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is four times used without any such expression ver 20 21 25 27. To which may be added that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared According to the purification of the Sanctuary though they had celebrated the Passeover the King did not only not kil them but prayed God might be mercifull to them and the Lord killed them not saith the spirit of God but healed them Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread that soul shall be cut off from Israel but it is expounded ver 19. That soul shall be cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church of Israel Certainly he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church and from the company of all mortall men on earth Isa 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel as the holy Ghost expoundeth it Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance and so if he touch any unclean thing or eat unleavened bread forbidden of God he is excluded from the holy things of God while the Priest offer for him according to the Law Now if he was presently to be killed either by the Magistrate or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand as Aarons sons were there was not a journey to be made to the place the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there which might have been three dayes journey from his house who was unclean yea when the man that gathered sticks was stoned and the false Prophet stoned Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed and I hope there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead Hence learn we 1. That to cut off from the Congregation was not to kill but it was the Iewish Excommunication greater or lesse 2. That Moral sins under the Old Testament debarred men from the holy things of God while the Priests sacrificed for them and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
the Churches not to the Pastors only 2. The removing of the Candlestick is not from the Angel but from the Church and repentance and the fighting and overcomming a reward of the crown of life and many other things are evidently spoken to the Churches not to the Angels of the Churches And therefore the tryall of false Apostles must be by a Church a Court a colledge of church rulers as Paul speaketh unto Act. 20. 17. Where it is said Paul called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and exhorted them to beware of false teachers that should not spare the flocke and should teach perverse things v. 28. 29. 30. and of this sort were these lying and seducing Apostles now how can one Angell or many Pastors by preaching onely try false Apostles and finde them lyars This trying and sentencing of lying seducers Rev. 2. 2. must be by a court such as we find to be the practise of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem who in a Synod Act. 15. did finde these who taught a necessitie of Circumcision to be perverters of soules and liars saying They had the Apostles authority for what they taught whereas they had no such thing and Schismatick troublers of the people Acts 15. See what further I have said for Excommunication before cap. 2. and sect 7. which proveth also the same thing The Church of Thyatira would not be rebuked for suffering Jezabel to teach if they had no power of Church censures to hinder her It is not enough to say that the Angel of that Church did sufficiently hinder Jezabell to teach when in publike he declared and preached against her false doctrine and by the same reason Pastors exoner their conscience if they preach that such and such scandalous persons are not to eate and drinke their owne damnation though they debarre them not in a visible court by name from the Lords table and though they never excommunicate them and therefore there is not any censure but Pastorall rebukes by way of preaching not any other by way of discipline Ans The Angel of Thyatira had not sufficiently hindered Jezabel to seduce the servants of God by only preaching against her false doctrine in regard that Paul and Barnabas not only hindred those that teached that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised Act. 14. cap. 16. by Preaching but also had recourse to the power and authority of a Synod that in a Synod which is a Court essentially consisting of many Pastors and Elders they might be declared to be perverters of souls and liars as indeed they were judicially declared to be such Act. 15. 24. Hence I argue if the Apostles could not be said sufficiently to hinder Jezabels and Seducers by only Preaching and Disputing against their errors except in case of their persisting in their errors they should tell the Church convened in a Synod as Christs order is Mat. 18. Then the Angel of Thyatira or any one Pastor do not sufficiently hinder scandals but may be well said to suffer them by only private rebuking and publick Preaching except they use all these means to hinder Iezabels false Teachers and all scandalous persons that the Apostles used and therefore the Angel of the Church of Thyatira must be rebuked for not using the Authority and power of the Church against Iezabel And here by the way when these false Teachers had sinned against their brethren in perverting their souls they take not the course that Erastus dreameth to be taken according to Matth. 18. They complain not to the Synedrim or Civill Magistrate who should use the sword against them but to the Church Synodically convened at Ierusalem who used against them the Spirituall power that Christ the head of the Church had given them 6. Arg. If there be an Ecclesiasticall debarring of scandalous persons from the holy things of God especially from the Supper of the Lord by Censures and not by the preaching of the word only then there be Censures and power of jurisdiction in the word beside preaching of the word But the former I make good by these following Arguments 1. Arg. If the Stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God are to cut the word aright as approved workmen 2 Tim. 2. 15. And are to give every one their portion of bread according to their need and measure Matth. 24. 45 46 47. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2. 3. and must not sâ—ay the souls which should not die by denouncing wrath against the righteous nor save the souls alive that should not live by lying words Ezec. 13. 19. by offering mercy to the wicked and impenitent then as they should not deny the seals of salvation to Believers hungring and thirsting for Christ neither should they give the seals of life to those that are walking openly in the way of destruction But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is clear As the word should not be divided aright if wrath should be Preached to believing Saints and life and salvation offered to the obdurate and wicked so neither should the Stewards cut the seals of the word aright if the Supper were given to wicked men If they should say This is the blood of the Covenant shed for the Remission of your sins Drink ye all of it They should save alive those that should die with lying words for the seals speak to the Communicant and apply to him in particular the very promise that in generall is made to him and this will prove as the Magistrate being no Steward of the word and not called of God thereunto as Aaron was Heb. 5. 4. can no more distribute the word and seals to whom he pleaseth Ex officio then he can Preach and Administer the Sacraments nor should another man who is no Steward but a Porter or Cook Teach and that by his office how and to whom the Steward should distribute Bread nor is it sufficient to say by this one man not the Church is to debar from the Sacraments for the seals being proper to the Church as the Church he must act here in and with the power of the Church 2. It is another question whether by the Minister or by the Church any ought to be debarred and whether there be any such Censure as debarring from the Seals and it s another question by what power whether by the power of order or by the power of jurisdiction Ministers may debar the scandalous from the seals I conceive by both powers they may keep the Ordinances pure and if it belong to the Magistrate to debar any more then to preach the word and by the way of Erastus The Magistrate by his office as he is a Magistrate only is deputed of Iesus Christ to Steward the seals to whom he pleaseth Ergo say I to cut the word aright to whom he pleaseth must be his due 2. Arg. As the dispensers of the word must not partake of other mens sins 1 Tim. 5. 22. so neither should
they distribute to wicked and scandalous men such Ordinances as they see shall certainly be judgement and damnation to them and as maketh the Communicants guilty of the body and blood of our Lord Now that the Stewards Communicate with the sins of these manifestly scandalous to whom they administrate the Supper I prove 1. Because they that sow pillows under the head of the openly wicked preaching peace to these who should die do hunt souls Ezech. 13. 20. and partake of their presumption and they that heal the wound of the people with smooth words are false dealers and concurreth to the wound of the people Ier. 8. 10 11. As the Prophet that preacheth lies partaketh of the peoples presumption which believe those lies Ier. 14. 14 15 16. 2. If Eve should but reach the fruit of the forbidden Tree to Adam and say take and eat she partakes of Adams sin if the mother give poyson willingly and wittingly to a childe she killeth her childe though it be told the childe that it is poyson The Supper to those who knowingly to us eat unworthily is forbidden meat and poyson 3. A third Argument is from the nature of holy things It is not lawfull to give that which is holy to dogs nor to cast pearles before swine least they trample them under their feet Matth. 7. 6. But the Sacraments are holy things saith Erastus and no man can deny it Ergo we are not to give the Sacraments to the scandalous and openly prophane But Erastus answereth That the Lord preached the word to Pharisees and the word is a holy thing and a pearl and by Dogs and swine he meaneth open persecutors They that will seem members of the Church and confesse their fault and promise amendment are not such as will trample on the Sacraments and will turn again to tear you Et si quis talis reperiatur hunc ego admittendum minime censeo for such saith he Are not to be admitted to the Sacrament Ans These holy things which prophane men and openly scandalous can make no use of but pollute them to their own destruction and the abusing of the Ordinances no more then Dogs and Swine can make use of Pearls to feed them but onely trample on them are not to be given to the prophane and openly scandalous But the Lords Supper is such a thing being Ordained only for those that have saving Grace not for Dogs Now the Assumption applied to the word is most false as it is applied to the Lords Supper it is most true for the Word is Ordained by speciall Command to be Preached to Dogs and Lions that thereby they may be made Isa 11. 4 5 6 7. Isa 2. 3. 4. Lambs and Converts the Supper is not a mean of Conversion and since Dogs can make no use of it but trample it under foot we are forbidden to give such holy things to them It is true They 'll trample the Pearl of the word but we are Commanded to offer the word to all even while they turn Apostates 2. If Christ Commanded the word to be Preached to Pharisees and Saduces these were such persecuters as sinned against the Holy Ghost Dogs in the Superlative degree Matth. 12. 31 32. Joh. 9. 39 40 41. Joh. 7. 28. Joh. 8. 21. Ergo Christ Commanded some holy things the word to be given to Dogs and yet his precept cannot be obeyed if we give them the Sacrament 3. By what Doctrine of Scripture will Erastus have these that trampleth on Ordinances and turn again to tear us debarred from the Supper For in his Thes 26. 27 28 29. he holdeth it unlawfull to debar any Judas from the Supper doth he think there be no Dogs in the Visible Church Peter saith There be such Dogs as have known the way of truth and turn to their vomit and such may promise amendment confesse their sin and desire the Sacrament 4. Arg. Those who will not hear the Church but doth scandalize not only their Brethren but also a whole Church and are to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans are not to be admitted to the highest priviledge and to feast with Christ when the Church knoweth they want their wedding garment But there may be and are many in the Church of this sort Ergo such should not be admitted For the Major I set down the words of Erastus granting it The Assumption both Scripture and experience proveth for there be in the Visible Church Dogs Persecuters Jezabels as there be many called and few chosen 5. Arg. If the incestuous man must be cast out lest he leaven the Church then can he not be admitted to Communicate with the Church in that which is the highest seal of Christs love but the incestuous man must be cast out lest he leaven the whole Church 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 c. Ergo The Proposition is clear because none can be put out of the Church but they must be separated from the Table of the Children of the Church the Assumption is 1 Cor. 5 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Put him out ver 7. Purge him out Now the Church hath no power by bodily violence to attempt a locall separating of him in person from them as they are men though they may separate themselves from him then it must be a declarative casting of him out as unworthy to Communicate with the Church in such holy Ordinances as distinguisheth the Church from other Societies and these be the Seals of the Covenant 6. We are not to suffer sin in any Levit. 18. 17. Rev. 2. 20. but to hinder it so far as we can according to our vocation 1 Sam. 3. 13. As the Priests hindred Vzziah to Sacrafice 2 Chron. 26. 18 19 20. And must pull them out of the fire Jude ver 23. As the Law of nature would teach the Mother not only not to co-operate with her sonne attempting to kill himself but to hinder and stop him by pulling a knife or sword out of his hand when he is about to destroy himself if so then ought not the Church and her Officers to co-operate so far with those who do Eat and drink their own Damnation as to exhibite and give to such the seals of the Covenant to pray that these seals may be blessed to scandalons ones which is to pray directly contrary to the revealed will of God in his word and against that which the faithfull Pastors and Paul Preacheth That every one should try and examine themselves and so eat and drink Now a reall and physicall co-operating of the Church with such manifest impiety must then be the Churches suffering of sin in a brother or not hindring him â—o eat his own Damnation if the Lord have committed a power of dispensing the seals to Christians not to Pagans and Turks Let Erastus show any precept or practise why we might not admit Jews Turks Indians though never Baptized to eat and drink the Lords body and blood we are to Preach
the Sacraments to a Turk and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also conclude we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments being both uncapable of them as also because they can but trample on these pearls no lesse then the Turk should do the Argument then is just nothing We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven whom we do not excommunicate on earth But he should say we Excommunicate many whom we do not exclude out of Heaven Erastus These two are not one to declare a person hatefull in Heaven to God and to be cast out of the visible Church for if they be both one then one private Pastor may Excommunicate for he may declare from Gods word that an offender is excluded out of Heaven hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude also why should this be as good a consequence God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God Ergo he is to be cast out of the visible Church as this God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall Ergo God will not have him to live in this temporall life Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not worthy of life eternall to whom he hath given power to cast out devils in his name Matth. 7. Ans All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication So Iudas might have Excommunicated himself and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church he is cast out of the invisible Church But that is not Excommunication except it be done for a publick scandall that offendeth the Church 2. Except it be done by the visible Church 3. According to the rule of Christ Matth. 18. 4. That he may be ashamed and repent and be saved Gods binding of the offender in Heaven is a part of Excommunication but not all nor the very same with Excommunication 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor and yet the Conscional casting out by one insuo genere is as valid as the other subordinata non pugnant 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule God thinketh those who walketh inordinately and causeth divisions not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints and must binde them in heaven to that censure in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word Rom. 16 17. 18. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these he may deny salvation to the wicked and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath Ergo he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish This consequence dependeth on the meer dispensation of God nor is this our Consequence God judgeth such unworthy of heaven Ergo they must be cast out of the visible Church we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommunicated and only these which is false for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ and yet they are to be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the Church as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy and many whom God judges unworthy of life eternall may so belie a Profession as they deserve not to be excommunicated and both these may fall out and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ Erastus 4. objecteth Excommunication must exclude men from only the externall society of the Church for he only can joyne us to Christ or separate us from internall and spirituall society of Christ who can beget lively faith in us and extinguish lively faith when it is begotten for by faith only we are made living members of Christs body and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie But no Church no creatures can either beget lively faith in us or extinguish it in us or thus men can neither give to us nor take from us salvation therefore Excommunication should not be defined by cutting men off from salvation Ans This is the only Argument of Erastus that seemeth to bear weight But it is false and groundlesse it supposeth the false principle that Erastus goeth on that Excommunication is a reall separation of a member from Christs Invisible and Mysticall body and that the Excommunicated person who may be an Invisible member of Christ and regenerated may be an Apostate and fall from Christ and leave off to be a member The contrary of which all our Protestant Divines teach against Papists whereas Excommunication is only a Declarative but withall an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church and no reall cutting off of a believer from Christ But you will say It presupposeth a cutting off in heaven from Christ and therefore the Excommunicated person is declared to be cut off Let me Answer I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation Regeneration or non-Regeneration for its object or terminus but only it cutteth a contumacious person off from the Visible Church on earth and from the head Christ in heaven not in regard of his state of Regeneration as if Christ ratifying the Sentence in heaven did cut him off so much as conditionally from being a member of his body No but in regard of the second Acts of the life of God and the sweet efficacy and operation of the spirit by which the Ordinances are lesse lively lesse operative and lesse vigorous the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton saith As a palsie Member in which life remaineth but a little withered and blunted and he in Satans power to ve◠his spirit and therefore I grant all to wit that Excommunication is not a reall separating of a member from Christs body only unbelief doth that but it followeth not Ergo it is a separation only from the externall society of the Church For 1. This externall cutting off is ratified in heaven And 2. Christ hath ratified it by a real internal suspension of the influence of his spirit in heaven But I deny that this universall doth follow from Christs binding in heaven That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven all these are to be cast out of the Church he cannot prove this consequence from our grounds Erastus Argueth thus If God dam any as
holden out of the Sanctuary as the Lord saith Ezech. 44. 7 8 9. then those who were only uncircumcised in flesh Erastus Those that morally sinned were not debarred from the holie things because they were invited to come and offer sacrifice for their sins Ans And because they might not enter into the Temple while the Priests offered a sacrifice for them they were no lesse excluded from the holy things of God then an Excommunicated person is while the Church see him swallowed up of grief and do relaxe and forgive 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. Is this a good Argument The Excommunicate person is invited to come again that the Church may pardon then it will follow he was cast out Erastus Paul forbiddeth to eat with fornicators 1 Cor. 5. It shall never follow that they are worthie of holy convention that are worthy of a common Table and that they are unvvorthy of the Supper who are unworthie of a common Table they vvere debarred from a familiar Communion with the godlie 1. That they might be ashamed 2. Least they should infect them Paul saith be not mixed vvith them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he saith not exclude them from the Lords Table and other holy things In the Sacrament I must try my self not others in my familiar Tabling with others I am to try them that I may gain them yea 2 Thes 3. Though we are to eschew familiar conversing with those that walk unorderly yet are we to keep communion in holy things with them and to admonish them as brethren Ans Erastus propounds an Argument of his own 1 Cor. 5. in place of ours we said never that they that are unworthy of the holy Supper are unworthy to be Tabled with in common familiarity as brethren though that be most true But we reason thus Those that are to be delivered to Satan and cast out as 1 Cor. 5. 5 13. of the Church and judged ver 12. and with whom we may not eat ver 11. These are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper which is the proper feast of the Church But such are all incestuous and scandalous persons and therefore Paul doth indeed command them to be excluded from the holy feast 2. To say the Church and her Officers must try themselves not others ere they come to the Lords Supper is to beg the question for ere they be admitted into the Sanctuary they are to be tried whither they be uncircumcised in heart and flesh or not Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. As we have proved 3. Paul not only useth a passive verb be not mixed with them but 1 Cor. 5. 5. he useth four active words v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purge him out 3. v. 12. He willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge him 4. He saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put away that evil one Hence I argue The men whom they convened together were to judge to deliver to Satan to purge out to put away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them ver 2. or from amongst them v. 13. This man they did Authoritatively either put from amongst them as they were Christians from their common Table or out of their fellowship as they were men to kill him Or 3. out of their Church-Communion that they should not keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them Let Erastus give a fourth now we cannot dream of the first two for 1. Would the Apostle command a Church-meeting to interdict a man of Tabling with them in common eating and drinking What needeth a Church-court for they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did this And what needed a judging Court for this for not to eat with him was no censure of the Church as Erastus saith 2. It is no Grammar nor can it bear sense that the Corinthians could say we Corinthians gathered together in the name and power of the Lord Iesus do cast out such a one out of the midst of us that is from our common-Table this would say they had all one common Table and that all the Church of Corinth met at this time to some Feast to cast him out of their love-Feasts a dream no man ever conceived 3. The Text speaketh of eating in their houses could they cast the man out of his own house and from his own Table they had no power so to do But ye will say they might forbid any brother to go into this mans house to his Table True but this was not to put the man out of the midst of them as Paul saith Nor fourthly was Pauls spirit and the name and power of the Lord Iesus required for eschewing of a common Table with this man Erastus saith Paul commanded this Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. To all and every beleever at Rome and Thessalonica by themselves Nor 2. were they to kill him Never did a Church conveen to kill a man This is so insolent that Erastus must give precept for it or a practise beside the present case therefore here must be some Church out-casting 4. Though Paul will have us admonish a cast out man as a brother 2 Thes 3. It s private admonition that I owe to all men Lev. 19. 17. And that one woman is to performe to another Col. 3. 15. But not any of the holy things of the Sanctuary Erastus The Iews accused Paul of nothing but that they lied that he brought Greeks into the Temple The Law bad all the clean eat the Passeover and excepteth none for their wickednesse Christ admitted Iudas to the Passeover and said Drink ye all of this Paul reciteth a Catologue of wicked men in Corinth 1 Cor. 5. With whom we are not to have private dealing but he commandeth never to exclude any who are willing to come from the Lords Supper We are to trie our selves not one another nor is it a sin to eat at the Lords Table with wicked men Ans Belike it was a crime then to bring the Greeks into the Temple 2. It is a begging of the question to say all were admitted to the Passeover See how this is before answered 3. Christ admitted Iudas into the Passeover What then may Timothie lay hands suddenly on all he knows to be Iudases that they come in and lap the blood of souls contrary to 1 Tim. 3. Christ is above the Law and if his practise in this were the rule because Christ admitted Iudas whom he knew to be a Traitor and did eat ordinarily at Table with him and committed the flock to such a known wolfe We are also to eat with covetous extortioners which Paul forbiddeth 1 Cor. 5. 11. And we are to commit the flock of God to known Wolves where we have a precept on the contrary 2 Tim. 2. 2. Christ would rather teach that we are to admit to the seals all not ignorant and scandalous and not be too curious in striking up a
come to the Supper Be not Iudges of mens Conscience Ans Christ Commanding not to cast Pearls to Swine and scourging out those that polluted that Temple that was a type of his body doth Argue clearly that the holy things of God should not be prophaned But that Christ rebuked all abuses in the worship of God in particular Erastus cannot say 2. It is one thing to forgive our brother by putting away private grudge and a church-pardoning in the name of Christ is another in the former sense we are to forgive our enemy though he repent not Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Luk. 23. 34. But this forgivenesse Luk. 17. is not said to be ratified in heaven for God doth not alway forgive when we forgive God doth forgive when the sinner repenteth Erastus will have a lying confession ratified in Heaven 3. When the Church in Christs Name forgiveth not upon words and lies but upon Visible Testimonies of repentance they are no more Iudges of the heart then Isaiah when he said Except ye believe ye shall not be established and Paul when he said to the Jaylor Believe and thou shalt be saved for without more then lying words of mouth yea without true lively faith neither could the one be established nor the other saved Erastus When Paul dehorteth the Corinthians to eat things Sacrificed to Idols in the Idols Temple because they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils he bids them not forsake the Supper of the Lord but only not to go to the Feast of Idols because the Supper and these Tables of Devils are inconsistant therefore he saith I will not have you to have fellowship with Devils but he saith not I will not have you to come to the Supper of the Lord nor deth he bid them approve their repentance â—re they come to some I know not what Presbyters And in this place he speaketh of an externall Communion as the purpose and words prove because he speaketh of Israel according to the flesh 3. Because those that eat things Sacrificed to Idols were perswaded there was no difference between those meats and other meats Ans Erastus his Argument is this being reduced to form is if Paul say not 1 Cor. 10. I will not have you come to the Lords Supper but only I will not have you to have fellowship with the Devil in his Table then he will have none debarred by the Elders from the Lords Supper But the latter is true I deny the Proposition it is a connexion that one who taketh on him to refute such a precious and eminent divine as Theod. Beza may be ashamed of and yet his book from head to foot standeth most upon a negative Argument from some particular place of Scripture for he speaketh nothing of the power of Elders to keep the holy things of God pure What if he should say Moses in the first of Genesis saith not I will not have you not to come to the Lords Supper Ergo there is no authoritative debarring of men from the Lords Supper Such sandy consequences no learned Divines would ever dream of 2. Beza nor any of our Divines never dreamed that God in the Old or New Testament said Nolo vos ad mensam domini ad sacramenta venire which are the words of Erastus so his conclusion cometh not near the controversie Iews and Gentiles are invited and commanded to come to Christ and so to all the Ordinances and Sacraments but I hope this will not infer that all should come to the Sacraments hand over head and whether they be clean or unclean circumcised or Baptized or not circumcised not Baptized God commanded Aarons sons to serve in the sanctuary and appear before him in their charge What Ergo it is not Gods will that they come not to the Sanctuary and before him unwashed and with strange fire and without their holy garments this is the very consequence of Erastus Our question I conceive is whither all must be admitted promiscuously and whether even those that come immediatly from the Devils Table without any preparation known to the Church should be set at Christs elbow to eat the Lords body and blood Erastus saith Paul never said Nolo vos ad mensam domini venire then because two negatives make one affirmative Paul must say I will that all that are partakers of the table of the Devil come and be partakers of the Lords body But the conclusion is contradicent to Erastus himself who faith right down I judge that he vvho vvill but trample the Sacraments should not be admitted unto them and to Paul 1 Cor. 11. 27 c. 3. Erastus confoundeth two Questions one is whither all should be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus saith every where in his book none are to be debarred another by whom are they to be admitted or debarred By the civill Magistrates saith Erastus by the Stewâ—rds and Officers of the house of God the rest of the Church consenting say we 4. The Argument will conclude that not onely the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ but they ought to command them to come it being Christs will they should be admitted and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged though keeping fellowship with the Devil to come and eat their own damnation for Paul saith by this reason in the place 1 Cor. 10. No more I will not have the partakers of the Devils table to come to the Lords table nor he saith I will not have the Elders to debar them if Erastus say they should try and examine themselves and come He flees from the controversie which is not whether the worthy but whether the scandalous and unworthy should come Erastus saith all should come 5. Whereas Erastus will have the Apostle to speak of the externall Communion of the Elements onely 1. It is false 2. Nothing to the purpose it is false 1. ver 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that must be more then externall Communion 2. ver 17. We many are one body this is not an externall body only for it is the unity of the body of Christ signified by one bread 3. It is not externall only but internall and spiritual fellowship with Devils that is condemned ver 20. 21. Ergo It must be internall Communion with Christ in his death that is sealed and commanded 4. This is meer Socinianisme to have the Sacraments only memorative signes as is clear 2. It is not to a purpose for if the Church debar only from externall society from the Church and externall Seals this debarring being ratified in Heaven Matth. 18. It is sufficient for our conclusion 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table as inconsistent with eating and drinking of the Lords body he must expresly forbid those who eateth
should infect the clean as is cleare as the light Num. 19. 22. Hag. 2. 13. Gal. 5. 9. 10. 1 Cor. 5. 6 7. but wicked men are not excluded out of the New Ierusalem in heaven for fear they should infect and defile any person in heaven 2. Separation from the Church is medicinall Num. 12. 14. that the party may be humbled and pardoned 2 Cor. 5 6 7. that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. and the man shamed for his further good 2 Thes 3. 14. But exclusion of men out of the New Jerusalem for their uncleannes Rev. 21. is not medicinall that they may be humbled but for their everlasting shame and destruction and therfore a separation from the Church by way of discipline is here intended not any exclusion out of heaven Erastus All Legall uncleannes is punished with exclusion but no man for corruption of nature is excluded out of the Church Ans We grant all and therefore legall uncleannes did hold forth actuall scandalousnesse not naturall corruption Erastus The actions of unclean men were punished by death Ergo Not by exclusion out of the Church Ans The Antecedent is not universally true Capitall faults as I said before were onely thus punished the consequence is null Erastus He that was legally unclean did defile all beside him even vessels places garments but Theeves adulterers doe not defile but these that consent to their wickednes nor did they defile the places The adulterous women brought to the Priest and temple did not defile the Priest or Temple Ioh. 8. Nor did Moses and others abstain from the worship the Manna c. because many wicked men did partake thereof nor were the vessels purified after wicked men touched them therefore it followeth not because God is more offended with the sacrifices of the wicked then of those that are onely legally uncleane that therefore wicked men are no lesse to be debarred from the holy things then those that are legally unclean Ans This is to dispute with God God made a law that he who being legally unclean should touch men or things legally unclean should pollute This Law God freely made as a positive statute who can tye God to make the like Law touching those that are morally uncleane no man now because God made no such Law it leaveth not off to be the sinne of the Priests that they brought the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary as God complaineth Ezek. 44. 8 9. c. 22 26. And that the Church should hinder the wicked to pollute the holy things of God 2. The adulterous woman was brought to the Priest and Temple to be judged God had so commanded and therefore no wonder she polluted neither Priest nor Temple but had shee not polluted the Passeover Morally though I say not Ceremonially if she had eaten without Repentance and offering for her sinne I thinke she would Erastus Though God punish not pollution of holy things by debarring men from them it followeth not that he winketh at them for he punisheth them with death and more grievously Ans But by this that God punisheth the pollution of non-converting Ordinances with death we gather that the Church should also hinder the pollutions of them and punish Swine that trample on Pearles and not prostitute holy things to their lust Beza said those that were unclean had need of Sacrifices Ergo They were guilty of sinne Erastus saith that externall uncleannes was not sinne but because it put us in mind of our naturall corruption that had need to be purged in Christs blood Ans The breach of a Law is sin a Ceremoniall Law is a Law 2. It was punished often with cutting off from the Congregation but God did not cut off men from the Congregation for naturall corruption as Erastus granteth Erastus If legall uncleannes were sinne God would not have commanded it But God commanded or at least permitted the Priests and others to pollute themselves with the dead Levit. 21. Ezek. 44. Ans It is weakly argued for the father to kill the sonne then should be no sinne God commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac it is not properly a defiling nor a sinne when God Levit. 21. willeth the Priest to be neer those of his kin when they die it is Gods owne exception from the Law though to come neere to others when they are dead be sin Gods commanding and forbidding will is the formall cause and rule of obedience and sinne Erastus Where finde you that the Priests were to judge whether any had repented that so he might be admitted to the Temple Ans It is written Ezek. 44. 99. c. 22. 26. the Priests should not have admitted the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary Ergo they should have tryed if they were such ere they admitted them Yea if in the very day of his oblation ere he offer the sinner must first restore what he hath unjustly taken away Lev. 6. 4 5 6. Ergo The Priest except he rule unjustly should judge whether he have first restored it in the principall and added the fift part more into it Levit 6. 5. As Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them yee have transgressed and have taken strange wives now therefore make confession and separate your selfe from the people of the Land and from the strange wives Ezra c. 10. v. 11 12. And this they did ere they sacrificed Ergo the Priests judged of their repentance before they were admitted to Sacrifice and the washing of the hands in Innocency before the person compassed the Altar Psal 26. 6. must be tryed by the Priest if not the Priest offered to God the Sacrifice of fooles and did eate the sinnes of the people in offering for contumacious impenitents Erastus saith the putting away of their wives was a civill busines and belonged to the Magistrate Ans Ezra was a Priest and Shechaniah saith ver 5. Arise this matter belongs to thee and he is ordinarily called Ezra the Priest CHAP. 8. Quest 4. How Erastus acquitteth himselfe in proving that the place Mat. 18. maketh nothing for Excommunication ERastus The scope of the Lord is to teach how great an evill scandall is and how without offence scandals of vveake may be removed because vvhen vve referre an injury to the judge the vveak may be scandalized he speaketh not here of great injuries to be removed by Excommunication but of lesser and private ones betvveen brother and brother before we bring them before heathen judicatures proper to Heathens and Publicans Ans There is no scope of our Saviour to prevent heathen judicatures dreamed of in the Text nor a shadow thereof Vel per decimam tertiam consequentiam 2. He speakes not of small injuries onely 1. Christ must not be straitned in his words he speaks of scandals in generall ver 7. Woe to the vvorld because of offences they be not light that bringeth a woe upon the world
neglect to hear them he was to tell the Church Ergo If he should hear them he was gained and was not to tell the Church Ergo spirituall gaining must be Christs scope 2. If to tell the Church be as Erastus dreameth to tell the Civill Magistrate and then the Roman Emperour this was no suitable mean to gain the mans soul a club was never dreamed of by our Saviour to compasse the spirituall end or neerest scope of gaining any to repentance for the end of the Magistrate as a Magistrate is to bring no man to repentance but to take avvay evil out of the land to cause Israel fear and do so no more to be an avenger of evil doing far lesse is there any shadow of reason to dream that Christ intended by Cesars or any Heathen Magistrates sword to gain an offending brother to repentance and that he commandeth the offended brother to use such a carnal mean so unsuitable to such a spirituall end Lastly How a private brother cannot be said to binde and loose I have cleared already Erastus Least these words Let him be to thee as an Heathen should seem to make the offender every way as an Heathen therefore he addeth a restrictive word and a Publican and he addeth the article ◠common to them both so as he speaketh not of every Heathen and Publican but of those who were conversant amongst the Jews and none of those would answer to any Judge but the Roman Emperour or his deputies being the servants of the Romans to vex the people of the Jews Ans Here is a groundlesse conjecture for a Publican was large as odious as a Heathen being a companion to sinners and the worst of the Heathen 2. How proveth he that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Heathen is meant of those Heathen only that were servants to the Romans and would acknowledge no Iudge but Cesar 1. The Iews themselves said We have no King but Cesar 2. The holy Ghost doth not restrict the Heathen so What warrant hath Erastus to be narrower in his glosse then the holy Ghost is in the Text. If in these Let him be as an Heathen the threatning be perpetuall to remove all scandals to the end of the world when most of the Heathen shall not acknowledge the Iudicatures of Heathen Rome then the word Heathen must be as large as all Heathen all wicked and all scandalous men such as Publicans and so there is no hint at the Heathen Romish Iudge here which is the way of Erastus But the former is true or this Law of Christ is to remove scandals amongst the Disciples when the Roman Empire shall fall as the Lord in his word hath prophecied The Scripture speaks not so Mat. 6. 7. Vse no vain repitition in prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can Erastus say none use babling prayers but such heathen as were subject to the Roman Empire Gal. 2. 9. That we should goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Heathen here is an Article also belike Paul should preach to no Gentiles but those under the Roman Empire A frothie dream Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing God would justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles Here also an Article belike then no Gentiles are justified by faith but these that are Officers to the Romans and vexed the Iewes Act. 18. 6. Henceforth I will goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Gentiles Act. 21. 19. Paul told what things the Lord had done by his Ministery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Heathen Act. 26. 23. that Christ should shew light to the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the Heathen not the Romish heathen onely except Christ be a Saviour to no other Heathen in the world I need not weary the Reader to resute these unsolid conjectures of Erastus Erastus Converted Publicans were not scandalous as touching their office Ergo A publican signifieth not one that is none of the Church Zachens after his conversion remained a Publican Ans Converted Publicans left not off to be Publicans but they left off to be such as went under the name of Publicans that is abominable Extortioners and grinders of the Poore and therefore it followes well that to be as a Publican in the common speech of the Iewes familiar to our Saviour was to be a wretched godlesse prophane man without the Church and without God and Christ in the world as also the Heathen were Eph. 2. 11 12. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 1 Pet. 4. 3 4. Acts 21. 11. Rom. 2. 24 blasphemers of the Name of God and 1 Cor. 12. 2. Yee know that yee were Gentiles carried away with dumbe Idols Eph. 4. 17. That ye walke not as other Gentiles in the vanity of their minde 18. Having the understanding darkned being strangers from the life of God These and many other Scriptures confirmeth me much that in Christs time to be as a Heathen and a Publican was to be cast out whereas the man was once a brother a beleever and a member of the Church and in profession in the covenant of God and a brother to Peter Iohn and the Lords Disciples and a Christian and professing Saint as the disciples of Christ were but now one who is turned out of that society and as a Gentile serving Satan walking in the vanity of the minde as an uncircumcised man c. This is as like Excommunication as one egge is like another we have cleare Scripture for this Exposition but it is good Erastus never gave us one syllable of Scripture for his exposition Nor can it be shewen that to be as a Heathen and a Publican by Scripture or any that ever spoke Greeke is to be in subjection to the Roman Empire or lyable to their lawes onely we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastus for it Erastus Who ever by no law of God or command was execrable and could for no just cause be hated by no Law of God could bee debarred from the Temple and holy things of God But such were the Publicans Ergo Ans 1. The Major is false The Leper because a Leper was by no Law of God cursed and execrable nor was he worthy of hatred but of pitty yet was he by an expresse Law debarred from the Temple and holy things of God 2. The Minor is false in the sense we contend for the office of a Publican in abstracto was not execrable nor worthy of hatred but the thing signified and that which proverbially went under the name of a Publican amongst the Iewes to wit a professed extortioner a robber a grinder of the face of the poore is both execrable and hatefull the conclusion in the former sense is granted and it is nothing against us But in the latter sense the Assumption being false the conclusion followeth not not to say that in ordinary none was a Publican but he that was either an heathen and so execrable or then an
most at this time Ergo If the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferre that a disobedient brother is most like these Heathen they must be greatest enemies to the Iewes and so remotest from Circumcision and all right to the holy things of God being the worst of the Heathen and so Erastus hath gained nothing but lost much by his poore Grammattication Yea if the offended brother should repute the offender as the worst of the Heathen he is to esteeme him who was once a Member of the Church in that he was obliged to heare the Church now as a Heathen and so no brother no Member of the Church and here Erastus must grant that one brother may un-church and Excommunicate any other for disobedience to the Church but the Church may not Erastus They are as absurd who say by Publicans here are understood wicked men for then by Heathen must be understood also the wickedest of the Heathen and not all the Heathen dwelling in Judea Ans I deny the consequence for by Publicans are meant men wicked and unpure by conversation and by Heathen men unclean by condition because without the Church and strangers to the Israel of God and without Christ and God in the world 2. We have proved what is meant by a Publican by evident Scriptures but that by a Publican is understood one who acknowledged no Magistrate but a Roman no Scripture no Greeke Author warranteth us to thinke it never man dreamed it but Erastus Erastus The Pharises hindred not Christ and his Apostles to come to the Temple Ans Christ was a born Jew and circumcised yea and what can the Practise of the Murtherers of Christ prove It is no Law But the Romans never sacrificed in the Temple but gave Liberty to the Iews to serve God according to his word and to hear Christ preach and that Christ kept the Ceremoniall Law and taught others even the cleansed Leapers so to do Matth. 8. is clear Erastus Private men do forgive sins Matth. 18. Luk. 17. Ergo to binde and loose is not a proper judiciall act of a Court Matth. 16. Christ speaketh not to Peter only but to all the faithfull who by teaching one another may bring one another to acknowledge their sin and if they do it they are pardoned if not their sins are bound in Heaven Ans To these the keys are given who retain and remit sins as Erastus saith But these be such as are sent of Christ as the Father sent his son Ioh. 20. 2. Either in this place there is given power to binde and loose by publick preaching the word or by some other place but this power to binde and loose by publick preaching is only given to Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 29. Eph. 4. 11. 12. And Erastus granteth elsewhere that every private man by his office cannot preach nor administer the Sacraments and by no other place is this given to Pastors for I could elude all places with the like answer and say there is a publick Baptizing and Administration of the Supper by Ministers and sent Pastors only and a private also performed by private Christians yea by a woman and both are valid in Heaven and the binding and loosing of both ratified in Heaven 3. Christ spake this to the Disciples who before were sent to Preach and cast out Devils Matth. 10. and saith not Whom thou bindes on earth but in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What things you binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith all this upon the fancy that binding and loosing of the Church and Peters private forgiving of his brother seven times a day must be all one which I do prove in another place to be different and amongst other reasons this is one because the Church pardoning hath a threefold order 1. between brother and brother 2. before two or three 3. Before the Church and the end of all is the gaining of the offending brother Matth. 18 15 16 17 18 19 20. But the private forgiving of a brother of which Peter speaketh Mat. 18. 21 22 23. and Luke 17 4 5. is of an inferiour nature for I know not if you can gain a brothers soule seven times a day if he but say It repenteth me Luke 17. 4. or seventy seven times Mat. 18. 22. These words It repenteth me said seventy times a day to the Church cannot satisfie to the gaining of a soule whereas to the private remitting of revenge it were enough We have the Text to warrant us that Christ spaâ—e to Stewards to whom the keyes are committed Erastus doth but wickedly assert he spoke to those who were as Christians in that act but the Text is cleare he speaketh of binding and loosing spiriâ—ually which is nothing to the holding off of a civill injurie which Erastus saith is the scope of our Saviour here and how hungry must that sense be That you deal with him as with an Heathen who acknowledgeth no Iudge but a Roman judge is a matter ratified in heaven 4. A private man is to forgive an injury even though the offender repent not Mat. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Col. 3. 13. but that pardon cannot be ratified in heaven 5. See what we have said of binding and loosing before Erastus Though Christ should speake this onely to Ministers yet it followeth not that he speaketh this to other Presbyters Ans That dependeth on the proving that there be ruling Elders in the Church which I conceived have proved else where from Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. I conceive when Christ spake this there was neither a formed Presbytery nor a formed Church Erastus Christ saith not if two or three Presbyters or two or three Ministers agree in one I will heare them but where two or three Christians agree Ans Nor doe we say that two or three can make an Excommunicating Church but Christ argueth a minore if the Lord heare two or three on earth farre more will he heare a Church and ratifie in heaven what they doe in binding and loosing offenders in Earth But how shall these words agree to the interpretation of Erastus for he expoundeth two or three and the whole Church to be but one Christian Magistrate can he be said to agree to himselfe Or can one or two or three meet together in Christs Name And what coherence is here Two or three conveeneth to pray that he that will not hear the Christian Magistrate may be dealt with as a Heathen man before the Roman judge how violent and farre off is this glosse and how unsuitable to the Text Erastus What other thing is it to a private brother to gain another to himselfe and to God then binding and loosing in Heaven Ans To bring him before the civill Magistrate either Christian or Heathen whose intrinsecall end by vertue of their office is not to gaine soules but to draw the blood of ill doers is farre
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
Paul for fear of the iniquity of this Church or Sanedrim dealt with them as Heathen and appealed to Cesar Ans But by what Law of God did they this It is not denyed but the Iews Synedrim being two courts did inflict punishment But that Christ establisheth a civill Sanedrim as a mean Matth. 18. To gain the soul of a brother is now the question we utterly deny this and gave reasons before thereof to which I adde if any obeyed not the Church that is the Sanedrim as Erastus saith they might be stoned to death as Steven was Was this Christs milde way to cite them onely before the Romane Senate Were dead men capable of answering to any further Iudicatures 2. The last step of conveening Heathens and Publicans before the Romane Senate according to Christs order is not to be observed with them for even Heathens and Publicans are so far forth our brethren that 1. We are not when they offend us to suffer sin in them but to rebuke them as Christians Lev. 19. 18. For this is the Law of nature The Law of nature will teach us not to hate an Heathen in our heart 2. We are to labour to gain all even those that are without the Church 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. 1 Pet. 3. 1. And this is Christs way of gaining all to rebuke and admonish them Ergo it was never Christs meaning to deal with Heathens and Publicans so as at the first we are to drag them before the Heathen Magistrate that by his sword he may gain them or take away their life yea and Erastus granteth in Ecclesiasticall crimes that the Iews had power of life and death in the matter of Steven and of Paul if he had not appealed to Cesar to save his head Josephus de bel Judaic Lib. 5. Cap. 26. Antiquit. Lib. 14. Cap. 12. But in things politick Cesar took all power of life and death from them Hence only is Christs time the footsteps of the two distinct courts remained and the Priests not the civill Magistrate had the power of Church-discipline But all was now corrupt CHAP. IX Quest 5. The place 1 Cor. 5. for Excommunication vindicated from the Objections of Erastus Erastus Paul did nothing contrary to the Command of Christ But Christ excluded no man from the Passeover not Iudas Ergo Neither minded â—e to exclude the incestuous man he saith not 1 Cor. 5. Why debarred you him not from the Sacrament But why did you not obtain by your tears and prayers as Augustine expoundeth it that the man might be cut off by death Ans Christ would not take the part of a visible Church on him to teachus that none should be cast out of the Church for secret and latent crimes 2. Paul did nothing without the Command of Christ But Christ neither in the Old or New Testament commanded his Church to pray for the miraculous cutting off of a scandalous person give an instance in all Scripture except you make this one which is contraverted your instance Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth the man from all punishment and nameth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuking Ergo He was not excluded from the Sacrament Ans Exclusion from the Sacrament is but one of the fruits of Excommunication not formally Excommunication yet he harpeth on this alway that to be excommunicated or to be delivered to Satan is but to be debarred from the Sacrament 2. The answer presupposeth he was Excommunicated we urge the place for a precept only of Excommunication if he repented to the satisfying of the Church there was no need of Excommunication 3. If the man 2 Cor. 2. was delivered from rebuke onely and if that was all his punishment Ergo he was not miraculously cut off for then he must have been miraculously cut off and raised from death to life againe unlesse miraculous cutting off had been no punishment But if he was not miraculously cut off because he prevented it then with what faith could the whole Church pray for the miraculous killing of a brother and not rather that he might repent and live 4. In all the Word of God the intrinsecall end of putting to death a Malefactor is to avenge Gods quarrell Rom. 13. 4. That all Israel may hear and feare and doe no more any such wickednes Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sinne off the Land Numb 34. 33 34. that the Lords anger may be turned away and a common plague on the Church stayed when justice is executed on the ill doer Psal 106. 28 29 30 31. And it concerneth the Church and Common-wealth more then the soule of the Malefactor and there is nothing of such an end here But the intrinsecall end here is that the mans Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus and this delivering to Satan is in the Name and authority and by the power of the Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the Sonne of man came to save soules not to destroy bodies and burne cities and though by the power of Christ Peter miraculously killed Ananias and Saphira and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blinde yet these being Miracles we heare not that this was done by any interveening act of the Church conveened or by their prayers to bring vengeance by a miracle on the ill doâ—r Peter and Paul doe both these not asking any consent or intervention of the peoples prayers but by immediate power in themselves from the Lord Jesus 2. If any such power were given to the Church by their Prayers to obtain from God a miraculous killing of all scandalous persons who infecteth the Church in case the civill Magistrate were an Heathen and an enemy to Christian Religion and refused to purge the Church Christ who provideth standing remedies for standing diseases must have left this miraculous power to all the christian Churches in the earth that are under Heathen Magistrates or some power by way of Analogie like to this to remove the scandalous person but we finde not any such power in the Churches under Heathen Magistrates except power of refusing to the offender the Communion and rejecting him as an Heathen and Publican that he may be ashamed and repent 3. The whole faithfull at Corinth men women and children and all the Saints for to those all iâ— this power given as Erastus saith must have had a word of promise if they ought to have prayed in faith as the Prophets and Apostles prayed in faith that they might work miracles that Paul was miraculously to kill the incestuous man But that all and every one who were puffed up and mourned not at this mans fall had any such word of promise I conceive not imaginable by the Scriptures for the Proposition I take it as undeniable if Paul rebuked the Corinthians all and every one because they prayed not and mourned not to God that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man they behoved to have
a word of God for their warrant commanding them to pray O Lord give power to Paul to kill such an incestuous man miraculously For such Faith of miracles had Christ and all the Prophets and Apostles Joh. 11. 41. So did Sampson pray in faith Judg. 16. 28. and Elias 1 Kings 18. 36 37 38. and so did the Apostles pray Act. 4. 24 29 30. and with them the Church of believers for working of miracles in generall for the Apostles had a word of promise in the generall for working of miracles Mar. 16. 17 18. But that the Apostles had before hand revealed to them all the miracles they were to work I cannot believe by any Scripture But that it was revealed to them upon occasion only by an occasionall immediate Revelation Do this particular miracle Hic nunc And this I am confirmed to believe Because Elisha 2 Kin. 4. was mistaken in sending his servant with his staffe to raise the dead son of the Shunamite a Pastor with nothing but a club and naked words cannot give life to the dead ver 31. and therefore the working of a miracle in particular Hic nunc was not alwayes revealed to the most eminent Prophets such as Elisha was and so I beleeve as working of miracles on this and this man came not from an habit in the Prophets and Apostles far lesse from a habit subject to their free will but God reserved that liberty to himself to act his servants immediatly both to pray by the faith of this miracle Hic nunc and to work this miracle Hic nunc Now to the Assumption How can Erastus or any of his followers assure our conscience that God had given the Faith of miracles to all the sanctified in Christ Jesus at Corinth whom Paul so sharply rebuketh 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. That this being revealed to them by God and they having the faith that it was the will of Iesus Christ that Paul should kill or as some say deliver to Satan this incestuous man to be miracuously tormented in the body or flesh as Iob was that he might repent is it like Christ would reveal more of his will touching every particular miracle to be done by Paul to all and every secure one in the Church of Corinth that were puffed up and mourned not for this mans fall then he revealed to the Apostles themselves But I have proved that the Apostles and Prophets knew not nor had they the particular Faith of this and this miracle how then had all and every one of the Church of Corinth this Faith Now they behoved to have this light of Faith of this miracle revealed to them that this was Christs will that Paul should work a miracle for the destruction of the man else the Corinthians could no more be justly rebuked because they prayed not to God that Paul might work this miraculous destruction of the man which yet he never wrought as its clear 2. Cor. 2. he was not killed but repented and was pardoned then because they prayed not that he miraculously might cure the criple man at Lystra Act. 14. or that he might work any other miracle Now how was this revealed to all of the Church of Corinth that this was Christs will If it be said they were to pray conditionally that God would either by a miracle take him away or then in mercy give him repentance to prevent destruction 1. We have no surer ground for a conditionall and dis-junctive Faith of miracles in the Corinthians then for an absolute Faith 2. If it was the will of Christ that the man should by himself be miraculously killed why did not the Apostle immediatly by himself kill him Why It was the Apostles fault as well as the sin of the Corinthians that the man remained as a leaven to sowre and infect the Church yea it was more the Apostles fault then theirs for he had only the immediate power miraculously to purge the Church some may say as the Lord Iesus was hindred some time to work miracles because of the peoples unbelief Matth. 13. 58. So here Paul was hindred to work this miracle on the scandalous man because of their unbeliefe Ans Paul could not professe this for he had not assayed to work any miracle of this kinde as Christ had done Matth. 13. But only sheweth them of a report came to him of the fact and of their security and not mourning 2. Paul should then rather have rebuked their unbelief and not praying that God would miraculously destroy the man but this Paul doth not 3. Paul rebuketh them for not judging him not putting him out of the midst of them Must that be Pauls meaning pray to God that I may have grace and strength immediatly from God to kill him miraculously and to judge him Now they knew the Apostle miraculously thus judged those that are without as he stroke with blindnesse Elymas who was without the visible Church I conceive the whole Churches were to pray as the Apostles do with the Saints Act. 4. 29. 30. That miracles may be wrought both on those that are without and within But of this judging he saith ver 12. What have I to do to judge them also that are without Do not ye judge them that are within 4. It is directly contrary to Christs direction Matth. 18. Which is that by rebukes we gaine the offending brothers soul Now Erastus will have him gained to Christ by removing his soule from his body and by killing him Yea the Apostle writing of the censuring of those in Thessalonica who walked unorderly and obeyed not the Apostles Word which doth include such as breake out in Incest Adulteries Murthers is so farre from giving direction to kill them miraculously that he biddeth onely keep no Church company nor Christian fellowship with them but yet they are to be admonished as brethren Ergo they were not to be miraculously killed for then they should be capable of no admonition at all being killed And could there be worse men then was amongst the Phillipians Enemies of the crosse of Christ whose end is destruction whose God was their belly Yet there was no blood in the Apostles pen he chides not the Phillipians nor the Galathians who had amongst them men of the same mettall Gal. 5. 7 8 9 10. Ver. 19. 20 21. Nor the Timothies who would have to doe with farre worse men 2 Tim 3. 1 2 3 4 5. Nor Titus who had to doe with wicked Cretians Tit. 1. because they cryed not to God for Pauls bloodie sword of vengeance that these wicked men might be cut off by Satan nor doth the Apostle to the Hebrewes draw this Sword against those who sinned against the Holy Ghost c. 10. c. 6. Nor Iames against bloody warriours Murtherers Adulterers Oppressors c. 4. c. 5. Nor doth Peter and Iude use this sword or command the Churches to use such carnall weapons against the wickedest of men but recommended long-suffering
rebuking the rod of Church-discipline to reject Hereticks after admonitions Hence I argue negatively in all the Scripture never did the Lord command that they should pray to God and mourne that he would inflict bodily vengeance and death or yet sicknesse on any scandalous professor nor is there promise precept or practise in any Scripture of this Church censure 5. Erastus doth thinke a court of the Church that hath power to lead Witnesses judge and censure offenders an extream wronging of the Magistrate and an incroaching on his Liberties but here is a more bloody Court for if the whole faithfull are to pray for bodily death by the Ministery of the Devill upon one of their own brethren because he hath lyen with his fathers wife or fallen in Adultery or Murther as David did Surely they must pray in faith and upon certaine knowledge that he is guilty the Law of God and Nature must then have warranted the whole Saints Women and Children to meet in a grand Jurie and Inquest either to have the fact proved by Witnesses or to heare his owne confession else how could they pray in faith if it was not sure to their conscience that the man had done this deed Here is a Jury of men and women I am sure unknowne to the Apostolique Church 2. A greater abridging of the Magistrates power then we teach The Church shall take away the life of a Subject never aske the Magistrates leave 6. It is against Christs minde Mat. 18. â—s Erastus expoundeth it that Christians should go any further against an offending brother then implead him before an Heathen though he adde injurie to injurie But this waâ— maketh the Holy Ghost sharply to rebuke all the Saints when they are offâ—â—ded before the barre of Heaven by crying miraculous bloodâ—e vengeance upon the Offender 7. It is evident this man repenâ—ed and that the Corinthians confirmed their love to him and did forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. 10. Ergo He was not miraculously killed But we never read where it was Gods will and Law that an â—ll doers life should be spared though he should repent because his taking away is for example that others may feare 2. That evill and as it is here leaven may be taken away if then it had been bodily death I see not how Paul and the Corinthians could have dispensed with it 8. Erastus doth not nor can he confirme his unknown Exposition by any parallel Scripture of the Old and New Testament which I objected to him in his Exposition of Matth. 18. Let the Reader therefore observe how weak Erastus is in arguing against pregnant Scriptures for Excommunication Erastus You must prove that to mourn because the man is not taken away is all one as to mourn that he is not debarred from the Sacraments by the Ministers and Elders Ans That is denyed to be debarred from the Sacraments is but a consequent of Excommunication 2. It is a putting of the man from amongst them not by death that we have refuted not from eating and drinking with him onely that I improved before Ergo it must be a Church ouâ—-casting Erastus Paul might deliver the man to Satan though he did Repent as the Magistrate did punish Malefactors whether they Repented or noâ— An. Ergo he repen ed and was pardoned by the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. 10. after he had been killed which is absurd Erastus If to deliver to Satan were nothing but to debar the man from the Sacraments ever while he should repent Why should Paul with a great deal of pains and many words have excused himself to the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. and cap. 7. and as it were deprecate the offending of them for they should know that this manner of coercing and punishing was and ought to be exercised in the Church if it was but a saving remedy and invitation to repentance Why were they sad They should rather have rejoyced as the Angels of Heaven doth at the Conversion of a sinner then Paul must have intended another thing Ans This is a meer conjecture as Erastus granteth most he saith against the place is for he saith Aliam conjecturam etiam addidi such a violent remedy of repentance as is the cutting off of a member from Christs body being the most dreadfull sentence of the King of the Church nearest to the last sentence was to Paul and ought to be a matter of sorrow to all the Servants of God as the foretelling of sad Iudgements moved Christ to tears Matth. 23. 37 Luke 19. 41 42. And moved Ieremiah to sorrow cap. 9. 1. And yet Christ was glad at the home-coming of sinners Luke 15. 6 7 c. These two are not contrary as Erastus dreameth but subordinate to wit That Christ should inflict the extreamest vengeance of Excommunication which also being blessed of God is a saving though a violent remedy of repentance and To rejoyce at the blessed fruit of Excommunication which is the mans repentance And the Apostle 2 Cor. 7. professeth his sorrow That he made them sad ver 8. and also rejoyceth at their gracious disposition who were made sorry He is far from excusing himself as if he had done any thing in weaknesse this were enough and it is an Argument of our Protestant Divines to prove that the Books of the Macabees are not Dited by the Holy Ghost as Canonick Scripture is because the Author 2 Macab 15. 38. excuseth himself in that History as if he might have erred which no Pen-man of holy Scripture can do And Erastus layeth the like blame on Paul as if he had repented that he made them sorry by chiding them for not praying for a miraculous killing of a Brother This is enough to make the Epistles of Paul to be suspected as not Canonick Scripture yea Paul saith the contrary 2 Cor. 7. 9. Now I reioyce not that yee were made sorry but that yee sorrowed to repentance for yee were made sorry after a godly manner that ye might receive dammage by us in nothing and 2 Cor. 2. 8 9. he exhorteth them to rejoycing at the mans Repentance and to confirme their love to him which demonstrates that he was now a living man and not miraculously killed and commendeth their obedience v. 9. in sorrowing as he did chide them that they sorrowed not 1 Cor. 5. 2. So that Paul is so farre from accusing himselfe for making them sad that by the contrary he commends himselfe for that and rejoyceth thereat And if the matter had been Excommunication while the man should repent saith Erastus they knowing this ought to be in the Church they should rather have reioyced then bin sorry And I answer if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord should they not reioyce at his saving in the day of the Lord whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing or by Excommunication And so this conjecture may well be
is not to kill were Hymeneus and Alexander delivered to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme what learning or Discipline can dead men be capable of 2. There 's need of mourning when any is cut off from Christs body it being the highest judgement of God on earth 3. Without the visible Church altogether as Heathens are there is no salvation But to be so without the Church as the casting out is a medicinall punishment That the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord is a mean to bring the soul in to both the invisible and visible Church and putteth none in that state that they cannot be saved but by the contrary in a way to be saved so the man periret nisi periret Erastus It would seem it may be proved from the Text that the man persevered not in that wickednesse for the Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done and that hath wrought this deed not he that doth this deed and therefore it seems Paul would inflict punishment as a good Magistrate useth to do even though the man repent and he saith that his spirit may be saved then the man repented Ans 1. Reconcile these two Paul was as a good Magistrate to kill the man though he should repent and yet at their intercession saith Erastus he did forgive him durst Paul at the request of men pardon a Malefactor contrary to the duty of a good Magistrate 2. Can Paul intend in miraculous killing only the saving of the mans soul and knowing that he was saved and having obtained his end yet he will use the mean that is he will kill him or if he intended another end also that others might fear how could he not kill for this end A good Magistrates zeal should not be softned and blunted for the request of men Erastus he saith He decreed to deliver the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the soul may be saved now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to give over to permit here a person given a person to whom a person giving to wit Paul and the end wherefore that the spirit may be saved it is as if I would give my son to a Master either to be instructed or chastised so 1 Tim. 1. Act. 27. 28. Matth. 5. 18. Matth. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 15. The brother shall deliver the brother to death and the Lord saith to Satan behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give him to thee this is to deliver one afflicted killed condemned Ans All this is needlesse to be delivered over is to be recommended and taken in a good sense also Act. 14. 26. Commended to the grace of God Act. 15. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we deny not but to be delivered to Satan is to be delivered to be afflicted but the question is what affliction is meant here the affliction of the flesh say we or of the unrenewed part opposed to a saved spirit Erastus It is unpossible that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destruction can be shown to signifie the destruction of the desires of sinfull flesh in all the New-Testament it alwayes signifieth killing death destruction nor doth the thing it self compell us to take it other wayes here nor for killing and death as 1 Thes 5. It is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to kill destroy crucifie are so taken but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in either sacred or prophane Authors Ans I conceive Chrysostom knew Greek better then Erastus the man was delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he might scourge him as he did Job with a hurtfull boyle or some other sicknesse Hence as that learned and judicious Divine who hath deserved excellently of the Protestant Churches Petrus Molineus saith on the place Chrysostom Homo Grece eloquentiae Râ—rum exemplum A rare example of Grecian eloquence doth think per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word destruction not death but some heavy torment to be meant And I am sure Hieronymus a man in the tongues incomparably skilled said by destruction here was meant jejunia egrotationes fasting and diseases 2. Nor need we contend for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in all Authors of the world signifieth destruction for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to destroy the question will rather be what is meant by the flesh but certainly it is in prophane Greek Authors as unusuall I except sacred Greek Authors such as Basil Chrysostom who knew what mortification meant to speak as Paul doth Rom. 8. 13. If ye mortifie the deeds of the flesh ye shall live Let Erastus finde me a parallel to that in the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think Erastus may not deny that this is to mortifie the sinfull works of the body of sin yet Aristotle Plato Lucian Plutarch Hâ—siod Homer nor any prophane Greek Author ever spake so We shall therefore deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth never to Greek Authors any thing but bodily death for 2 Thess 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting destruction is some more then bodily destruction 3. We say it is unpossible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be showen to signifie in either Old or New Testament a miraculous destroying of the body by Satan we retort this reason back upon Erastus his Exposition is not tollerable because it wanteth a parallel place it is his own reason Erastus The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body not of concupiscence because he addeth that the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be saved here the soul is opposed to the body Ans Though we should grant that by the flesh is meant the body yet it followeth not it is the miraculous killing of the man as I observed before 2. It maketh nothing against Excommunication for many learned Protestants teach that though to deliver to Satan were a bodily punishment or conjoyned therewith as the Learned Anto. Waleus doth observe yet the Apostle is clear for Excommunication in this chapter the learned Molineus denyeth delivering to Satan to be expounded of Excommunication and will have the destruction of the flesh to be some bodily tormenting of his body by Satan so doth sundry of the Fathers especially Ambrose Hyeronimus Augustinus and Chrysostom though Augustine be doubtful Yet Molineus saith Certum est paulum velle hunc incestum moveri communione Ecclesia sed id vult fieri ab ipsa Ecclesia Corâ—nthiacâ dicens ver 13. Tollite istum sceleratum è medio vèstrúm And that grave and judicious Divine Piscator saith on the place That the forme of Excommunication is this delivering to Satan but the destruction of the flesh he thinketh to be the exhausting of the naturall strength of the body with sorrow for his sin according to that Prov. 17.
and the sword Paul commanded that the Corinthians might obtain by their prayers that the incestuous man might be put from amongst them that is that he might be killed if he command not that the man be killed but cast out of the Church only he should say as much as if one should bid preserve the chastity of a Virgin by casting her out of the society of chaste matrons into a bordell-house and Paul biddeth not the Corinthians deliver the man to Sathan but only that they would convene that he might as present in Spirit deliver him to Sathan and that they would deliver him to Sathan and put him out of the midst of them by prayers and mourning for in my corrected Thesis I said that this put away evill out of the midst of you Deut. 13. was in sillabs Deut. 17. 19 21. 22 â—er c. 24. once and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in them all Answ 1. That the Church wanted the sword is no wonder the Church as the Church hath no such carnall weapons as the Sword and that Peter in killing Ananias and Saphira and Paul in striking Elymas with blindnesse did supply the place of a Christian Magistrate which the Church then wanted so as it was the Christian Magistrate his place if there had been any to strike Ananias and Saphyra with sudden death I doe not beleeve upon Erastus his word because I finde Nadab and Abihu killed immediately by the Lord from heaven with fire Lev. 10. 1. and at that time when there was Moses and ordinary Magistrates to have killed them and God immediately caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow up quick Corâ—h and his company and yet there was a Magistrate to doe justice on them for their â—reasonable conspiracie and I see not how this may not warrant Ministers when either heathen or Tyrannous Magistrates refuse to use the sword to fall to as Pastors and in an extraordinary manner use the sword against murtherers in the visible Church It is true Peters miraculous killing of Ananias may possibly hold forth the duty analogically of punishing ill doers in a Magistrate where he is a Christian member of the Church But it is a conjecture without Scripture that here Paul doth call the Corinthians in to come and be co-actors with him by their prayers in a particular miracle which was never wrought for Erastus granteth he was never killed 1. Paul reprehendeth their not mourning v. 2. And you are puffed up and have not rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mourned This was an ordinary Christian not a miraculous duty which they should have performed as a Church though he should not have written to them Let Erastus cleare how Paul chideth them for want of an habituall Faith of Miracles and of a sorrow proportioned thereunto 2. That Gal. 5. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would God they were cut off that trouble you if this was in Pauls power by a miracle to cut off the false Apostles how could Paul wish to doe a Miracle and did it not 2. If he wished these should be cut off by the Galathians then as Beza de Presbyt page 82. saith It was in the Galathians power so to doe and why should not they have prayed miraculously for the destruction of such 3. In all the word to deliver to Satan is never to kill by Satan as Beza saith and Erastus can answer nothing to it 4. That Paul here tooke the Magistrates Sword because the Magistrate was a Heathen 5. That the Church when a Magistrate doth not his duty is to pray that God would by some miraculous and immediate providence supply the Magistrates place 6. That Paul doth rebuke the Corinthians not for the omission of an ordinary duty and the want of an ordinary faith but because of the want of extraordinary sorrow and of the faith of Miracles in old and young and women who could pray for the miraculous killing of this man all these look beside the Text for ver 2. he saith such a hainous sin is committed and ye are puffed up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blowen up and have not rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mourned this is the defect of an ordinary grace and hardnesse and security that Paul rebuketh in them as the first word signifieth 1 Cor. 8. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowledge puffeth up 1 Cor. 13. 4. Love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not blown up 1 Cor. 4. 6. 1 Cor. 4. 18. Col. 2. 18. and the other word signifieth ordinary sorrow Mat. 5. 4 Blessed are they that mourn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 6. 25. 2 Cor. 12. 21. Iam. 4. 9. Mat. 9. 15. There is not one word of praying by the faith of miracles in the Text for such a faith is required to such a prayer that God would miraculously destroy the man or that Paul rebuked them for not praying in this miraculous faith it is the way of Erastus to obtrude Expositions on the Scripture so unknown and violent as they are darker and harder to be beleeved then the Text. 5. The Apostle commandeth them to put out the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to kill him What killing is this to pray to God that Paul miraculously may put him out and kill him give us any word of God that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old or New Testament signifieth any such thing there is not one word of Prayer in the Text 6. They were to conveen not simply as Christians to pray but with the vertue of his spirit as present in minde but absent in body this must put some more in them then a mourning spirit for the want of which he rebuked them it is as much as he and they together were to joyn in putting out the man and judging him as he speaketh ver 12. 7. Nor is this all one as to put a woman out of the company of chaste Matrons to the bordel house to keep her chastity no more then the wisdom of God in Paul doth Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thess 3. 14. 15. put unordinate walkers out of the society of those who walk according to the truth of the Gospel that they may preserve their sound walking especially when exclusion from the godly causeth shame and so humiliation and this reason is against Gods wisdom as much as against us 8. That to put away evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 17. and 19. and 21. and 22. is to kill is not denied and that in divers places but not to pray that evil may be miraculously put away as Erastus saith But we are to see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew of which Language Erastus professeth his ignorance signifie that alwayes The contrary I have already shown the learned Pagnine and Mercer say the contrary that it signifieth to cur devide or strike a Covenant Gen. 15. 18. Deut. 19. 5. Jer. 34. 8. Esa 55. 3. and Master Leigh in
the Church though amongst the Turkes is in the world but not of the world If he keep the faith and if he do so he shall repent and come home to Christs visible Kingdom but because he keepeth the faith yet he is not a member of a visible Church except he professe it and repent for even the sound in faith if obstinate in Scandals may deserve Excommunication 6. There is nothing said against Excommunication in the two last Reasons but what striketh against Timothy his publike rebuking and threatning wrath against those that sin openly for they may through their owne corruption so farre abuse publike threatnings as they may be led on despaire and hypocrisie Now Erastus as we shall hear granteth those are to be rebuked openly who sin openly 7. We say not to deliver to Satan any man is to deliver him to the World but to cast him out of the Church that consequenter he may be left to the World but that he should sinne and be led away with the World is neither the intrinsecall end of Excommunication or of the Church but an event or end by accident the intrinsecall end is the Salvation of the man Beza saith that Paul speaketh of a spirituall punishment and not of a corporall Erastus saith When Peter killed Ananias corporally was not this corporall punishment When Paul gave some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and God punisheth our sinnes with temporall death how shall you prove that God and the Apostles punisheth not sinnes with corporall or politicke punishment Ans The instance of Peters killing Ananias is in vain brought in It s but a begging os the question for it is not said Peter delivered Ananias to Satan that his Spirit might be saved Who revealed this secret to Erastus that Peter used the Ministery of Satan in killing Ananias We have as good reason to say Peter delivered Ananias to a good Angell to be killed as Erastus hath for his dreame 2. We deny not but God and the Apostles did punish sinne with corporall punishment but let him show without the bounds of the place in controversie for we must expound Scripture by Scripture where ever the Church conveened together in the Name of the Lord Jesus did judge and miraculously kill any member of the Church that the Spirit may be saved in the day of God Beza said This killing by the people would be ground of a great Calumnie to make many say Christians did usurpe the Sword of the Magistrate and that they were not subject to the Magistrate Erastus We give this power of miraculous killing onely to the Apostles Ans Yea But the calumny standeth so long as Erastus giveth to all the people the faith of Miracles to conveene and pray that Paul might miraculously kill those that offended the Church and its probable when the enemies objected to Christians all they could falsely they would not have omitted this that the very people by their prayers meet in one Church-jury to kill Cesars Subjects Beza said The Christian Magistrate should by this kill all the drunkards fornicators and the like with the Sword Erastus answereth 1. All faults deserve not killing but some other punishment of a lower degree 2. The Lord himselfe appointed that the Magistrate should compell men to doe their duty why then should Beza speake against God and call this a compelling of men to be Hipocrites Ans If other sins as drunkennesse fornication extortion doe infect the Church and be scandalous to the very Gentiles as the Apostle saith of incest 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6 7. Upon the same reason Paul should have rebuked them because they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict some miraculous judgement by the Ministery of Satan though lesse then death for other sinnes But I pray you Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man or he had none at all If he had a warrant why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magistrate without the prayers of the Corinthians Did Paul chide them because they prayed not to God that he might doe his duty if he had no warrant at all Why should he chide the Corinthians for that they prayed not that he might doe a duty which was not his duty For that is not Pauls duty for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God if it was his duty onely conditionally 1. What warrant is there in Scripture to say Paul should have miraculously killed the incestuous person upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles prayed that he might worke that miraculous slaughter which because they did not Paul was either exonered of that as no duty or then Paul chided them because they prayed not to prevene Pauls sinfull neglect 2. How was this revealed to the Corinthians that they should pray that God by Paul as by his Magistrate might revenge this incest and not revenge their fronication coveteousnes extortion Idolatry especially seeing he saith that v. 9. He had written to them in another Epistle not to keâ—p company with such Whence I thinke it evident that Paul in another Epistle had ordained separation of Fornicators Coveteous persons and the like from amongst them and so censures for all scandalous persons And how shal we believe he would not teach them to cast out incestuous persons that are far more scandalous And if so he must have written in another Epistle of this miracle that they were to pray he might work Is it not evident by this that Erastus his way is full of Conjectures and groundlesse uncertainties 2. We deny not that the Magistrate may compell men to do their duty nor doth Beza deny that But that the Church hath or had any influence in the blood of an incestuous person and in working of miracles for the bodily destruction of any is most false and cannot be proved by this Text Nor do we think that the Church the weapons of whose warfare are carnall can compell any man by corporall punishment to duties by the Sword for so their Spirituall way which is terminated on the Conscience should lead men to Hypocrisie in profession of the truth for so reasoneth Erastus the Magistrate with the Sword rather punisheth sins committed in Gods Service then forceth to duties The fifth Argument of Beza is vindicated already Erastus We say not that Paul was to deliver the man to Satan that he may be saved but that Paul was to punish this high transgression with the Sword to the terror of others but only he set bounds to Satan that he should only kill his body but not meddle with his soul but because the man repented Paul hoped well of his soul that his soul should be saved in the day of Christ Ans 1. Here Erastus doth more fully reveal the vilenesse of his opinion for he granteth the intrinsecall end of this miraculous killing is not the Salvation of the mans
soul but the revenging of the wickednesse of the sin for the terror of others Which is 1. Contrary to the Text which saith He was to be delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the spirit may be saved This noteth that the intrinsecall end of this delivering to Satan was the Salvation of the mans soul But the Text saith nothing of Erastus his end that others may be terrified though that may be an end It is a wonder to me that since Erastus granteth the man repented even when Paul did in this Chapter chide with the Corinthians that they delivered him not to Satan For Erastus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done this deed not he that continueth pertinaciously in it saith he hence it is clear that he repented at this time How doth Paul chide them for not delivering a repenting man to the Devil that his Spirit may be saved if he repented his spirit was saved Ergo Paul was in the fault and chid them without reason if they say though he did repent yet for example to terrifie others he should have been killed 2 Cor. 2. saith He was not killed and Erastus saith it Ergo yet Paul failed and they also 3. It is against the intrinsecall end of that power which Erastus saith is miraculous For Paul saith the end of that power is for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now the intrinsecall end of bodily killing is peace and terror to others that they may be afraid to do so any more But the intrinsecall end and finis operis is not Edification but finis operantis onely for acts of Magistrates are not acts of the first Table which kindly and per se regardeth edification but acts of the second Table if their soules be saved who die for their enormous crimes by the hand of the Magistrate It is not from the violent death as if it were an intrinsecall mean and ordinance appointed of God for conversion But because God giveth to those who die that way repentance Yea it is no more a mean of saving of the soule then if they should die in their beds by some disease To the examples of Hymeneus and Alexander that they were not killed miraculously I answered before Erastus addeth no new reply to Beza CHAP. XI Quest 7. Of the leaven 1 Cor. 5. Erastus his sentence in his l. 3. c. 6. and â— c. 7. Examined Erastus I shall grant since Beza will have it so that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven in the celebration of the passeover and that he doth not only allude to it Paul compareth the feast of unleavened bread to the pilgrimage of our life in this world and leaven signifieth wickednesse Hence as the Iews all the time of the feast might eat no leavened bread so all our life are vve to leave and forsake the vvorld and journey toward our promised Canaan we are never to live wickedly What can hence be collected but as he that eat unleavened bread was to be killed so should every wicked man be killed He that eat leavened bread in these seven dayes was not commanded to be debarred from the Passeover And the Passeover was the beginning of this feast as faith in Christ was the beginning of our spirituall eating of Christ crucified for us and of our new Christian life Ans I hold that learned Beza hath well expounded the leaven here he compareth the scandals of wicked men to leaven the holinesse of the Saints to unleavened bread and the publick Congregation to the feast of the Passeover and Excommunication or putting away to the removing of the leaven for a scandalous man corrupteth the whole Church so the Jewes and Rabbines as Buxtorfius saith that the Rabbins call naturall concupiscence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Alexander said after his Prayer Lord It is known to thee that it is my will to do thy will But what retardeth me the leaven in the masse or lump and Buxtorfius citeth the same place 1 Cor. 5. 6. and Gal. 5. 9. And least we should think that he meant nothing but naturall concupiscense he saith in the Targum They take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wickednesse and folly he citeth Medraseh Koheleth cap. 7. ver 8. except R. Samuel had been long suffering The Persian that he taught had returned to folly or his old wickednesse Paul saith the same Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump He speaketh to the Church conveened 2. The comparison runneth so that the Corinthians were to purge out the old leaven of wickednesse and cast out the incestuous man that they might be a new lump and this if it must alwayes be done far more when they are to celebrate that feast that came in place of the passeover Nor is the Apostle only Teaching what they could not lawfully do all their life as they were single Christians but what was their duty as Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveened together in a Church way for Paul doth not command one single Christian to cast him out but he commandeth the Church gathered together in the name of the Lord Iesus with Pauls spirit and the power of our Lord Iesus Christ ver 4. 5. To purge out not the leaven of sin in themselves but the man ver 2. That he that hath done this deed may be put out and ver 7. Purge out the old leaven and that the Apostles precept is to cast out the man he saith it in expresse termes ver 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cast out that wicked man from amongst you and ver 12. They were to judge him as one that is within 2. Because without conveening together in their daily conversation they were to purge the leaven of mâ—lice out of their heart it were a ridiculous thing for Paul to command them to convene altogether to lead a godly life 3. There was no need that they should convene with Pauls spirit and in the name and power of our Lord Iesus Christ to lead a godly life and for a personall purging of every man his own soul from this leaven 4. They were to judge this man ver 12. Therefore this cannot be meant of a personall judging every one of themselves but of a Church-judging of an offender 5. If Erastus grant that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven and putting away leaven in the Passeover Let him see how he can apply this to killing of every single man that liveth wickedly We apply it to the casting out of the scandalous out of the Church as leaven was to be put out of the houses of all who were to eat the passeover Erastus I care not much whither the Lord himself immediatly or the Magistrate was to kill him who eat leavened bread at that time But I rather think that God killed him for we finde none killed for this cause 2. Because Paul writ of those who
that Feast pointed out holinesse all our life is utterly denyed for eating of leavened bread except in these dayes forbidden was not a sin nor any Ceremoniall type at all no more then our common bread and wine are signes of Christs body and blood 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel because it did Ceremonially infect corrupt and leaven them and so was to be purged so did the inâ—â—stuons man leaven the Visible Church of Corinth and was to be purged out Nor do I contend that the Lords Supper here is meant though I know no solemn Spirituall Feast that the visible Church now hath but the Supper of the Lord But rather I understand Church-Communion in the dainâ—ies of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16 17 18 c. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. Cant. 5. 1. Erastus The leaven of the Passeover does not so signifie impurity of life that Excommunication can be hence gathered therefore the Apostle alludeth to that place that or the like way as the Jews did Celebrate their Passeover without leaven so it becometh us to Celebrate our Passeover without the leaven of malice and wickednesse Leaven simply may either signifie good or evil as Matth. 13. and 16. and Potuit it might signifie our naturall corruption For God not only forbiddeth to eat leaven but to have it in the house and leaven signifieth 〈…〉 sse so to be punished as yeâ— say even by death Ans The Leaven of the Passeover signified so impurity as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church out of the Church as they were to put leaven out of the house and not only simply not to eat it so are we not only not to eat and drink with a scandalous man but he is to be reputed no member of the Church but a leavening and contagious man and therefore Paul doth not here as Erastus dreameth show what way every one in his own personall practise and duty as a single Christian is to do that he may save his own soul and therefore every one was to celebrate a Christian Passeover in his own soul laying aside the leaven of malice Though I grant That Paul ver 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personall purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisie out of every mans heart But Paul doth expresly command the Corinthians as a convened Church to put out from amongst them another man for the saving of that other mans soul And what they should do in a Church society toward the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who hath done this to wit down right they should Iudge him Cast him out purge him out as a leavening peece And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words then that as the Iews were to put all leaven from amongst them when they were to celebrate their Passeover So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work upon this incestuous man and to put him out from amongst them as one delivered to Satan as a lump of sowre leaven and we seek no more for Excommunication 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven But here it is corruption of contagious scandall in this incestuous man and such leaven as is to be cast out and purged away Now I hope we must not purge out and cast away the Kingdom of heaven and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadduces that corrupteth the hearts of men is meant and of this leaven we are to beware But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven which Paul would have us to detest I know not a reason but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians lest he should infect the flock and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ that his soul may be saved and this is the very excommunication that we assert 3. This leaven saith he may signifie naturall corruption Now Erastus putteth us to a may be but a may be will not do it For the Text saith not I hope by Erastus his confession that the poor man must be delivered to Satan that is miraculously killed for naturall concupiscence All the world thus are delivered to Satan as being heirs of wrath for sin Originall at least in demerit 2. The man was not judged purged out and cast out as leaven that sowred the Church for naturall corruption 3. Paul offendeth not with them that they were puffed and mourned not for the mans Originall sin but for his actuall wickednesse because he had gone in to his fathers wife an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name Erastus Then the man must be killed as he that eat leavened bread was killed and though the punishments of Moses Law as such must not be brought in the Christian Church yet if God subject men to the Magistrates Sword men cannot free them from it though there may be degrees of punishment Ans We denyed that those that eat leavened bread with the Passeover were killed but onely excommunicated and cut off from the congregation God never subjected any to the sword for that cause 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lords day those that are stubborn to Father or Mother those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament must be stened to death by the Magistrate or miraculously killed by the Apostles it must be by the same consequence that Erastus reasoneth here But did God kill immediatly any offenders at all for originall sin some one more nor other as Erastus dreameth this man was killed 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devill killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament and any of the children of God whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord proferat tabulas Erastus saith it neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it Erastus said an Anagogicall sense is not concludent Ans Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense it is false saith Beza 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament Erastus Where I pray you doth Paul say that the punishment of eating leavened bread did typifie your Excommunication Ans The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word Sacrament Trinity But the thing is not ours but an ordinance of Iesus Christ 2. Paul saith in this very place as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passeover so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out judge and purge
out a corrupting and leavening incestuous man and this is all we seeke for Excommunication Erastus I never finde the name of the Passeover in the New Testament put for the Supper of the Lord. Ans We are not in such need of that interpretation as to put the name of the one for the other But let Erastus shew where he readeth that the thing to wit that the one Sacrament succeeded to the other and Beza may thence inferre his point if God would have no man to eat the Passeover with leavened bread and if eating of leavened bread and bread it selfe was to be put out of all the houses of Israel thereby signifying that incestuous and scandalous persons are to be cast out of the Church and so from the Sacraments let Erastus see what Beza hath said amisse here Erastus God would have the Iewes to eate the Passeover without leavened bread that they might remember of their wonderfull deliverance out of the hard bondage of Egypt and of the deliverance of their first borne Ans Reverend Beza saith thesetwo were by-past benefits remembred in that Sacrament But we have the Holy Ghost expounding that â—he putting away of leavened bread did typifie the purging out of the incestuous men and other scandalous persons out of the Church which is our point otherwise let Erastus shew us what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Masse and lumpe for it signifieth either one single man Or 2. The Masse and body of the visible Church of which the incestuous man was a Member or some third thing which Erastus and his followers must teach us Now the whole lumpe can neither signifie the incestuous man nor any other single member of the Church Not the incestuous man 1. He was not the whole lumpe in danger to be leavened for he was the leven then he was not the lump in danger to be leavened for the one is the agent infecting the other the patient infected The whole lumpe was the thing out of which the leaven was to be removed the terminus à quo the incestuous man was to be purged out therefore the leaven cannot signifie wickednesse in abstracto as Erastus saith but the wicked man in concreto for the leaven must signifie that which is cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them v. 2. Now this was not incest but the man that had his fathers wife and had done that deed 2. Again the leaven was the person to be delivered to Satan that had a soul to be saved in the day of the Lord Iesus But wickednesse in abstracto is not delivered to Satan nor hath it a Spirit to be saved in the day of the Lord. 3. The leaven is such a one as is to be judged as is within the Church v. 12. and is called a brother with whom we are not to eat v. 11. now this cannot be said of wickednesse in abstracto But neither can the whole lumpe be one single man 1. One single man needed not the solemn conveening of the Church in the Name and power of the Lord Jesus for his personall purging for his personall purging is not a Church-act but an act of a mans daily conversation and Christian walking 2. The purging out and the casting out is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 out of the midst of them then there was a society to be purged Ergo not a single man onely Much more I said before which cannot but mist Erastus or any his followers except they expound this whole lump to be the body of the visible Church of Corinth 2. So Gal. 5. 9. he addeth v. 10. he that troubleth you the lump in danger to be leavened shall bear his judgement v. 12. I would they were cut off that trouble you Then the whole Churches of Galatia were the troubled lumpe so it must be here if this truth be so convincing out of the Text let any Erastian extricate himself if he can deny but here is a Church-lump a Church of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the Name and power of the Lord Iesus that purgeth out of it selfe leaven not wickednesse in abstracto as I have demonstrated but a wicked man named a brother lest he leaven the whole Church to the end his Spirit may be saved Iudge reader if this be not name nature and thing of that which Erastians deny to wit of Excommunication I humbly provoke them to make good sense of the 1 Cor. 5. and shew me what is the wicked man 2. The casting out of the midst of you 3. The saving of his Spirit 4. The convened together court instructed with the Name and authority and power of Christ and if this be not a Church power efficacion and authoritative being steeled with the power of the Head of the Church 5. What is the leaven 6. What is the act of leavening 7. What is the whole lumpe 8. What is the purging out putting out and judging of the man 3. We know Erastus denieth any Church Government at all but some acts of punitive justice in the Magistrate But the Churches praying consenting that a scandalous person shall be delivered to Satan or some other waies punished by the Christian Magistrate are acts of Church government so proper to the Church as the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot exercise such Acts. Erastus Paul-delivered Hymeneus and Alexander the same way to Satan by miraculous killing of him and whereas it is said that they may learne not to blaspheme Judges speake so when they kill Murtherers and Theeves that he shall teach them to doe so no more by taking the head from them Ans That word of a judge killing a man for Murther Sirra I le teach you other manners then to kill can no waies be ascribed to Paul who doth not scoffe so at taking away mens lives Paul who wished to be separated from Christ for the contumacious Iewes and would not kill any by Satan since his rod and power was for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. and that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. he speaketh more gravely and lesse imperiously and without boasting and jeering in a matter of Salvation 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may be instructed or disciplined not to blaspheme cannot be simply that they may blaspheme no more because killed by the Devill For 1. let Erastus in the Old or New Testament produce a parallel place for that Exposition where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed is ascribed to the dead but this is a common fault in all Erastus his expositions of Scripture that they want all ground in Scripture as let me put upon all the followers of Erastus to give a parallel to this Exposition of Mat. 18. Let him bee to thee that is to thee onely when Christ speaketh of a generall Rule of all that scandalizeth 2. Let him be as a
Heathen Give a place of Scripture for this 1. Let him be as such Heathen onely as acknowledge Cesar and his Deputies for lawfull Iudges 2. A parallel for this we seek Let him be as a Heathen that is convene him before an heathen Iudge 3. What Scripture expoundeth delivering to Satan for edification and not destruction 1 Cor. 5. to be a Magistraticall killing by the power of the Devill that others may feare 4. Put out purge out judge those only that are within are expounded by Erastus pray for a miraculous destruction by the devill as the lictor and hangman of the Apostle that none may be killed miraculously for enormous scandals no not such as Elimas the sorcerer who was never within the Church but those that are within And did the company of the Saints pray with the Saints that signes and wonders and so miraculous killing might be wrought not on any but on those that are within the visible Church not on the enemies and Iews haters of Christ and without the Christian Churches when the Apostles miraculously escaped out of their prisons Act. 4. 29 30. Act. 5. 19 20 21 22. Act. 12. 7 8 9. Act. 16. 25 26. 27 28 I might alledge many other such like interpretations of Erastus 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament signifieth to instruct and chastise the living never any such thing is ascribed to the dead Gal. 5. 22 30. Tit. 2. 20. Rev. 3. 19. Heb. 12. 10. Luk. 23. 16 22. 2. Cor 6 9. Act. 22. 3. Act. 7. 22. as they that are taught to sinne no more by being killed 6. Robert Stephan citeth in the margent 1 Cor. 5. 5. to expound it of excommunicating of Hymeneus and Alexander so doth Piscator so Calvin Beza Marlorat so Vatablus saith Quos ejeâ—i ex ecclesia et censui magis dignos esse ecclesia Satane quam Christi si non resipiscant 7. Beza De Presbyt p. 87. learnedly observeth that it is no Grammer for if the effect of learning not to blaspheme be suspended upon the miraculous killing of Alexander then he was first killed then learned not to blaspheme But so Paul could have said he was killed ut non blasphameret that he might not blaspheme not that he might learn not to blaspheme CHAP. XII Quest 8. The eschewing of company with the scandalous vindicated from Erastus his exceptions BEsides other arguments from Mat. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. for excommunication we argue thus Those upon whom the Church is to put such a publike note of shame or a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they are to withdraw from their company and not to eat and drink with them those are cast out of the Church and so cut off from the body of Christ and excommunicated But the Church is to put such a note of shame as to withdraw from the company of and not to eat with those that are named brethren and yet are fornicators covetous idolators extortioners railers 1 Cor. 5. 11. and cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel who serve not the Lord Jesus but their owne belly Rom. 16. 17 18 who walk disorderly are busie-bodies idle and obey not the Doctrine of the Apostles 2 Thes 3. 11 12 13 14 15 Ergo. The proposition I prove 1 Cor. 5. 11. he saith v. 9. I wrote to you in an Epistle not to keep company with fornicators the same word that in the abstract is spoken of the incestuous man v. 1. by which it is clear Paul had forbidden any company with such incestuous men Now he had not forbidden them to keep company with dead men if the man was to be miraculously killed Ergo it was his will before that such a one should be judged and put out else he could not so sharply rebuke them for not casting him out and if now only he had first taught and written to them to cast him out as if excommunication had been in this same very Chapter instituted by Paul and v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now I have written unto you not to keep company with one named a brother who is a fornicator this must be in the same Chapter for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now I have written must be in relation to this v. 9. I wrote unto you in a Epistle before now if here at this present he wrote to them not to keep company with him it must be when he commandeth to cast him out v. 13. and to judge him v. 12. so that not to keep company with such fornicators must necessarily presuppose a casting out and that the fornicator with whom we are not to keep company in a familiar manner is a man cast out of the Church and so excommunicated 2. Paul would never forbid brotherly familiarity with any remaining a brother a member of the Church and of a body with us in visible profession of the truth as partakers of one body and blood of Christ as all the members of the Church eating at one Lords table are 1. Cor. 10. 16 17. 3. The Apostle saith such a fornicator is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 named a brother and so in the esteem of the Church no brother and so not of the visible body of Christ 4. Paul bringeth in this as a reason why they should cast out the incestucus man v. 9. did not saith he I write to you before and do I not now write v. 11. even now that you are not to kâ—ep intimate familiarity with such titular brethren who are brethren in name only Therefore put out from amongst you this man v. 13. the Apostles argument to infer they ought to judge and put such a man out of the Church because they are not to eat with him were of no weight if this â—schewing of familiarity with one who is a brother only in name did not infer the Churches casting of him ouâ— Erastus it is false that Paul forbiddeth to eat with him who is cast out for he forbiddeth not eating with a dead man Ans This is to beg the question Erastus should teach us how Pauls argument cohereth for the text saith he must be cast out why you must not eat with him then he supposeth he must be a living man for Paul needed not fear they would eat with dead men nor can this be Pauls consequence you are not to eat with the incestuous Ergo he must be delivered to Sathan that he may be miraculously killed for that is a false consequence for then all covetous persons all drunkards all idolators all extortioners should have been killed by Paul because with none of these we are to eat Erastus It is false that Paul forbiddeth as to eat meat with such Yea in no place he forbiddeth to eat with heathen but elsewhere granteth it to be lawfull and in this Chapter he permitteth private commerce with them Ans 1. Let the reader judge whether Erastus resuteth Paul or Beza Paul forbiddeth to eat with a
Thes say Est not â— quâdam insignire et in aliquem animadvertere ut censores apud Romanos notare aliquem solebant they expound it the publike note of Excommunication Beza saith it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie and declare but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notate veluti inustâ not â compungite So Calvin Marlorat And I wonder that Erastus can say with any that it is in our power to converse or not to converse with wicked men are we not discharged by Gods Spirit to converse with them As we are commanded to eat and drinke at the Lords Table and is it in our power morally to obey or disobey any Commandement of God Except Erastus will say with Papists that God doth here give counsels not commands Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 9 11. And whereas Erastus saith Paul will have us 2 Thes 3. 15. to admonish this man as a brother Ergo In holy things and in the Sacraments that are helpes of piety and Salvation we are not to â—ast him off It is true the cast out man is not to be reputed as an enemy but a brother Yet a sicke and diseased brother under the roughest Medicine of the Church to wit the rod of Excommunication that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. But withdrawing of brotherly fellowship is not a meere civill unbrothering of him for if the brotherly fellowship of Christians must be spirituall religious and for the edifying of one anothers soules for exhorting one another to prevent hardning of heart for provoking one another to love and to good works to teach one another to comfort and support one another as we are expresly commanded by the Holy Ghost Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thess 5. 11 14. Mal. 3. 16. Jer. 50. 5. Zach. 8. 22. Psal 42. 4. I wonder where Erastus learned this Divinity to say the denying of this edifying Communion to a scandalous brother while he be ashamed and repent Is to deny nothing that belongeth to his salvation Admonition is but one of twenty comfortable acts of Communion which we deny not to him least the man should despaire and we should cast off all care hope or intention to save his soul whereas the genuine and intrinsecall intention of avoiding him and casting him out of the Church is that he may be saved Lastly we deny not admonition and preaching of the word to the man thus cast out because they be converting Ordinances simply necessary to work the mans humiliation and repentance but the Lords Supper is a confirming Ordinance and denied to the excommunicated while he is in that condition upon that very reason that it is denied to Pagans and Heathens and though it be an help of piety it is no help either to a Pagan or an excommunicate man but damnation But it may be the excommunicate man hath faith I answer To us in the Court of the Church in which the Seals are dispensed he hath no more then a Heathen hath and therefore in confirming Ordinances he is looked on by the Church as an Heathen and if the reason of Erastus be good The Church is to deny no helps of godlinesse and salvation to him though we deny private food to his body because the Sacraments are necessary helps Then 1. I much doubt if the Church be to deny the necessary helps of godlinesse and salvation to a Pagan living amongst us Ergo shall we not deny the Sacraments to a Pagan 2. We are not to avoid his company and deny the edifying acts of Communion which I named before for these are necessary helps of salvation 3. It is not the mans sin by this reason That he eateth and drinketh unworthily for if it be not the Churches sin to give him the seals because the Seals are adminiclees and helps of piety and saving of the soul by the same reason it is not the mans sin to receive the Lords Supper for it must be equally an help of godlinesse and salvation to the Communicant receiving as to the Church giving Now Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh to himself judgement So Erastus teacheth us that it may be a sin to Swine publikely known to be such to receive pearles when it is no sin but the Churches duty to give these pearls to such known Swine which is most absurd and impious Erastus I said before that God doth not exclude sinners from the Sacraments but gather them in to them that they may be more and more invited to repentance and more easily raised up again for Sacraments and so many Ceremonies also were for this end ordained that they might draw men to the love and care of true piety and holynesse as Moses saith Deut. 14. Ans Erastus acknowledgeth this to be no new Argument therefore we may passe it it is the chief pillar of his opinion But I put it in forme thus to Erastus Those whom God inviteth to repentance those he will not exclude from the Sacraments But now under the Gospel he inviteth all even many Pagans and Heathen to repentance 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all even Heathen Magistrates to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth so Act. 17. 30. God now commandeth all men every where even the Idolators and blinde Philosophers at Athens who erected an Altar to the unknown God ver 23. and who jeered at the Doctrine of the Resurrection ver 32. even those God inviteth to repentance Ergo God excludeth not Pagans from the Sacraments but the conclusion is absurd and blasphemous therefore so must one of the premises be but the Assumption is Scripture Ergo The Major Proposition of Erastus must be blasphemous God inviteth scorners to repentance and rebukes are means of repentance Ergo we may rebuke scorners Gods spirit saith Rebuke not a scorner Prov. 9. 7 8. His Proposition then must be Those whom God inviteth to repentance those God excludeth not from any mean of piety and sanctity It is most false God inviteth Dogs and Swine to repentance and commandeth them to be holy and the pearls of the Gospel are means of repentance and holinesse Must we therefore Cast pearls to dogs and swine The contrary our Saviour injoyneth Matth. 7. 6. 2. Moses Deut. 14. 1. forbiddeth diverse Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Heathen by this Argument Ye are the children of the Lord your God and he saith expresly that the stranger may eat some unclean thing but the Lord saith to them You shall not do so for thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God Whence it is evident Moses saith poynt blank contrary to Erastus for Moses saith that Ceremonies and Sacraments are for this end to draw only the holy and sanctified people of God to a further love and study of true piety and sanctity was not the eating of the Passeover a mean of Repentance as well
with them Isa 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations c. All which holdeth forth that not only those who have the charge of the house of the Lord to see that no Swine and Dogs prophane the holy things of God but they are forbidden all private Ordinances and publike in so far as they can make no other use of them but to defile them Erastus saith They be wickedly forbidden to come to the Lords Supper who desire to Celebrate the memoriall of his death Beza Replieth well 1. What if he know not what he desireth who cometh 2. What if there be just suspition or clear evidence that he playeth the Hypocrite 3. What if it concern the whole Church that his desire be suspended Erastus The first cause is not to purpose because we speak of those that are well instructed 2. The second is bred in the brain of Beza I am compelled to think that he that publikely professeth he is grieved for his sins and that he purposeth to live a holy life in time to come that he thinketh as he speaketh if he remain not in that purpose I also remain not alwayes in my good purpose his desire is an Argument of Piety which should not be smothered and oppressed but excited and nourished And this opinion of Beza dependeth on the Iudgement of men neither hath the Lord committed the Examination of some to Elders And it is folly to say It concerns the Church to delay to do that which the Lord hath Commanded me to do Ans 1. Erastus professeth he standeth for their admission to the Lords Supper who are Recte instituti profitentur dolere se propter peccata sua who are instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion and repenteth of their sins or professeth it And he said before as I observed it If any shall be found who shall trample on the Sacraments Ego hunc minime admittendum censeo I judge such a man should not be admitted to the Sacraments Whence it is clear That Erastus professeth that the ignorant and the scandalous should be debarred from the Lords Supper But good Reader Observe that Erastus contradicteth himself in all his Arguments for he proveth that not any one Christian in the Visible Church ignorant or not ignorant who professe their Repentance or not professe it can be excluded from the Sacraments but that all are commanded by Christ to come But Erastus saith Scriptura illos de quibus nos loquimur nec à sacrificiis arcet nec à sacramentis aliis ullis Imò sub penâ capitis mandat ut universi mares c. The Scripture excludeth none from Sacrifices or any other Sacraments But commandeth that all the Male Children Jews and strangers who are not legally unclean and from home should compear at Ierusalem thrice a year before the Lord And pag. 104. In sacris literis non tantum non inveniri aliquos à sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem ab actos esse sed contrarium potius probari And Iohn Baptist saith he Baptized all that came to him Pharisees and Sadduces whom he affirmeth to be a Generation of Vipers Ex quo intelligimus Whence we understand that Ministers are not to deny the Sacraments to those who seek them and the Iudgement is to be left to God Whether he who professeth Repentance dissemble or deal truly and sincerely Yea when Erastus saith That it is not in all the Scripture to be found Aliquos a Sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem abactos esse That any were debarred from the Sacraments for only wickednesse of life but rather the contrary may be proved either ignorance of God opposed to due instruction and professed impenitency is no wickednesse of life which is most absurd or then in Scripture some must be debarred from the Sacraments for wickednesse of life only But Erastus saith plainly None in Scripture are debarred from the Sacraments for only wickednesse of life And so they are not debarred because they professe not Repentance And Erastus saith Christ said Drink ye all of this and Iudas was not excepted Christ went into the Temple with most wicked men the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized with the same Baptisme of Iohn vvith them Then Erastus will exclude none at all no not those whom Christ pronounced to sin against the Holy Ghost and the convincing light of their own minde Matth. 12. 31 32. Ioh. 9. 39 40 41. and 15. 24. and 7. 28. Yea pag. 117. He will have none excluded in Corinth not those that are impenitent and those that vvere partakers of the Table of Devils Pag. 116. When Christ commandeth all to eat and all to drink he excludeth none that professeth themselves to be Disciples But many professe no Repentance Who professe themselves Disciples See pag. 117 118. and the following pages 2. Erastus saith He is compelled to think That he that publikely professeth sorrovv for sin doth think as he speaketh But to whom shall he professe it To the Church Then hath the Church power to accept the confession of scandalous men ere they be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus will stand at this for it is Government in the hands of the Church if he must confesse to the Civill Magistrate who made him a Steward of the Seals and Mysteries of the Gospel Nor is the Church to think as Erastus is compelled to think manifest Hypocrites and those that trample the Sacraments under their feet will make profession of sorrow for sin and Erastus thinketh such are not to be admitted Erastus saith they may change their purpose of Repentance and so may he doe himselfe Valeat totum granting all that is nothing to us for any Divinity we have proofe of in Erastus his booke I should humbly conceive when he speaketh so ignorantly of the worke of Repentance and preparations for the Lords Supper he hath been a man non rectè institutus not well instructed and so without the lists of the disputation by his owne word and so not to have beene himselfe to be admitted to the Sacraments 2. Nor is it in Beza his head onely that those who desire the Sacrament have true piety for Christ saith Wicked men are known by their works otherwise if tramplers of the Sacrament and the ignorant desire the Sacrament as ignorance is neighbour to arrogance and presumption let Erastus give us a rule in the Word by which they are to be debarred all his arguments will prove that they are to be admitted and if Erastus deny that the judgement of men either of Church or Magistrate is to be interposed in the excluding of those who are non rectè instituti not rightly instructed and doe not professe sorrovv for their sin he must speake against sense if he grant some must judge who are ignorant and openly impenitent then I say to Erastus what hee saith to Beza your opinion dependeth on the opinion and judgement
of men 3. If God have not commanded either Elders or any other as Erastus saith to examine and judge who are fit for the Lords Supper who not Then seeing Erastus saith the prophane the ignorant the impenitently scandalous knowne to be such are to be debarred I aske of Erastus to whom Christ hath commanded the tryall of this who are ignorant and non rectè instituti Men cannot debarre themselves from the Sacraments in a judiciall way most of men conceiting well of themselves rush upon the ordinances of God not knowing that they doe evill Workers of iniquity who cry Lord Lord Adulterers Theeves Idolaters who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry The temple of the Lord The temple of the Lord are these Ier. 7. 9 10 11. will also fast and professe Repentance Esa 57. 3 4 5. even when their wickednes testifieth to their face against them in the eies of all Ier. 2. 1 c. Ier. 2. 34. Esa 1. 9. and they will desire â—o partake of the Lords Supper as is evident Esa 57. 2. Now there are none on earth neither Elders or any any others to debarre them Erastus saith Taceo jam quod Deus non praecepit vel Presbyteris vel aliis tale examen Let Erastus answer us in this and by what charity is Erastus obliged to beleeve all that seeketh the Lords supper do it in truth God has given to us mens works not their words of which hypocrites are liberall and shall we foment hypocrisie and mens eating their owne damnation under Erastus his pretence of incouraging and not suffocating seeming godly desires Lastly Erastus saith it doth not concern the Church that the man deferre to do that which Christ commands him to do this is to beg the question Doth Christ command a man to eat his owne damnation CHAP. XIII Quest 9. Other Arguments for Excommunication vindicated Erastus The Apostle writeth if any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be accursed Ergo Paul will have the Elders to sit and judge who truely repent who not that they may admit the one to the supper not the other if this be excommunication excommunication is grounded on a thousand places to love Christ is to kâ—ep his commandements Ioh. 13. and 15. then who ever saith those that keep not the commandements of Christ are cursed of God he shall this way excommunicate then Moses did often excommunicate But because the false Apostles did strive to make Paul contemptible therefore Paul saith God be judge which of us loveth Christ and let God destroy him who loves him not this is the true meaning Ans Erastus perverteth the sense of Beza his words for Beza has no such conclusion as to prove a formall excommunication by the Elders or Church judicature this is Erastus sained conclusion Beza inferreth from these words that there is here gravissimae excommunicationis species a kind of heavy excommunication materially to be eternally separated from Christ called the great excommunication And it was to be accursed while the Lord come and therefore this may prove there is a kind of lesser excommunication in the Church and Moses his cursing by way of preaching may well inserre that because there be Church censures therefore there is a Church cursing heavy and lesse heavy But Beza intendeth not to prove excommunication by the Church from this but only that Christs enemies are cursed though they be other wayes in the Church and this kinde of excommunication of shutting impenitent sinners out of heaven is in a thousand places of scripture and nothing can hence be concluded against Beza and the like excommunication is Gal. 1. And when Ioh. 2. Ep. forbiddeth to receive a faâ—â—e teacher into your house if he be a member of the Church he is to be farre lesse kept in Christs greater house the Church but is to be cast out Erastus When Paul saith Gal. 5. I would they were cut off who trouble you he saith not conveene the Elders and cast such men out of the Church or deliver them to Satan but he wisheth that they were cut off by God Ans 1. The place Gal. 5. 12. I wish they were cut off that trouble you is expounded by Piscator of cutting off from the visible Church Yea he saith conveene the Church when he saith v. 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe that is a little false Doctrine infecteth the whole Church and v. 10. I am confident of you that ye will be no otherwise minded but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement who ever he be then he hopeth well of the Galathians that they will be of one mind to judge and cast out the false teacher this is parallel to 1 Cor. 5. though Paul do not so right downe chide them for neglect of Church censures as he doth 1 Cor. 5. But saith Erastus if Paul wished them to be cut off that troubled them why did he not cut off those false teachers and deliver them to Satan Erastus answereth it was not Gods will so to do and the Apostles could not in every place and at every time kill miraculously but when it was profitable and necessary Ans Then Paul 1 Cor. 5. farre lesse could rebuke the Corinthians because they prayed not that the incestuous Corinthian might be miraculously killed by Paul for Paul had not power to kill him because it was not necessary nor profitable the man repented and was never killed 2. Iudge if it be probable that Paul would wish to work a miracle in killing false teachers when it was neither profitable necessary nor saâ—e for the Church to have them killed 3. Paul was confident the man who troubled them should beare his judgement Erastus saith it was not Gods will he should be miraculously killed Ergo it was not miraculous killing but some Church censure or then Erastus must find out another kind of judgement And why may some say doth not Paul write to Excommunicate him as he did the incestuous Corinthian Beza Answereth Paul would not 1 Cor. 5. take that Authority to himself but would do it by the suffrages of the Church So here he sheweth what he desireth but happily it was not expedient that they should be presently cut off So Beza Yea the words do well bear that Paul thought fit That they should bear their Iudgement who had troubled them and that that leaven should be purged out 2. Yea if this cutting off be miraculous it is clear Paul could not Communicate it to others for it was Pauls will that the incestuous Corinthian should be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians Nor do we read that the Apostles wished to cut off men miraculously but were not able to do it Erastus It is false That Paul willed the man to be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already Concluded Ordained Decreed to deliver him
to Satan though I be absent in body what then would he have done he would all the Church being gathered together not some Presbyters only by his own spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus granted to him deliver the man to Satan that he might strike fear and terror on others and that the man might bear the just punishment of his wickednesse Ans Paul chideth them that they were puffed up and mourned not that the man might be put out of the midst of them Then whereas it might be said we want the presence of the Apostle Paul and his privity to the businesse To this Paul saith ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For me saith he I have as if I were present in body when you are Convened together c. Iudged to deliver such a one to Satan Now that this Decree was the judiciall Decree and sentence of Paul as a miraculous Magistrate giving sentence judicially when Paul himself was absent and had not convinced the man nor spoken with him I do not believe 1. Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie such a sentence of a man when the guilty is before him yet the word doth not necessitate us to this Exposition Luk. 19. 22. Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee for it doth as often signifie a simple act of the minde and the opinion of any not sitting in judgement as Act. 13. 46. Ye judge your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unworthy of life Eternall 1 Cor. 2. 2. I determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know nothing but Christ Luk. 7. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to Simon the Pharisee who was not on the bench Thou hast judged rightly Tit. 3. 12. I have determined there to winter 1 Cor. 10. 15. Iudge ye what I say Act. 27. 1. When it was determined to sail into Italy 2. We do not read that Apostle Prophet or Iudge gave out a sentence of death against any the person condemned not being present nor heard the Lord himself did it not to Adam nor to Sodom he came down to see he examined Adam Moses did not so condemn the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day Joshua convinced Achan the Prophet convinced Gehazi ere he smote him with Leprosie Peter convinced Aâ—anias and Saphira to their faces ere he killed them so did Paul convince Elimas the sorcerer in his face so did Christ in his miraculous purging of the Temple convince them that His Fathers house should be a house of Prayer Now Paul here giveth a judiciall sentence of death on a man he never spake of being at Philippi whence he wrote and the delinquent at Corinth if we beleeve Erastus 3. Erastus judgeth that Paul knew this man to be penitent and how knew Paul this It must be a miraculous knowledge by which Paul at Philippi looked upon the mans heart at Corinth one of the greatest miracles that ever Paul wrought for Paul had the knowledge of the mans sinne only by report v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported between Pauls writing the first verse of that Chapter and his writing the third verse there must interveene a miraculous discovery of the incestuous mans heart Paul being at Philippi and the man at Corinth and Paul knowing the man to be penitent and because of his penitency as Erastus saith Paul did not kill him Yet Paul so farre absent must have given out a miraculous sentence as a miraculous Magistrate I saith he by revelation as having the sword of God now in my hand have judged and given out sentence that this man shall be miraculously killed by Satan before your eyes that all may feare and do so no more and yet I know him to be penitent and that he shall not be killed by Satan a monstrous and irrationall sentence if it be said that by report Paul had knowledge of his sinne and by report also he had knowledge of his repentence and that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord and that this knowledge came not to Paul by any immediate revelation I answer Yet the sentence must stand by Erastus his mind touching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged and condemned him as a miraculous Magistrate to dye upon a report though I never heard him and I know he shall not dye for this sault for can it be said that Paul retracted a sentence which he gave out as the deputy of God and he even then when he wrote the sentence knâ—w there was so much repentance in the man as he would for it be moved not to kill him 4. There is no ground in the Text why Paul should be said to seek the naked presence of the whole people to do such a miracle before them he being himselfe absent for there is more then a naked presence of the Corinthians as only witnesses that they might be affraid do so no more for they were present as instructed with the spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to Satan as the words bear v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be conveened in the name of Christ being spoken Mat. 18. v. 20. of a Church meeting or in reference thereunto in the same phrase and to be conveened with the power and spirit of Paul and of the Lord Iesus cannot agree to Paul nor can it be said I Paul absent in body and present in spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan For 1. the Grammer of the words cannot beare that for being conveened in the name of the Lord with my spirit are constructed together in the Text. 2. It is no sence nor any Scripture phrase I present in spirit and with my spirit have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan 3. It is evident that Paul would as it were absent recompence his bodily absence with the presence of the spirit and road of Church censure which the Lord had communicated to them 5. Erastus needeth not object that there was a conveening of the Church not of some Elders for as there is no word of the word Elders in the Text so is there no word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text and so the debate will be what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether Elders or people or both but though every one in their owne place were understood yet the words beare a juridicall convention being conveened in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus Erastus The questions why Paul did not command to excommunicate the false Apostles in Galathia Or why he did not miraculousty kill them are both urgent But the latter is most urgent for the power of miraculous afflicting men was given to few men and to Apostles But it is a wonder if excommunication was ever
cleane and uncleane 2. A Presbytery of arbitrators in matters civill to keep Christians from going to law one with another before heathen judges Is not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. one wise man might do that and he is no Presbytery 2. There is no judicatures of Officers there they were but gifted men arbitrarily chosen for a certaine businesse and were not judges habitu 3. A Presbytery for Doctrine only is further to seek in the word I hope then our Presbytery Erastus should teach us where it is 4. He denieth a Presbytery for manners then all scandals must come before the civill Magistrate Who made him a Church officer to judge of the affairs of the Church Who is to be admitted to the seals who not For two supream Courts I shall speak God-willing Erastus There is no Colledge of Presbyters at Corinth but every man was to judge himselfe Ans There is a company gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus with the spirit of Paul and the power of our Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. who did judge those that are within and put out from amongst them an incestuous man v. 12 13. least he should leaven the whole Church v. 6. this is a Colledge of judges 2. There is a number of builders and labourers with God 1 Cor. 3. 9 10 11 12. Ministers of God dispensers of the misteries of Word and Sacraments of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. such as Paul Apollos Cephas and others 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 4. 6. A number that had power to punish to forgive 2 Cor. 1. 2 6 7 8 9 10. 3. A number of Prophets who judged of the Doctrine of the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. 30 31 32. these be very like a Colledge of Presbyters O but Paul writeth not to those but to those who were puffed up and mourned not 1 Cor. 5. 2. These were the people and Church Ans Yea these were the eyes eares and principall parts of the Church 1 Cor. 12. 14 15 16 17 18. now he writeth to the Church 1 Cor. 1. 1 2. Erastus Before this time Paul must have instituted this Presbytery who seeth not that this is false for so he would have accused the Presbytery not the whole Church but he accuseth not the Elders because they admitted the man to the Lords supper and there is no word of excommunication here There is no mention of one judgement of one election of one office but he chideth the whole Church because they mourned not it was not the Elders office to remove this they dream who say there is a Presbytery instituted here and there was none instituted before this Epistle was written he biddeth them not ask suffrages whether he should be excommunicated or no. Ans All that Erastus saith against a Presbytery is to improve excommunication But there may be excommunication by the people as many hold where there be no Elders at all 2. Let Erastus point out the time when a number of preaching Prophets were instituted at Corinth whether in this Chapter which to me is a dream or before 3. He had cause to rebuke all All were secure the Elders who cast him not out the people who said not to their Elders as the Colossians are bidden say Col. 4. 17. to Archippus and will Erastus say that preaching Elders who by office are the eyes of the Church 1 Cor. 12. 17 28. were not to be chiefe in mourning to God and praying that the man might be miraculously killed and yet he reproveth all equally 4. He reproveth them all that the man was not cast out of the Church and this includeth a reproofe that he injoyed all the Church priviledges especially the Sacraments 5. It is false that there is no mention of judgement v. 12. Do not ye judge those that are within for election there is none in the Chapter nor any Presbytery instituted in this Chapter it was before Erastus hath the like reason to say that there was no instituted Church at Corinth because in the 1. or 2. Epistle to the Corinthians we reade not where he instituted any such Church if we finde the thing instituted we know it had an institution and let Erastus shew us when Paul received the institution of the Lords supper from the Lord shall we deny he received any such thing contrary to 1 Cor. 11. 23. because we finde not where and how he received from the Lord 6. There is no asking of suffrages mentioned Act. 1. at the choosing of Mathias nor Act. 6. at the choosing of the Deacons that we reade of Ergo there were no suffrages there it followeth not 7. And ought not farre rather suffrages to have been asked before the people should take on their heads the mans blood by consenting thereunto and praying for it as Erastus saith Erastus If these words v. 3. I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have decreed c. signifie choose out of your company Presbyters who are to censure the manners of the people who shall debarre the unworthy from the Sacraments I am willing to suffer any thing Ans I know no man but Erastus that dreameth of any such sense there is no institution of a Presbytery in this Chapter no calling of Ministers but it presupposeth a ministery before sâ—â—led But if thâ—se words I have decreed c. have the Erastian sense I have given sâ—â—â—eâ—câ— as a Magistrate that the man be killed by the ministery of the Devill and that you shall be my Heralds to proclaime this sentence it is a wonder the Text give not any hint of such a sense Erastus v. 12. he speaketh not of the judgement of Presbyters but of all the people Ans 1. This Erastus on his word asserteth without probation We deny it it is but parâ—llel with Gods judging 2. It is an act of the keys 3. It is relative to casting out by those that are conveened in the name of the Lord Iesus with the spirit of Paul and the power of our Lord Iesus Was every Girle and beleeving servant capable of this spirit and power Erastus I grant before any come to age be baptized he is to be examined whether he understand the Doctrine of saith and assent to it with his heart I grant it is profitable that young ones be examined before they be admitted to the supper but I deny God hath for either of those instituted a Presbytery But there is no ground that a Presbytery must try wicked men ere they be admitted to the Lords supper Ans 1. We owe Erastus thanks for granting this but what if the aged be sound grosly ignorant and uncapable of the seals and some wicked men will trample the seals as swine and yet they desire the seals Erastus said before such should not be admitted who should debarre them either the Church of beleevers or those that are over them in the Lord or the Magistrate must debarre them if the first and second be
his businesse performe both doth Paul make exceptions of Magistrates and Potentates when he saith 1 Cor. 14. You may all prophecie Hence he must grant that the civill Magistrate now may both preach baptize and administer the Supper of the Lord and therfore not only hath the Church no Senate nor Ecclesiasticall court to punish faults and scandals with Ecclesiastick censures but there is no Presbytery of Elders to give their judgement in matters of doctrine for the Magistrates and all Christians may as well prophecy by ◠Cor. 14. as Ministers saith he yea the faculty of preaching is no more proper to the Ministers of the Church then to the Magistrates of the city Now by this nothing is proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate but to the Magistrate as a Christian and to all Christians But Erastus contendeth that the government of the Church and punishing of Scandals which we say belongeth to those that are over the people of God in the Lord and to Church Rulers doth belong to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii by vertue of his office so that if any Iew or Turke or any ignorant or extreamely scandalous should attempt to intrude himselfe upon the Seals the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii is to examine and judge if he be unworthy to debar him or as he findeth him worthy admit him to the Seals Now any seeth that it is but a deceiving of the Reader to say that one man may discharge both the place of the Magistrate and the Minister of God as Moses did and Ioshua David For let Erastus and his followers shew us roundly and down-right whether or no prophecying debarring the unworthy from the Seals and all acts of Church government not proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii And if so as indeed Erastus teacheth it is bu◠a poore shift to say that one and the same man may both exercise the part of a Magistrate and of a Minister Erastus Beza for ever shall not prove that there was a Church judicature that had power to punish scandalous men Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. ordained judges in all the fenced cities and admonished them of their duty 2. And did the same at Ierusalem 3. And ordained judges of Levites and Priests and heads of families for the judgement of the Lord and for every cause and Amaziah the High Priest was chiefe in the causes of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings causes This Synedrie at Ierusalem was the politick Magistrate they judged of stroaks servitude deaths But your Synedrie judgeth not between blood and blood it judgeth not of every cause as Deut. 17. Those that are not well versed in Scripture are to note two things 1. That the cause of the Lord where mention is made of judicatures is not onely a cause of Religion but any cause proposed in judgement especially the causes of the widdow the Orphan oppressed which the Lord saith he will avenge 2. The Levites Priests were no lesse civil judges then others it is known that onely the Levits were Magistrats in the cities of refuge there was need of men exercised in the Law of God that the judges might judge righteously Ans If you take punishing for inflicting Church-censure as we here take it then all the places that sayes the Priests pronounced the Leper clean or unclean to put out of the campe or take in to judge of the adulterous woman of the restitution made by those for whom they offered Sacrifices to judge between the clean and unclean to hold out of the Sanctuary the unclean the uncircumcised in heart and flesh Levit. 13. 3 4 c. and 20 22. and 21. 26 and 30. 44. and 31. 50. Ezek. 22. 26. and 44. 8 9 10. Num. 3. 6 and 5. 18 19. Deut 17. 12. say the Priests had power to punish for transgressing of Gods Lawes and where the Prophets complaine of the Priests mis-government and unjustice it is presupposed they were to govern justly according to the Law Ier. 5. 31. 2 King 12. 4. Ier. 26. 7 8 11. Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 44. 8 9 10. 2. For the place 2 Chron. 19. it is evident that Iehoshaphat doth reforme both Church and State and brought the corrupted Iudicatures to that which they should be by Law and v. 5 6 7. He set judges in the fenced cities of Iudah Here is the civill judicature And v. 8. Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levits and of the Priests and of the chiefo of the fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies when they returned to Ierusalem Now that this second is a Church judicature I am confirmed 1. Because Iehoshaphat appointed civill judges in all the fenced cities of Iudah Ergo Also in Ierusalem the prime fenced city Now this civill judicature was not tyed to a place but was in every city even all the fenced cities but the Synedrie of Priests Levites and Elders was onely at Ierusalem in the place that the Lord should chuse Deut. 17. 8. Hence a judicature tyed to no city but which is in every fenced city 2 Chron. 19. 5. Deut. 17. 8. and a judicature tyed to Ierusalem the place that the Lord did choose Deut. 17. 8. 2 Chron. 19. 8. must be two distinct judicatures but such were these 2. There is a moreover put to the Iudicature at Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levites c. This could not have been said if this had not been a judicature different from the former for if Iehoshaphat appointed Iudges in all the fenced cities Ergo He appointed them first at Ierusalem the Mother city and fountaine of justice now then he should say the same thing needlesly and with a moreover if this judicature at Ierusalem were not a judicature Ecclesiasticke and different from the judicature civill that he appointed at Ierusalem as one of the prime fenced cities which was common with the civill judicatures in other fenced cities 3. The persons in the judicatures are different for v. 5. the members of the court 2 Chro. 19. 5 6 7 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judges these could not be Churchmen for of these he speaketh v. 8. they are expresly distinguished from the Levites Priests and Elders v. 8. who are all Church-men for the fathers of the people were no other thing then our governing Elders and these were members of the other court v. 8. 4. The objects of these judicatures are very different The Spirit of God saith of the one ver 5. That they judge for the Lord ver 13. for all the Kings matters this must be all civill causes in which the King and inferiour judges under the King doe judge but the object of the other is higher The Priests and Levites are appointed by Iehoshaphat for the judgement of the Lord ver 8. And in every matter of
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
Christian Magistrate saith he if there be any Church Censure as we suppose there is this Objection should not have been made against us because of the Magistrates supremacy it doth conclude with equall strength that Pastors should use it against no man Now there be some swine that trample the Sacraments some not well instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion and Erastus said pag. 207. Such should not be admitted to the Lords Supper Now the Magistrate the King is such Let Erastians say the Pearles of the Seals of the Covenant are to be given to no swine except the swine be Magistrates and that which the Church bindeth on earth is bound in heaven except it be the Magistrate Erastus saith he may go to Hell by priviledge of his place and that whose sins the Elders of the Church retaineth are retained except it be the Kings sins and that we are to put shame upon scandalous persons and to refuse to eat with them Romanes 16. 17. 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 Ioh. 10. Except they be Magistrates Sure God is no accepter of persons Erastus Whereas you say it is not lawfull for the Magistrate to preach and administer the Sacraments if he might because of his businesse be able to discharge both Offices it is not true God hath not forbidden it it was lawfull in the Old Testament for one man to discharge both why is it not lawfull now also the history of Eli and Samuel is known it is nothing that you say that the tribunall of Moses was distinguished from the tribunall of Aaron for God gave to Aaron no tribunall at all different from the tribunall of Moses he never did forbid the Priests to sit in the Civill judicature after the captivity the Priests judged the people Ezech. 44. Ans That it is lawfull for the Magistrate to preach and Administer the Sacraments 1. Destroyeth the Ordinance of Pastors and a sent and called Ministry under the New Testament against the Scriptures Heb 5. 4 No man taketh on him this honour to himself except he that is called of God as was Aaron So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high Priest c. â— 2. God often maketh an honour of a calling to the Ministery that he hath separated them to it Numb 16 9. Moses saith to Korah hear now â—e sons of Levi Seemeth it a small thing unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel to bring you neer to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord Deut. 10. 8. At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord to stand before the Lord to minister unto him Numb 8 6. 7. 8. 9. But that same honour is put upon the Preachers of the Gospel Rom â— 1. Paul the servant of Iesus Christ called to be an Apostle separated unto the Gospell of God Act. 13. 2. The holy Ghost said Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them If it be an honour and no man though gifted as Christ was can take honour to himself No Magistrate can take on him to discharge the office of a Minister Object But when he is called to be a Magistrate he is called to be a Minister and so being called to the one he is called by the same calling to the other Ans If being called to be Magistrate he be also called to be a Minister then being called to be a Minister he is called to be a Magistrate and Hoc ipso that he is a Minister be may usurpe the sword and usurpe the Throne and the Bench But Christ being sent to be a Prophet and to preach the Gospel Esa 61. 1. Luk. 4. 20. 21. veâ— 43. refused to divide the inheritance and to be a a Iudge Luk. 12. 13 14. He would not take on him to be a judge except God had made him and called him to be a judge If any say the Magistrate being the supream place containeth eminently all inferior offices as to be a Minister a Lawyer a Physitian c. but the inferior does not containe the superior I Ans Then the Magistrate being called to be a Magistrate and King he is called to be a Priest to burn incense which the Lord condemned in his word in Vzzah then when Saul is called to be a King he is called to be an Astronomer Lawyer Physitian Sayler Tayler Now God giveth a spirit to be a King but no gifts to those offices Ergo No calling thereunto for no gifts argue no calling of God 2. If a man called to be a judge be also by that same calling by which he is made a judge made a Minister then it is all one to be called to be a judge and to be a Minister and so a Magistrate as a Magistrate doth preach and administrate the Sacraments then 1. All Magistrates should preach and administrate the Sacraments and Nero and heathen Magistrates are gifts actu primo given by Christ ascending on high for the edifying the body of the Church Ephe. 4. 11 12. Obj. It is not sinne to him to preach and administrate the Sacraments but then he cannot have time for both Ans If God lawfully call the Magistrate to preach the Gospel woe be to him if he preach not he should lay aside all other imployments and preach God never gave a talent and calling to any to preach but he ought to lay aside other things and imploy that talent to the honour of God otherwise he sinneth in digging his Lords talent in the earth whereas he is obliged to make five talent ten 2. If he preach as a Pastor not as a Magistrate then he hath another calling of God to be a Pastor and another to be a Magistrate and â—â—rtaine it is as a Magistrate he doth not preach because there be farre other qualifications required in a Magistrate as Deut. 1. 12. that he be wise and understanding and knowen and a man of truth hating coveteousnesse Exo. 18. 21. But there is farre other qualities required in a Bishop 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 3. Ergo it is one thing to be called to be a Minister and another to be called to be a Magistrate 3. In all the word Christ never commanded the Magistrate to preach and baptise this negative Argument Erastus useth often against us to prove that none ought to be excluded from the Sacraments because Priests Prophets Christ Apostles never excluded any But Christ commanded the Ministers to preach and baptise and gave them the Holy Ghost for that effect and sent them as the father sent him as having received all power from the father Math. 28. 18 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. and least we should think this charge was given to Apostles as Apostles he teacheth that it is given to all faithfull Pastors to the end of the world Math. 28. v. 20. Lo
and subjects are Christians but where the Magistrate is of a false Religion two different Governments are tollerable Ans 1. This argument destroâ—eth all Aristocracy Parliaments and Senates where many good men have equall power and so the Common-wealth may not have 70. Heads and Rulers of equall power which is against the Scripture which commandeth subjection to every Civill ordinance of man as lawfull Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Deut. 1. 16. It maketh no Government lawfull but Popedome and Monarchy in both Church and state 2. It is to beg the question that there cannot be two supream powers both supream in their owne kinde for they are both supream in their owne sphere as Pastors dispense Sacraments and Word without subjection to the Magistrate as they are Pastors and Magistrates use the Sword without dependence on Pastors and yet is there mutuall and reciprocall subjection of each to other in divers considerations Pastors as subjects in a Civill relation are subject to the Magistrate as every soul on earth is and Magistrates as they have souls and stand in need to be led to heaven are under Pastors and Elders For if they hear not the Church and if they commit incest they are to be cast out of the Church Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Thes 3. 14. 15. If they walk inordinately we are to eschew their company if they despise the Ministers of Christ they despise him who sent them Math. 10. 40. Luk. 10. 16. God respecteth not the persons of Kings and we finding them not excepted if the preachers of the Gospel be to all beleevers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over them in the Lord 1 Thess 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. call it authority or no Authority they have some oversight over the Christian Magistrate and here be two supreams two highest powers one Ecclesiasticall another Civill nor should any deny Moses to be above Aaron as the supream judge Aaron not having the power of the sword as Moses had and Aaron must be above Moses in sacrificing in burning incensâ— in judging between the clean and the unclean which Moses could not do 2. The excellency of the Civill power in regard of earthly honour and eminency in the fifth Commandment above the servants of God in the Ministry of Christs spirituall Kingdom which is not of this world we heartily acknowledge 3. That the King Preacheth and dispenseth the Sacraments by Pastors as by his servants is wilde Divinty Pastors then must have Magistraticall Authority and power of the sword committed to them as the Deputies and inferior judges of the Lords of the Gentiles which Christ forbade his Disciples Luk. 22. 25 26 27. For the servant must have some power committed to him from the principall cause in that wherein he is a servant 4. What reason is there that where the Magistrate is a Heathen two Governments and so two heads in one body should be for then there is and must be a Church-Government where the Magistrate is a Heathen and that in the hands of the Church if then the Magistrate turn Christian must he spoile the Church of what was her due before Erastus The Lord Jesus changed nothing in the New Testament of that most wise Government in the Iewish Church now there all Government was in the hands of Moses I say not that the Magistrate might sacrifice or do what was proper to the Priests but he did dispose and order what was to be done by the Priests Ans Yea but Erastus saith the Magistrate may dispense word and Sacraments in the New Testament if he had leisure Why might he not sacrifice in the Old Testament also 2. Pastors do by their Doctrine and Discipline order and regulate all callings in their Moralls of right and wrong of just and unjust yet is not the Pastor the only Governour in all externals 3. If Christ changed nothing of the Iewish Government we have all their exclusion of men out of the Campe their separating of the unclean and their politick and Ceremoniall Lawes which is unsound Divinity Erastus Moses Ruled all before there was a Priesthood instituted God Exod. 4. Numb 12. calleth Aaron to his office and maugurateth him by Moses nor doth he command him to exercise a peculiar judgement when he declareth his office to him and when Aaron dieth Moses substituteth Eleazar in his place Ioshua c. 3 4 teacheth the Priests what they should doe and commanded them to circumcise Israel so did Samuel David Solomon and in the time of the Maccabees it was so Ans Moses was once a Prophet and Iudge both Ergo so it may be now it followeth not except Moses as a Magistrate did reveale what was the Priesthood What Aaron and Eleazer his sonnes might doe by as good reason Moses David Solomon Ioshua as Magistrates wrote Canonick Scripture and prophecied Then may Magistrates as Magistrates build new Temples typicall to God give new Laws write Canonick Scripture as these men did by the Spirit of prophecy no doubt not as Magistrates for why but they might sacrifice as Magistrates and why should Moses rather have committed the Priesthood and the service of the Tabernacle due to him as a Magistrate so to Aaron and his sonnes as it should be unlawfull to him as a King and unlawfull to Vzziah to burn incense and to sacrifice and to doe the office of the Priest If the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe all that the Priests are to doe as Priests and that by a supream principle and radicall power in him he ought not to cast off that which is proper to him as a Magistrate to take that which is lesse proper he casteth the care and ruling of souls on the Priests and reserveth the lesser part to himself to rule the bodies of men with the Sword all these are sufficiently answered before Erastus The King of Persia Ezra 7. appointed Iudges to judge the people and teach them but there is no word of Excommunication or any Ecclesiastick punishment but of death imprisonment fines nor did Nehemiah punish the false Prophets with any other punishment Iosephus speaketh nothing of it nor Antiochus Ans I shew before that there is forâ—eiting and separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall be separated from the Church 2. If the King of Persia appointed men to judge and teach the people why should he deny any judicature at all 3. Where ever Iosephus speaketh of the judging of the Priests as he doth antiq l. 11. c. 7. ant l. 11. c. 8. l. 12. c. 9. he hinteth at this Erastus Christ dischargeth his Disciples to exercise dominion Christ would not condemne the adulterous woman nor judge between the brethren Luke 12. Paul calleth Ministers dispensators stewards Peter forbiddeth a dominion Ans Let Erastus be mindfull of this himselfe who yet saith that the Magistrate may both judge also if he have time dispence the
Word and Sacraments if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments who made him a judge and a Ruler Will this satiâ—fie mens conscience The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister but the Minister may not play the Magistrate Now as Erastus saith the Minister in holy things is his servant called by him may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also Erastus Eli and Samuel were both Priests and Iudges and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent 2. Ministers ought not to usurpe the civill sword Ergo they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit it followeth not the contrary is evident 1 Thes 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7 8. Erastus Peter Martyr saith Com. 1 Sam. 8. Those that live wickedly may be corrected by the Magistrate But Papists give one civill Ecclesiastick power to the Pope and another to the Magistrate whereas the civill Magistrate is sufficient enough Ans Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expresly asserteth Excommunication and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors or Elders Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword Erastus Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is it is not pollitick externall visible for Christ reigneth in the world but his Government is invisible and spirituall in the Word and the Spirit Ans Christ denieth only that his Kingdome is of this World in regard it is not holden up by the civill sword of men or Magistrates as Erastus doth dreame who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the onely Catholick and principall Ruler in all Christs courts which Christ refuteth when he saith If my Kingdome were of this world mine owne would fight for me Now Erastus will have no weapon but the Magistrates sword to hold out and cast out all offenders out of Christs Kingdom but it is false that Christs Kingdom is not politicall externall and visible this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church Sure exhorting rebuking censuring withdrawing from the scandalous excommunication are visible externally and in a politick spirituall way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors for externall and spirituall are not opposed nor are politicall and spirituall opposed as Erastus dreameth and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus His Kingdom is not of this world Ergo it is not externall Erastus When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea and Gabinius having overcome Alexander had changed the state of Iudea the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up Ioseph bel Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph antiq l. 14. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synedrie for the most part had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus and under Archilaus it was more fully restored as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death setteth forth an Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them Ans Will then Erastus have Christ Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim in gaining a lost brother that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this 2. Say that the Sanedrim in sacris in in the holy things of God had its full power the Romans not impeding them hath any man a face to deny but Pharisees corrupted both Law Gospell Sanedrim and all and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government especially when they set themselves against the Messiah Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued but before they were subdued the Sanedrim was changed and corrupted 3. This is to beg the question to say they kept the power of the Sword For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power and forsooth because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles What then therefore the Sanedrim had the Law of God for it and Aaron and his sonnes might beat scourge imprison and kill as they killed Steven without Law or warrant except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature surely this is a vaine consequence 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both gave them liberty of their own Religion Ceremonies and customes at their pleasure and that is much for us the adversary so do reason from a corrupt unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law Erastus I have solidly proved there were not two distinct jurisdictions but that the Magistrate Governed all I deny not that the Magistrate took counsell at those that were skilled in the Law And I have proved that the Sanedrim in Christs time when he spake these words had the power of the sword in things pertaining to Religion Ans Let another man praise thee solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines is plain emptinesse 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law is not like the first pattern of Moses David Solomon who as Magistrates saith Erastus did rule all in the Church gave the Law to Aaron his sons directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord as nearest to him what they should do what Laws they should teach the people Shew us one precept practise or promise in the word where Moses David Solomon asked Counsell at Aaron the Priests Gad Nathan or the Prophets saying O sons of Aaron O Prophets advise us Magistrates what Laws we should command you touching your office your holy garments your washing your beasts clean and unclean your lâ—per your putting men out of the Camp touching the forme dimensions structure materials of the Arke Tabernacle Temple c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord for we are nearer to the Lord and have a more eminent place as Church-Officers then you who are but our Vicars Deputies and servants to be directed by us Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediatly from God and never consulted with any man either Aaron Priest or Prophet David and Solomon had the forme of the Temple given to them by the Lord in writing and advised with none at all therefore received from God and delivered to the Church what they received of the Lord. 2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers what they should command-Ministers to preach and do in their Ministery if by vertue of their Office they command Ministers 3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civill sword on their bodies to gain their souls which is the scope of Christ Matth. 18. CHAP. XVII Quest 13. Whether Erastus can make good that the
excommunicated without the consent of the Magistrate Where did Christ divide the externall Government of the Church in Civill Government and Ecclesiasticall as you distinguish them Ans 1. That it is expedient that the Christian Magistrate should be acquainted with the Excommunication of any under his jurisdiction that he may satisfie his own Conscience in punishing him civilly it is like some of our Divines do teach But that the Magistrate have a negative voice in Excommunication none of ours teach 2. We make no such division as that of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Church Erastus may dream of such a distinction We know all Government of the Church as the Church to us is Ecclesiasticall There is a Government of men of the Church that is Civill but we dreamed never of a Civill Government of the Church All the Government of the Church as the Church though externall is Spirituall Heavenly and subordinate to Jesus Christ as Lord and King of his own house as the Government of a house a Kingdom an Army a City is subordinate to the Lord of the house to the King Generall Commander and Lord Mayor and it is no more a Civill Government subordinate to the Magistrate and his Sword then Christs Kingdom visible and externall or invisible and internall is of this world When therefore Erastus denyeth that there is any Church-Government he meaneth there is no Spirituall Church Government in the hands of Presbyters but because we know no Government of the Church as the Church but it is Spirituall and the Government of the Church by the Christian Magistrate is a Civill Government of men as men and that by the power of the Sword and so it is no Church-Government at all and therefore we justly say that Erastus denyeth all Church-Government Erastus When Paul saith Act. 23. Thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Doth he not acknowledge the High Priest to be his Judge Paul denieth that he had done any thing contrary to the Law And Tertullus saith We would have judged him according to our Law if Lysias had not without Law violently taken him from us Ans Ananias was to judge him only in an Ecclesiasticall way and when Paul saw that they went beyond their line to take his life he appealed from their inferior judicature to Caesar who only had power of his life 2. Lysias had Law to vindicate an innocent man accused on his life before a most uncompetent judicature Tertullus knew the Iews had favour and connivence in many Lawlesse Facts CHAP. XVIII Quest 14. Whether Erastus do strongly confute the Presbytery of the New Testament BEza saith there vvas need of same select men in the Apostles time to lay hands on Ministers to appoint Deacons for there vvas no Jevvish Synedrie no Magistrate to do it and vvhen Paul forbiddeth Christians for things of this life to implead other before the heathen Magistrate would he send them in spirituall businesse to such or must that Tell the Church have no use for a hundreth years after Christ So Beza yea if the Lord ascending to heaven left Officers for the building and Governing his Church Eph. 4. 11. and some to be over the people in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. 13. some to watch for their souls whom they were to obey some to feed the flock and to drive away the wolves Act. 20. 28 29 30. some to Govern the house of God no lesse then their owne house 1 Tim. 3. 4. a Presbytery in generall Erastus cannot deny only he denieth such a Presbytery and saith that it is like this such a one is a living creature Ergo such an one is a dog But if I can demonstrate there is a Presbytery and they were not all Bishops as is clear Rom. 12. 89. 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and if Tell the Church by no Grammer can be Tell the Bishop except you make the Queen the Bride and the servant or friend of the Bridegroome all one It must follow there is both a Presbytery and such a Presbytery in the Church nor do we argue from a generall to specials Erastus The Church may not kill men but she may pray that God would destroy them or convert her enemies Ans To pray that God would destroy him whom we are to admonish as a brother is a strange discipline Erastus will never make good from Scripture that God hath appointed praying for the destruction of men to be a saving ordinance appointed of Christ for gaining of souls such as we take rebuking admonishing excommunication eschewing the company of scandalous brethren which have for their intrinsecall end the repentance of a brother under these censures and therefore this of Erastus his killing of men is a new forged censure Erastus Whereever the Scripture speaketh in the New Testament of a Presbytery there is no other understood but that of preachers therefore it is false that the Apostles have commanded any other Elders beside those that labour in the word Ans The antecedent is false 1 Tim. 5. 17. as I have demonstrate in another place I repeat it not here let any disciple of Erastus answer if he can 2. The consequence is vaine for if in every place of the New Testament where mention is made of an Elder the Holy Ghost mean only a Preaching Elder it followeth only that any other officers as Deacons and those that labour not in the Word yet Govern well are not called with the name of Presbyters And so the Argument is against the name not against the office and thing What if the Presbytery be named from the most principall part as is ordinary in Scripture doth it follow that there be none members of the Presbytery but only Preachers of the Word In no sort Paul saith of the visible Church of Corinth Ye are bought with a price ye are justified ye are sanctified Ergo none were members of the visible Church but those that are redeemed justified and sanctified it is like the consequence of Erastus 3. I retort this vaine argument thus none in Scripture have the name of Apostles But the Eleven and Mathias none are called the witnesses of the Lord but they 1 Ioh. 1. 1 2. Ergo there be no preaching Ministers neither Timothy Titus Epaphroditus that are to be called witnesses of the Lord but the twelve Apostles so where doth Erastus finde that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deaconrie or office of labour in the Ministery is given to any but to those that labour in the word Rom. 11. 13. Ergo must there be no deaconry but labouring in the word the plaine contrary is Act. 6. Erastus Beside Levites and Priests there belonged to the Synedry of the Iews other heads of families Ergo beside Ministers there must be Prophets and Doctors in the Presbytery it followeth not Ans Erastus fancies a conclusion of an Argument that Beza saith not for he
saith Ergo beside Ministers there must be some chiefe men which we call ruling Elders to represent the people that there may be as all our Divines and Scripture teach a threefold government in the Church A Monarchy in regard of Iesus Christ the onely head and King of the Church as the Iewish Church had their High Priest a Type of him and Aristocracy in Pastors and Teachers as the Iewes had their Priests and Levites and a Democracy in the ruling Elders as the Iewes had their Zekenim and their Heads of families and Elders in the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim and we in the Presbytery to represent the people and of these three the Iewish Ecclesiastick Sanedrim is made up 2 Chron. 19. 8. of the Levites and the priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the heads of Fathers or Masters of families Now Erastus yeeldeth that good Iehoshaphat departed not from Gods institution in his reformation all this Erastus passeth over in silence being ignorant of the Iewish Church government and not able to answer and he addeth something of Doctors not to a purpose and saith there be no Doctors but Pastors onely in the Word contrary to Rom. 12 7 8. Ephes 4. 11. where they are clearly distinguished Erastus Some chosen men must be in the Presbytery to represent the people Ergo these must be Doctors and Prophets but there is no need of that for Bishops of old represented the whole Church Ans Beza hath not any such argument he contendeth for Ruling Elders not for Prophets and Doctors to represent the people 2. Where doth the Scripture speake of such an office as a Bishop having Majority of power above Presbyters for since Erastus denieth all Ecclesiasticall Government in Teachers he must deny all Majority of Ecclesiasticall Governement also he that denieth the positive denieth also the comparative degree now this is a Bishop that neither Scripture nay nor popish Antiquity dreamed of 3. In what is a Bishop the representative Church The like is Erastus his third Argument Erastus 1 Cor. 12. How is Government a Presbytery how are Overseers governments Doctors Prophets There be many kinds of Governours I wonder that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Miracles you understand not the power of Excommunication that hath terrified all the World how are Doctors Prophets added to Pastors are they not teachers as well as Pastors but that they administer not the Sacraments how doe you prove that how prove you Overseers to be â—ther then Ministers Ans Governements to us are but a part of the Presbyterie 2. There be many kinds of Governours but he durst not venture to shew what is signified by governments lest he should say his Magistrate must be the onely Church Governour but he knoweth that a Magistrate as a Magistrate is no member nor part of the Church but as he is a Christian for then Cesar Herod Pontius Pilate as Magistrates must be set in the body of Christ as Apostles and Teachers and Prophets which all the World will cry shame on 3. Beza said never that Teachers and prophets are cast to Ministers to make a Presbyterie for by Teachers he meaneth Pastors 4. Because Paul setteth downe Governments different from Apostles Prophets and Teachers they must be some Officers different from them we can finde none else but such as rule well and yet labour not in the Word 1 Tim. 5. 17. let Erastus shew us what they are he dares not open his minde for he meaneth a Justice of Peace or a King or a heathen judge must be in the wombe of this 1 Cor. 12. 28. let himselfe be mid-wife Erastus answering to 1 Tim. 5. 17. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to labour is to labour diligently the meaning is like this I wish well to all Pastors but especially to those who with great industrie fidelity and paines feed the flocke committed to them as I love all inclined to studie but especially such as watch night and day upon studies for some are more diligent in teaching then others here 's no Tautologie to say I love all that sincerely and soundly teach the Word especially those that diligently teach it Ans I cannot particularly discusse this place I have done it else where fully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with two Articles noteth two species of Elders as Tit. 1. 11. 1 Tim. 5. 8. Gal. 6. 10. Phil. 4. 22. 2. This is a Tautologie I love all well governing and faithfull Elders especially those that labour in the word they may be well and painful feeding Pastors who are not painfull in preaching the Word and this is Tautologie I love all that are studious and studie excellently and especially those that studie night and day as Erastus must say if he make the phrase agree to the purpose to feed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well in a feeding Pastor includeth labouring in the Word since Erastus expoundeth the place 1 Tim. 5. 17. of Church officers he cannot deny but the place holdeth forth a Government and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church Officers for beside labouring in the Word and doctrine which is preaching here is well governing it is a shame then to Erastus to expound this place so and yet deny all Church Government except in the hands of the Magistrate Erastus Ancient and moderne Doctors deny two sorts of Elders Ans I have made the contrary appear in the place cited I will not weary the Reader with reasons set downe at full in another place Erastus Shew where the Church hath a judicature to punish sins different from the Magistrates judicature as the Lord made a power of burning incense to the Lord to be different from the Kings royall power Ans Mat. 18. Mat. 16. Ioh. 20. Mat. 28. 19 20. Eph. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 c. Rev. 2. 1 2. and 20. 21. Ministers are no lesse separated under the New Testament to all ministeriall acts of feeding by the word and rod of Discipline then Priests were of Old Erastus Nathan did not Excommunicate David Ans Nathan had assurance from God that his sin was pardoned 2. That the Sanedrim did not cast David out is a fact and proveth not they had no power for 80. Priests cast Vzziah out of the house of God for a lesse fault that carried in its face lesse scandall Erastus The Prophets never accuse the Priests that they admitted the unclean to the sacrifices and holy things of God Ans The contrary is evident Ier. 5. 31. Ezek. 22. 25 26. and 44. 8 9 10. contrary to their Office Deut. 17. 11 12. Levit. 10. 10. Erastus David Psal 51. sheweth he would have given Sacrifices but God craved a broken heart Ergo he had power to sacrifice Ans Not except withall he had offered a contrite heart to God Paul saith Erastus speaketh of coming to them with the rod of delivering to Satan of his comming with the authority God had given him of his
coming to them mourning Ans Where saith Paul that he his alone did use the rod doth he not ascribe judging and casting out to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 5. 12. c and forgiving of the incestuous man 2 Cor. 2. to them Beza saith this power is necessary to purge the Church lest it be infected even to the end of the world and therefore must be left with the Church Erastus To be gathered in the Name of the Lord is not referred to the congregations meeting together but to Pauls act of delivering to Satan the Corinthians and Pauls Spirit instructed thus with the power of Christ might have delivered others to Satan as they did this man if the Apostle had not pardoned them but they had not Pauls spirit with them in their convention afterward because in no place he biddeth them be gathered together with his Spirit as he doth here Ans Paul doth construe the words v. 4. in the Name of Christ with the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye being conveened and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are separated from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged by the interposition of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Erastus his grammar will be a little confused 2. What needed the Corinthians be gathered together with the Spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus to pray that the man might be miraculously killed for when they were not gathered together in a Church meeting but were all separatim in their own houses and closets they had power to judge the man that is to pray that he might be miraculously killed else Erastus cannot make Paul in any reasonable manner to rebuke them because they prayed not that he might be killed for Erastus must suppose the power of praying for this in faith was tyed to this publike convention of the Church and Erastus saith in no place he biddeth them be gathered together as here This Spirit of Paul and power of the Lord Jesus that was in them was not given to elevate them to any higher or more supernaturall acts of miraculous co-operating with Paul then their naked act of consenting that the man should be cut off and this act of consenting they could not want in their private praying at home that the man be miraculously killed and so this spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Iesus shall be brought so low as I know not what to make of it Erastus If they had prayed that God would punish this enormous sinne whether God had heard them or not they had discharged their dutie Ans But it is evident he rebuketh them not onely for not mourning for the mans fall and not praying that he might be punished but for that they conveened not and did not judge and put away the man Ergo they had alwayes an ordinary power to judge and cast out scandalous persons and Paul rebuketh them for not improving this power then it was not any miraculous power not ordinarily in their hand as powers of that kinde are supposed to be Erastus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the meaning may be note such a one in an Epistle and write to me that I may censure him Ans This is throwne Grammar which the Greek doth not bear without violence for Paul saith If he obey not our doctrine written by Epistle marke such a one and he commandeth them to inflict a censure on him by eschewing his company CHAP. XIX Quest 15. Of the use of Excommunication toward the Magistrate especially Erastus How many thousands of men have been killed by occasion of Excommunication in Germany it hath subjected Kings and Scriptures and all to the Pope Ans All this may be said of the Gospell and of Christ that hee is appointed for the fall and ruine of many and that he came not to give Peace but the Sword 1 Pet. 2. 8. Luke 2. 34. Mat. 10. 34 35. But the cause is not in the Gospell or in Christ but in mens corrupt nature Excommunication is the Rod of the King out of Zion and we know how impatient men are of the yoke of Christ Excommunication abused by the Pope doth all this Erastus Excommunication cureth not wounded consciences but begetteth Hypocrites Ans So publike rebuking of those that sin publikely 1 Tim. 5. 20. being abused doth beget Hypocrites Esa 57. 1 2 3. Ezek. 31 32 33. 1 King 21. 27. 28 29. so doth the Rod the Word the giving of almes praying being abused to wicked ends make hypocrites Mat. 23. 14 25. Mat. 6. 1 2 3 4. Psal 78. v. 34 35 36. Hos 7. 14. Excommunication is innocent of all these Erastus I thinke it not amisse that the Magistrate chuse godly and prudent men and joyne to them godly Ministers who in place of the Magistrate may inquire in the life and manners of men and convene before them loose livers and rebuke them and if need be deferre them to the Magistrate But this is unjust that such a Senate be chosen by the Church which hath no power to chuse them 2. That they are not chosen in the Name of the Magistrate but against his will 3. That they subject the Magistrate to them Ans Erastus is willing there be a Presbytery 1. Of mixed men prudent men and godly Pastors 2. Chosen by the Magistrate 3. That they judge and rebuke Murtherers Extortioners Oppressors Thieves c. But 1. he should give us Scripture for this his new Presbytery He condemneth ours because it wanteth as he saith the Authority and the like of his Presbytery in the Old or New Testament you finde not 2. That Ministers should judge of bloods thefts treasons paricides for all these are loose livers and of goods and inheritances and give an account to the Civill Magistrate is all one as if the Ministers of the Gospel should be Iudges as the Lords of the Gentiles such as Pilate Foelix and the rest so they do it at the Command of the Supream Magistrate then the King may warrant Ministers to go against the Command and practise of Christ Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and 12 13 c. 2 Tim. 2. 4. For this is a Civill Judicature 3. Then the Ministers rebuking in the name of the Civill Magistrate may make him to Preach exhort in the name of the Civil Magistrate So Ministers are they to hear the word at the Magistrates mouth I thought Ministers had been the Ambassadors of an higher King Ezech. 2. 7 8. and 3. 3. Speak with my words to them Rom. 1. 1. 2 Cor. 5. 20. 4. If the Ministers rebuke as Ambassadors of Christ Those to whom they Preach the word of reconciliation those they are to rebuke with Authority and all hearers are subject to them Magistrates or others high or low This is clear by 2 Cor. 5. 19. 20 c. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. For rebuking
the sinnes of wicked Magistrates in heaven is this good Thoma no Ecclesiasticall coaction no jurisdiction and this is to receive the distinction whether you will or not 2. The rejecting of this distinction is a tenet of Royalists for certainly we use no defensive armes against the King as King but as he is a misled man and I think the King will say he useth not offensive armes against the Parliament as the Parliament but under another very undeserved notion as Rebels 3. It is lesse that we may not rail on rulers which is a sinne for to rail upon any cursing-wise is unlawfull then that we cannot punish the ruler which is more To punish the ruler as a sinfull and wicked man is a work of justice and so lesse unlawfull then sin Erastus taketh for confessed as his custome is that which we deny that to punish rulers with an Ecclesiastick censure is a sin as to rail on them and curse them is a greater sin But to binde the rulers sinnes in heaven is a punishment and this the Elders may lawfully do and to eschew the company of a ruler if he be a fornicator an extortioner and idolater is either to punish him or put shame upon him 2 Thes 3. 14. But one private Christian farre more a Church may do that Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 2 Thes 3. 14. except Erastus except the Magistrate from being under a Divine and Apostolick command this he must say and so we have the Apostles meaning withdraw from those that cause divisions and walk unordinately and are fornicators coveteous extortioners least they infect you and that they may be ashamed and repent except they be Magistrates though in the lowest rank if they be Magistrates they are gods and you their subjects and you may in no sort shame them I should think God both accepted persons and would not have us to indeavour the repentance and gaining of the souls of Magistrates because they are above Gospel-rules by this way of Erastus and because the Presbytery may not rail on Magistrates for that is sinne it followeth not the Presbytery may inflict no Ecclesiasticall censure on them Yea let me retort this The Magistrate may not rail on or curse and revile the Priests So Paul expoundeth it Act. 23. 5. against reviling of Priests nor may the Magistrate revile or curse any subject for I conceive reviling to be sinne Mat. 5. 11. and 27. 39. Joh. 9. 28. 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. 1 Cor. 6. 10. Isai 51. 7. Zepha 2. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 9. Jude 9. and the Magistrate is under the Moral Law Hence I inferre by Erastus his reasoning that the Magistrate may not punish Priests Prophets Pastors or any subject though they most hainously trespasse against all Lawes which is absurd 3. That the Magistrate is made a servant not a Magistrate if the Elders may use the rod of Christ against him is a vaine consequence Paul preached himself a servant in a spirituall Ministery to all the Christians in Corinth 2 Cor. 4. 5. and all Elders are thus servants to Magistrates and flock Yet Erastus knoweth that Paul had a rod of miraculous killing the disobedient as Erastus expoundeth 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye shall I come unto you with a rod or in love Suppose there had been a Christian Magistrate at Corinth that should fall in incest as one did 1 Cor. 5. 1. Paul could not come to him with the rod or suppose the Roman Emperour had been a Christian and within the Church and should have his Fathers wife Paul could use no rod against him and should he not have in readinesse revenge against all disobedience 2 Cor. 10 6. and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given him by the Lord for edification v. 8. against all offenders within the Christian Church in regard that Christ is head and King of the Church but he should have neither rod nor revenge in readinesse against the disobedience of the Emperour why is not the rod of Paul the rod of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. yea certainly is not then the Christian Emperour the subject of Christs Kingdome and subject to the King Christ and his rod No but saith Erastus Paul Is the Emperour subject to thee and if Paul should have a rod to punish the Emperour then the Apostle could not be the Emperours subject nor obey him as a God on earth for saith Erastus no subject may punish the Magistrate This is downe right to make God an accepter of persons nor can Erastus deny but sharp rebuking was a punishment Tit. 1. Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the â—aith And this the Apostle urgeth all Ministers and watchmen to do not being afraid of the faces of Kings Iere. 1. 17 18. Joh. 2. 1 2 3 4. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. Erastus teacheth Magistrates to break Christs bounds and to say we will not have this man to reigne over us he needed not employ a wicked pen for this they need no teacher vitia discuntur sine Magistro Erastus Some of yours say there is need of the Magistrates consent to Excommunication but certainly he will never consent to be Excommunicated himself Theodosius was not willing nor will good Magistrates consent when they see the danger on themselves you would not bring in again the Church-penances of the ancients Ans 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate is necessary to Excommunication Because he is obliged to joyne his sanction and authority to all Christs Ordinances but we think not the privative or negative consent is required so as no mans sinnes should be bound in heaven except the Magistrate say Amen 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in forme and you shall see their weaknesse as thus He whose consent is required to Excommunication cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe because no man will consent not Theodosius nor the godliest man that he be punished himselfe But the Magistrates consent say the Presbyterians is to be had to Excommunication Ergo the Magistrate cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe Ans I retort it he whose consent is required for threatning wrath â—o and rebuking of offenders and scandalous men he is not to be threatned with wrath and rebuked for his own offences and scandals because no man no Theodosius no godly Magistrate when he seeth the present danger will consent that he be threatned with the wrath of God and rebuked himselfe We know Nathan was afraid to rebuke a Magistrate according to Gods heart but in the third Person But Erastians teach that the Magistrate when he scandalously offends should be threatned and rebuked Ergo the Magistrates consent is not requisite to threatnings and rebukings of Pastors But the conclusion is against Erastus for the Pastors preach and rebuke and threaten as the deputies and servants of the Magistrate and as sent by him and the Magistrate preacheth rebuketh threatneth all offenders and
and not Sacrifice or I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order and way But where saith God I will have sacrificing rather then sacrificing with bloody hands so as both sacrificing and sacrificing with bloody hands shall be lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order for Sacrificing with bloodie hands was never lawfull never acceptable to God in any order Nor said God ever he would chuse the coming of those to his Sanctuary who the same day they came in had slaughtered their sonnes to Molech God alwaies hated it and never chose it if at the same time both mercy and sacrifice cannot be as David starving cannot both abstaine from eating shew-bread as the Law in its letter required and shew mercie to his life and the life of his followers and eate yea he is to eate and the Priests knowing his case doe give him the Shewbread to eat forbid abstinence as they would forbid selfe-murthering and selfstarving so here where at one time eating at the Lords Table and reconciliation with the widow and fatherlesse cannot be co-existent together at one time and place an exigence of divine providence forbidding both the bloodie man is to debarre himselfe from the Lords Supper it being as sacrificing and lesse necessary if we speake comparatively and the Elders are not to give those holy things to the bloodie man while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to the widow and Orphane which now comparing the one with the other is mercy whereas eating and drinking at the Lords Supper is but Sacrifice but it should be as sacrificing with bloodie hands which God condemneth and forbiddeth and the Priests and Elders knowing it to be such a sinne ought to forbid and to hinder it Hence as this I will have mercy and not sacrifice hath this sense I will have you to omit Sacrifice when it cannot be done without neglect of mercie vvhich is more acceptable to me then all Sacrifices so I vvill have reconciliation to the offended widdow and Orphanes and not coming to the Lords Supper vvithout the former for the former is more acceptable to me and should be to you and the Elders in your practice then the latter and therefore the comparison of eating and eating undecently halteth for eating undecently before another which would procure deadly sicknesse to your brother ought to be forbidden by the Ruler it being known to be so and ought to be abstained from hic nunc as a sinne and a hurting of your brothers health and yet the Ruler cannot forbid totall abstinence from meat to him that eateth undecently as the Elders cannot command totall abstinence from the Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes and in all cases 2. We draw no conclusion of erecting a Presbytery from those places but those two we draw Ergo 1. It is a sin to the people themselves to sacrifice with bloodie hands because God condemneth such a manner of sacrificing 2. Ergo they are to be debarred by some who hath the charge of the holy things of God but from the Antecedent we neither inferre Ergo Presbyters nor Ergo the people nor Ergo the Prince should debarre them 3. Calling on God is not to be forbidden nor giving of almes because they are abused but the manner of the abusing those ordinances are forbidden by God and may be hindred by the Church and forbidden under the pain of Excommunication The Church cannot forbid men of totall abstinence from the Lords Supper but they can command him that is not reconciled to his brother and visibly under the guilt of blood to leave the Table as Christ Mat. 5. 23. commandeth the unreconciled man to leave his gift at the Altar and goe first be reconciled with his brother and then at the next occasion come to the Lords Supper so the Church of the Iewes could not forbid the Pharisees to pray but they could passe such an act as is Act. 15. 22. We forbid Pharisees or any other to bring their private prayers to the Markets and streets and when they are to give almes we forbid them with sound of Trumpet to make proclamation to all men that they are the onely holy and charitable men in the earth Nor doe we thinke that the Church can debarre men from the Sacraments for inward and and invisible unworthinesse but onely for visible and professed uncleannesse and Levit. 9. 13. it is clear the man that is uncleane is forbidden to keepe the Passeover Will Erastus say O he is not forbidden to eate the Passeover but onely he is forbidden to eat it tali modo being unclean and therefore it is not the Priests sinne if he should give the Passeover to the uncleane man and forbid him to eate tali modo in his uncleannesse see Erastus himselfe against this lib. 1. c. 3. page 103. 104. where he confesseth that the unclean are debarred and yet uncleannes in the eaters of the Passeover was an abuse onely and made not eating of the Passeover unlawfull in it self So the Lord complaineth Ezek. 23. 38. Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths 39. For when they had slaine their children to their Idols then they came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same very day into my Sanctuary to prophane it and loe this they have done in the midst of my house Will Erastus now say It was Ceremoniall uncleannes not Morall to kill their seed to Molech and that Morall uncleannesse and bloodie murthering of their seed in the same day when a person is to come to the Lords supper known to be such a Murtherer to the Elders who have power to judge the scandalous and to cast him out 1 Cor. 5. did not sinne if they should be instrumentall to lead Murtherers into the Temple and say to them Take yee eate yee this is the body of the Lord that is broken for you Erastus answereth The Prophet Ezek. 23. accuseth not the Priests or Elders that they debarred not those Murtherers from the Temple and Sacraments if there had been any precept for this some footstep should have appeared in Gods rebuking of them Ans The Lord doth not particularly reprove the Priests by name in every place in which he reproveth the people But expresly for this same very sinne the Lord reproveth the Priests Ezek. 44. 7. Let it suffice you that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it 8 And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for your selves 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement he had spoken of their teaching the people to discerne between the clean and the unclean v. 23. and they shall judge it according to
man to be a Priest we can say something but that all the lame in Israel were debarred from the Temple and the holy things of God we dare not say and a difference of things and men we acknowledge but that is nothing to weaken the argument 6. How proveth Erastus the tares are not to be plucked up by men Mat. 13. will bear no such thing ill men are to be cast out of the Church before the day of judgement both by the Magistrate and miraculously by the Apostles and by Excommunication say we Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Erastus He that possesseth the price of the whore is not to be debarred out of the Temple though the money could not be offered to God The Pharisees would not have the price of blood cast in the treasure of the Temple yet they cast not Judas out of the Temple which these patrons of Ceremonies would have done if there had been any Law for it Ans This is to beg the question the whore who sold her body for a price was unclean and more unclean then the innocent money and so in that case excluded from the holy things of God 2. They admitted doves oxen and money changers into the Temple and prophaned it and why should they cast Judas out of the Temple will their practises prove any thing they used all divine ceremonies and Lawes of God to their owne carnall ends Erastus Heathens vvere not admitted into the Temple But a scandalous man is a heathen Ezech. 16. Your Father was an Ammorite also if thou be a transgressour of the Law thy circumcision is become uncircumcision Rom. 2. he is vvorse then an Infidell 1 Tim. 5. Erastus ansvvereth but if vve look to Gods estimation vvicked brethren are vvorse then pagans But if vve consider the externall face of the Church there be many things in vvicked men that agreeth not to heathen vvicked circumcised men might go in to the Temple Gentiles might not so the assumption is most false 2. A circumcised man and a Baptisedman can never turn non-circumcised or non baptised Ans I say nothing to the cursing and blessing Deut. 27. Nor do I owne that Argument it is not ours 2. Those which are so our argument runneth as Heathens and Publicans as Pagans Ammorites whereas they were sometimes Brethren and Members of the Church are not to be admitted to the Sacraments nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church more then Heathen Ammorites Pagans are to be be admitted to the Sacraments and Members of the Church But wicked men amongst the Iewes and amongst us Christians who will not hear the Church and are fornicators idolaters railers drunkards and extortioners and walke inordinately and cause divisions contrary to the Gospell of our Lord Iesus are to be esteemed as Heathens Pagans Amorites and worse then Infidels therefore such amongst the Iewes were not admitted to the Temple and holy things of God and amongst us not to be admitted to the Sacraments nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church Erastus answereth not to this Argument either Major or Assumption but propoundeth an Argument of a namelesse Author as he knoweth best to answer and remove himself 2. Many things saith he agree to Pagans and Turks which agree not to scandalous Christians True scandalous Christians are not Amorites and Pagans simpliciter they differ in profession the one being baptized not the other and once being baptized they can never be unbaptized but that is not our Argument but they agree in this that they are no more really Christians being fornicators railers drunkards extortioners c. then Pagans but have the onely name and title of such and are to be esteemed so by us and are to us quoad hoc in regard of Church priviledges as heathens and publicans and so the Lord of old termed his Apostate people Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. and as the children of the Ethiopians and Philistines Amos 9. 7. and as uncleane and uncapable in a Church way of the Passeover and now of the Lords Supper to us as Ethiopians Sodomites of old and this day Turks and Pagans are to us 3. That the wicked that were circumcised might go into the Temple amongst the Iews de facto they might but de jure by Law they might not Ier. 7. 9. Ezek. 23. 39. Esa 66. 3. no more then by Law they might prophane the holy Name of God or kill a man or sacrifice a dog to God or offer swines blood or blesse an Idoll The argument from sanctifying the Sabbath I passe it hath no sense nor reason as Erastus propoundeth it Erastus Christ Mat. 5. commandeth him who is to offer a gift to leave his gift at the Altar and first to be reconciled to his brother Ergo he will have us not to use the Sacraments while we be first reconciled to our Brother But so saith Erastus we should not pray to God nor seeke forgivenesse of sinnes while we first forgive those that have wronged us Christ doth not here speake of the externall governing of his Church but of the perfection of a Christian man else wee could doe nothing that is good and just and we were all to be Excommunicated he saith not if the Presbyters shall command leave thy gift but if thou shalt call to minde thy selfe he speaketh not of a prohibition of others discharging an instituted vvorship but of that which a mans owne minde doth enjoyne him you may as easily prove the Papists Masse from this as Excommunication Ans Surely this is to me convincing if I be discharged by the Holy Ghost to meddle with the holy things of God or offering a gift to God at his Altar while I first be reconciled to my brother then those who have by office power to steward those holy things in wisedome and fidelity putting a difference betweene the precious and the vile knowing that I am at wrath wiâ—h my brother and having convinced me before two or three Witnesses that I have highly trespassed against my brother are to deny to Steward or dispense any such holy thing to me while I be first reconciled to my brother and the like I say of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 2. To Erastus his Argument I answer it is not alike here as in praying for praying is so absolutely necessary that it obligeth by a command of God even a Simon Magus to pray while he is in the gall of bitternesse that the thoughts of his heart may be forgiveâ— Act. 8. 22. But Erastus as if he had set himselfe to contradict Christ would insinuate as much as Christ were not to be obeyed for his Exposition holdeth forth this sense When thou bringest thy gift unto the Altar and remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee leave not thy gift depart not goe not about to be reconciled to thy Brother but first offer thy gift But Simon Magus though he should remember that he was in the gall of bitternesse
perfect in the one as in the other 5. The great error is here that Erastus being sleeping when he wrote thinketh that to eat and drinke unworthily to offer a gift at the Altar the offerer being unreconciled to his brother is an action internall and known to God and that can no more be known to man then the thoughts of the heart A palpable untruth is not worshipping of Baalim murthering stealing whoring killing the Children to Molâ—ch and coming to stand in the Temple of the Lord which are called a prophaning of Gods holy name Ier. 7. 9 10 11. Ezek. 23. 38 39. are not these actions visible externall and as feazable to be judged by man as murther may be judged by a Magistrate Yea by this let a Pagan come to the table of the Lord we are not to hinder him why it is an internall action knowne citra errorem to God only and we cannot then judge whither he have examined himself or not if he be not against us here he is with us saith Erastus Quod deus facere jussit ab eo revocari aut retrahi nullus ab hominibus debet si modo externe sic fiat ut precepit deus Yea so the Magistrate cannot hinder either Pagan or the open enemy and persecutor who will trample upon the Sacrament from the Sacraments the contrary whereof Erastus said pag. 207. hunc ego minime admittendum censeo and let Erastus give us Scripture either expresse or by consequence where a Pagan or a persecutor may be impeded by Church or Magistrate from externall receiving of the seals except that we are not to give pearls to swine But was it not as hard to judge whether Saul persecuting the Church out of blind zeal was a swine or a dogge as to judge whether he that killeth his sonne to Molech out of blind devotion and cometh the same day to the Temple of the Lord doth prophane the Name of the Lord 6. If we must do nothing in externalls without the expresse commandement of God nor may we without Gods command either expresse or a necessary consequence admit dogs and swine to the Lords table 7. Paul indeed rejoyced that Christ was preached though out of envy Phil. 1. but by men called and gifted of God to preach and therefore ought not to be forbidden to preach while the Church for their scandalous life do cast them out say they are called Ministers once the Church is not to cast them out for this or that particular sinne if they be not contumatious and Paul saith he Rejoyceth that Christ was preached but he saith not he rejoyced that they preached Christ tali modo out of contention thinking to add affliction to his bonds Yet God forbiddeth the externall act of preaching in those that hateth to be reformed Psal 50. 16 17. and forbiddeth the Church to lay hands on or to call to the Ministery wicked men that hateth to be reformed or to keep them in the Ministery and this hindreth not but Paul might rejoyce at the consequent of their Ministery to wit at the preaching of the Gospel so long as they remained in the Ministery as we may rejoyce in that Christ was crucified for sinners and not allow that Herod and Pilate did with wicked hands crucifie the Lord of Glory nor yet are we to rejoyce in their sinne But all this hindreth not but he that is at wrath with his brother and knowne to be so by the Priests should be hindred to offer his gift while he be reconciled to him 8. We are not to hinder acts of externall worship as praying praising preaching nor can the Church forbid them except where God by his Commandement require that we do them wiâ—h a speciall visible qualification and order As first be reconciled to your brother first examine your selfe and then ofâ—er your gift and come and eat and drinke at the Lords table and in Negatives Come to my Temple but come not that very day you killed your sonnes to Molech while ye repent and be humbled for that sinne Erastus The godly Kings compelled the people to observe the rites ordained of God at least externally and 2 Chron. 15. killed those that sought not the Lord then they sinne who punish sinnes by debarring men from the Sacrament for beside that they forbid a thing commanded of God and as it falleth under mens judgement that is as it is externall and good so they cast their sickle in another mans field because the correcting of sinnes in so farre as they are externall belongeth to the Magistrate and in so farre as they come from a depraved will they belong to God onely Ans Here is one palpable error that all externall scandals are punished either by the Magistrate as the Magistrate so he must be understood else he saith nothing or by God onely contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. For we give a third they are punished by the Church but only in a Ministeriall way It is false that the godly Kings could compell the unclean Jewes though circumcised to come to the Temple or the murtherers of their Children that same day to come with bloody hands to the Temple Yet the very locall and personall presence of a Iew in the Temple and the very posture of his body in looking with his face toward the Temple while he prayed was an externall lawfull Ordinance of God They could not then lawfully compell the Iews to these rites except with such and such previous qualifications they could not compell the Priests unwashed and having drunk wine to go to the Sanctuary 2 Chro. 15. It is not said they were to be put to death that should omit any Ceremony though every Religious observance be a seeking of God but they that would not seek God by entring in Covenant to renounce idols and serve the Lord or should prove apostates from the sworne Covenant were to be put to death 3. If that be a punishment we contend for things not for names which is a privation of good inflicted for a sinne then let Erastus sâ—e if the Priests punish not who debarred men from the holy things of God by Erastus his grant for Ceremoniall omissions against a Law of God And if the Priests should not suffer an unreconciled man to offer gifts and if the Church should deny pearls to apostates if this be not punishment and if the Magistrate be to cast out or inflict Ecclesiasticall censures shall he not punish in so doing Erastus To be cast out of the Synogogue is not to be Excommunicated For the Synagogue signified sometime all Iudea sometime a particular Congregation or the place of meeting or the sermon By no Law could a circumcised Iew be cast out of all Iudea and sent to the Gentitles or be compelled to say they were not Iews Yea they were killed who denyed Iudaisme 2 Maccabees so the cast out of the Synagogue were not debarred from the Temple
The Church of the Iews was tyed to one certaine place but every particular Church hath alike power To be cast out of the Synagogue then with the Iews must be another thing then to be Excommunicated now for he that is cast out of one particular Church is cast out of the whole Catholick Church But it was not so in Iudea for Sacrifices and Sacraments except circumcision and expiation were only at Ierusalem not in Synagogues how then could they deny Sacraments which they wanted themselves they could not deny what was not in their power to give Moses was read in their Synagogues every Sabbath No man could be forbidden to heare the word read this had been against a manifest precept It is like they admitted heathens to the Synagogue Act. 13. 14. c. 12. c. 18. But it was not lawfull for heathen to enter into the Temple And when Moses commanded all the clean to go to Ierusalem no Synagogue could forbid them to go Ans That the Synod might have divers significations I deny not but that to be cast out of the Synagogue had divers significations we deny Yea it signified no other thing but to be cast out of the Church and the Lord Iesus speaketh of it and the Evangelists as of a standing censure in the Jewish Church which the spirit of God condemneth no where except when it was abused Ioh. 9. 22. Ioh. 12. 42. Ioh. 16. 2. Luk. 6. 22. Ioh. 9. 35. so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nadah to Excommunicate as an unclean thing Esay 66. 5. Your Brethren that cast you out Pagnin and Mercer expound it of casting out of the Synagogue and they cite Ioh. 9. and 12. and 16. to make it signifie Excommunication 2. That a circumcised Iew could by no Law be cast out of Iudea seemeth to say that banishment was not a lawfull punishment Surely David against all Law then did banish Absolon 2 Sam. 14. 13. and when the King of Persia Ezra 7. 25 26. commandeth Ezra to restore judicatures as at the beginning It would seem that banishment was an ancient punishment amongst the Iews Therefore Erastus craftily saith that no born Iews were so cast out of Iudea that they were compelled to say they were not Iews Surely we never dreamed of such an Excommunication that the excommunicated should be compelled to lie and say that though they were Iews and Christians yet they should say they were not Iews or Christians 2. When the people was in Egypt 2 Mac. they were killed who denyed themselves to be Iews and deservedly for they denied their Religion and their God What is this against Excommunication We plead not for such an Excommunication as was a locall extrusion of a person out of the land of Iudea nor for such a one wherey they denyed their Nation that was a sinfull lying But such whereby Church priviledges were denyed to some for scandals 3. Nor do we expound casting out of the Synagogue literally as Erastus doth to be a casting out of the Synagogue or from the Ordinances there and from hearing the word or the Law of Moses for the Synagogue is the Church and it was to be debarred from the Temple Passeover and other Holy things though these should be tyed to one certaine place to wit to the Temple and I doubt if the excommunicated be to be debarred from hearing the word 1. Because the excommunicated is to be admonished as a brother 2 Thes 3. 15. and the word preached is a mean simply necessary for the mans gaining 2. Because heathens were not excluded from hearing the word 1 Chron. 14 23. Act. 17. 16. 17 18 19 20. c. Act. 14. v. 15 16 17. But from the Temple and Sacraments they were excluded We have often answered that all the Morally unclean though they were ceremonially clean are not only not commanded to go up to Ierusalem that is to the Temple and holy things that they are rebuked and accused because they stood in the Lords Temple with their bloods and idolatries and other abominations in their skirts Ieremiah 7. verse 9. 10. Ezekiel 23. 38 39. Esay 1. verse 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Erastus They call Christ a Samaritan Ioh. 8. Those of Nazareth not onely cast him out of the Synagogue but out of the town and strove to throw him over the brow of a mountain Who dâ—ubts then but they cast Christ out of the Synagogue when they made a Law that if any should confesse him he should be cast out of the Synagogue Yet never man objected to Christ It is not lawfull to thee to go into the Temple for thou art cast out of the Synagogue Ergo to be cast out of the Synagogue was not to be excommunicated Ans All these are poor conjectures for Erastus granteth there was such a censure as casting out of the Synagogue But he sheweth not what it is But I retort this argument if Christ had been cast out of the Synagogue those that called him a Samaritane and cast out of their Synagogues such as confessed him would have sometime said it is not lawfull to thee to go into the Synagogues and teach for thou art cast out of the Synagogue But by the contrary Christ till the day of his death openly taught in the Synagogues Ioh. 18. 20. I spake openly to the world I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Iews alwayes resort Luke 4. 15. he taught in their Synagogues Luke 4. 16. as his custome was he went into the Synagogues Mat. 4. 23. Mark 1. 39. Mark 3. 1. Luk. 6. 6. Mat. 9. 35. Luke 13. 10. and therefore it is a demonstration to me that they never cast Christ out of the Synagogue what hindred them saith Erastus I answer Let him shew me what hindred them to stone him Ioh. 10. and not to put him to death till his houre came Erastus speaketh not like a divine who scoffeth at the secret Counsell of God For God had the sufferings of his owne sonne Christ in a speciall manner determined and weighed in number weight and measure And therefore though they made a Law that all that confesseth Christ should be cast out of the Synagogue and though those that sinned against the Holy Ghost Matt. 12. called him a Samaritane and out of a sudden passion those that wondred at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth would cast him over the brow of a Mountaine Yet I hold they never made any Law noâ— did execute any Law nor did cast out of their Sgnagogue or excommunicate the Lord Iesus I leave Erastus to his conjectures Erastus Act. 4. and 5. The Apostles were scourged and cast out by the high Synagogue summa Synagoga yet presently they teach in the Temple and use the Sacramenâ—s Act. 21. When Paul Act. 21. was to go to the Temple to sacrifice the Apostles who counselled him so to do do not object that he was excommunicated and so could not
Law of God so the seventy translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieronym intrabunt in Ecclesiam Domini Vatablus in Not. erint de consortio populi Sancti The English Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13. 1 2. the Law is that the Moabite and the Ammonite should not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever It is said v. 3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude so that cleare it is to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church then to be separated from the Congregation must be to be cast out of the Church and deprived of the holy things of God as heathens and strangers were according to that Levit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eate of the holy thing What is this but Excommunication call it with another name we care not it is really to be separated from the Church 7. It is admirable to me to heare Erastus say It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of persons will not receive into his Kingdome a Bastard an Ammonite a Moabite Is not this to reason against the Law of God and the wisedome of God Deut. 23. 1. 2 3. who saith that he will not receive such into his Church which is his Kingdome and a company of Kings and Priests unto God which he hath freely loved Exod. 19. 5 6. Psal 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. as â—oâ— the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdome according to Gods decree of eternall Reprobation I deny Excommunication to be any such rejection of men it being onely a casting them out from the visible Church and the speciall Church priviledges that their Spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord and what can be more contrary to the Word then that Erastus should say God declared not that it was his will that Moabites Ammonites should not be circumcised anâ— admitted to the Sacraments Why then did hee not chuse Moabites and Ammonites for his people and make a covenant with them and give Circumcision a Seale of the Covenant as he dealt with the Iewes if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments so they repent and turne to him but now Erastus fights with his owneshaddow Who denieth but Iewes and Gentiles so they call on him are welcome to all the holy things of God and not to be cast out of either Church or Synagogue 8. To say to cast out of the Synagogue is a meeker word then to Excommunicate is but to beg the question Yea but saith Erastus it is lesse and a milder thing then to destroy and pro deplorato habere to esteeme a person lost we say Excommunication is not to destroy or to give for lost but though it be the most violent yet it is a saving remedy that the man may be ashamed humbled and his Spirit saved 9. We reason not from the fact of Pharisees if they cast any out of the Synagogue for a just cause they ought also by Gods Law to debarre them from Temple and Sacraments and therefore if they did not debarre it was their sinne not our Rule CHAP. XXI Quest 17. Divers other Arguments vindicated as from Communion with the Church subjection of Magistrates and Ministers The Ceremonially unclean from Matth. 18. Tell the Church Erastus Christ hath given a power to his Church to loose Ergo also to binde The Church admitteth Believers into Communion Ergo they cast out the impenitent Erastus Answereth Such a power as they have to Ioose and to admit such and no other have they to binde and to cast out but it follovveth not Ergo it is a povver to debar from the Sacraments and to Excommunicate it is à Genere and Speciem affirmativè Ans Erastus is mistaken and formeth the Argument as he pleaseth The Church pardoneth as a Church and receiveth into her body believers to participate of Church-priviledges and Sacraments in a Church Communion Ergo the Church hath power to binde and cast out from this same Church-Communion those that leaveneth the whole lump as a City may admit a stranger to all the City priviledges Ergo the same City may for offences against the City cast out and deprive of City priviledges offenders is this a Genere ad speciem affirmativè If the Church have a power to cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from amongst them a Member we shall not contend for the name of Excommunication Erastus The Ministers have none by whom in their office they can be corrected But saith Erastus If every soul be subject to the higher powers how are Ministers excepted if Ministers correct Ministers they play to others hands spare thou the nails and I shall spare the teeth Ans The Author doth not except Ministers from civill subjection to Magistrates But only he saith In Ecclesiasticall censures the Magistrate is not to judge the Ministers because a Ministery being an Ecclesiasticall office as such it is not liable to the civill power only the Ministers as they erre and sin in their persons are liable to civill punishment but not to Ecclesiasticall to be inflicted by the Magistrate 2. Through the corruption of mens nature every one may wink at anothers faults It is true But consider if this slow from the nature of Gods Ordinance to wit that the Citizen obey the Laws of the City whereof he is a member This is an Argument against any Senate Parliament Counsell of State or War or Aristocracy on earth if of an hundreth Lords of the States Generall one or ten play the Traytor to the State who shall take order with them Their Collegues and fellow-Senators Partiall judging falls out here through mens corruption spare thou the nails and I le spare the teeth and from Erastus his way if you Argue from mens corruption the same will follow May not the Magistrate say to the Minister Honour me before the people and Preach not against the sins of King and Court and I will oversee and wink at thy Pluralities non-residencies soul-murthers And may not the Minister say to the Magistrate Let me be above all Civill Laws and be Lord Prelat and sit on the necks of my Brethren and defraud oppresse and I shall be silent and preach nothing against the idolatry oppressions Sodomy uncleannesse of Magistrate and court Erastus The Ceremonially unclean were excluded from the Sacraments Ergo far more the Morally unclean But how saith he doth this follow You Excommunicate none but the obstinate for those that were Ceremonially unclean against their will were excluded from the holy things Ergo far more he that is Morally unclean is to be debarred though he be not obstinate How could Paul Excommunicate the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. he was never admonished or Peter Excommunicate Annanias as you say Ans All Types or comparisons hold only in that for which the spirit of God doth bring them Now the Ceremonially unclean were debarred from
Christ spake many things to them that they bothforgot knew not till the holy Ghost came upon them And their not asking Question will not prove they understood all he spake sometimes they were afraid to ask him 2. The Jewish and Christian Church have not such essentiall differences but they knew by the ordinary notion of the word Church a Convention that professed the Doctrine of the Prophets and of the Law and Gospel And what such great difference is there between a brother and a brother Iew and a Brother Gentile as they behoved to understand the one and be utterly ignorant of the other And what necessity to restrict it to Iews only Christ had often spoken to them of the incoming of the Gentiles as Matth. 8. 11. Joh. 10. 16. Matth. 10. 18. Did the Disciples know the Kings Councels Indicatures of the Gentiles that Christ said they should be convented before Matth. 10. 17 18 19 And because Erastus is so confident that the word Church here is the Civill Magistrate Let any Erastian teach me what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Matth. 16. 19. Is it the Civill Magistrate Is the Civill Magistrate built on a Rock Shall the Ports of Hell never prevail against the Civill Magistrate Can no Magistrate make defection from the truth And doth Erastus or his believe in their conscience that the Disciples understood Christ Matth. 16. for he spake of both to the Disciples to speak of the stability and strength and perseverance of the Christian Magistrate And that the Ports of Hell should never prevail against the Iewish Sanedrim and Church which crucified the Lord of glory and persecuted his Apostles and all professing the Name of Iesus to the death 3. Heathen and Publican in generall were names as opposite to Christian Brethren as to Iewish Brethren as I have proved before Erastus The vvord Church to the Hebrevvs signifieth either a multitude or the Senate or Magistrate as Num. 35. Church is four times Josh 20. Tvvâ—ce Psal 82. Once and it signifies the Magistrate So vve say the Empire hath done vvhat the Emperour vvith the States of the Empire hath done So the Church or Convention think so because the chief amongst them think so the Common Wealth hath done this because the Senate hath done this Ans The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Num. 35. 12. But in all that Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now how this signifieth one Magistrate which ever signifieth a collection or multitude of rulers I leave to the learned so Erast faileth yet in his probation 2. Suppose the word Church signifie the heads of the people how shall Erastus prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the senate of Civill Magistrates for in this Congregation were the Priests and Levites especially that judge between blood and blood voluntary or involuntary homicide Deut. 17. â—2 13 14. 2 Chr. 19. 8 9. It is true also that the man that killed another unwittingly was to be protected in the City of refuge while he should stand before the faces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Congregation But let Erastus and all who will have the Bishop or the Pope the representative Church know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Congregation ever and alwayes be a collective word as populus the people signifieth a multitude never by Grammer one single man hoc nomen saith Pagnine certum conventum sive cetum significat certum Collegium it alwayes signifieth a socâ—eâ—ie as the Princes of the Congregation Num. 16. 2. all the Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Congregation Exo. 34. 31. here is a number and a societie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle can be atributed to no fewer then to three at least Speak to all the Congregation of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exodus 12. 3. and the Congregations of peoples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall compasse thee about Psal 7. 8. Nor shall sinners stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Congregation of the just Psal 1. 5. Thou hast made desolate all my Congregation Iob. 16 7. 2. The word is from a root that signifieth to conveene and gather together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore Iud. 14. 8. a swarme or a Congregation of Bees is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation And that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church since the world began never signified one single man either King Magistrate Pope or Prelate But alwayes a multitude either of rulers or people I appeal to Demosthenes Homer Phoâ—illides Hesiod Lucian Pluto Aristotle to Suidâ—â— Stephanus Scapula or for the word Cetus Congâ—egatio to all Latine Authors to the seventy interpreters in the Old Testament to Hyâ—ronimus all the Greek Fathers and to the Evangelists and Apostles in the New Testament to Act. 19. 32. Eph. 5. 23. Act. 8. 13. Rom. 16. 5. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 1 Thes 1. 1. 2 Thess 1. 1. Act. 15. 3 4 22. Act. 16. 5. Act. 14. 23. Rev. 1. 20. Rev. 2. 1. and for Psal 82. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is a Congregation of Gods or Magistrates and v. 6. All of you are Children of the most high he speaketh evidently of a multitude of Iudges 3. Suppose the Empire be said to do what the Senate Parliament or great Councell of the Empire or Kingdome doth This will not prove that the word Church in either of the Originall Tongues Hebrew or Greek doth signifie one man so as Tell the Church must be all one with Tell one single Magistrate or Tell one Prelate or one Pope and he that will not hear the Magistrate that is the King or one single Magistrate alone without any fellow Magistrates he being a Christian is to be dealt with as an heathen and a publican and not as a Christian brother For what the King doth alone without his Senate is never called the deed of the Senate farre lesse the act or deed of the whole Ecclesia of the Kingdome produce any shaddow of Grammer for this Now to Erastus Tell the Church is all one with Tell the single Christian Magistrate alone separated from Fellow-judges or Councell Senate Parliament Ecclesiasticall Assemblies and if he hear not and obey not this one single Christian Magistrate let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican For Erastus will have the Civill Magistrate though the whole Church and Pastors should judge the contrary to have power by vertue of his office to determine against Pastors and Elders Yea by his office he is to command them to preach and synodically to determine this and this and what they determine they do à et sub Magistratu under and from this one single Magistrate as his servants instruments Vicars and deputies and therefore the Magistrate cannot sentence in the name of Pastors Elders when they are but his servants And 2. When he may by his office do
contrary to what they judge in conscience ought to be done So Tell the Church to Erastus is Tell the one individuall single Magistrate who by office may judge without and contrary to the advice of all the Church Pastors Doctors Elders yea people and all Now though we grant that what the Emperour doth as Emperour and the Magistrate as Magistrate hath done that the Empire City and Incorporation doth which yet is never true in the Church which hath no King as a Church save onely the head and King Iesus Christ yet Erastus hath not proved what the Emperour doth without and contrary to the advice of all the Empire that the Empire hath done that Erastus Christ either understandeth by the Church the whole multitude of Ierusalem or then the Magistrates But he understandeth not the multitude 1. Because Christ would not change the Government of heathens farre lesse of that which his Father had appointed in Iudea in which the people did never Governe Yea the Apostles to their death did nothing against Moses his Law and how they take Christ to speak of a Church to be founded of new after his resurrection who beleeved not he should die and rise againe and after his resurrection knew not what a kingdome whether worldly or spirituall he was to â—ave cannot be conceived Ans 1. Many will deny the Major for he understood the rulers of the Christian Church not excluding the consent of the Christian Church of beleevers in the matter of Excommunication 2. I deny that Christ doth here re-establish a Synedry and bid them Tell the Scribes and Pharisees and those that were to crucifie himselfe and to persecute the Apostles to the death Christ knew those to be miserable healers of scandals betweene brother and brother 2. He knew this Sanedrim to be the Disciples of Christs capitall enemies he warned the Disciples to beware of the leaven of their corrupt Doctrine he prophecied this Sanedrim should be destroyed as a degenerated plant that his heavenly father had not planted and was it like Christ would direct them a perishing and degenerate remedie against scandals that he would have removed by his Church even till the end of the world 2. It is most false that the Apostles did keep to death the institutions and ordinances of Moses Act. 15. They abrogated all the ceremoniall Law except that of blood and things strangled and Paul said he that would amongst the Galathians be circumcised was falâ—e from Christ see Col. 2. Gal. 4. Heb. 13. and elsewhere the contrary The Government was now to expire with Christs death and ascension in so farre as it was pedagogicall 3. Christ spake often of his Kingdome to them and they understood nothing but an earthly and temporall Kingdome and that they understood perfectly All this time the Church of Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons beleevers in Christ is denied Let Erastus answer when Christ said Mat. 16. He would build his Church on a rock unpregnable and insuperable to hell If the Apostles understood a Church to be founded after the resurrection and when Christ said Loe I am with you to the end of the world if Christ meant not he would give his presence to the Christian Church not then founded for even after his resurrection they dreamed of an earthly Kingdome Act. 1. and that our divines do rightly expound that place I am with you All the faithfull Pastors Doctors Church-officers and beleevers to the Lords second appearance is clear Erastus Christ bade Tell that Church which hath power to conveene the offender before it examine Witnesses judicially cognosce and give sentence but in Christs time the multitude could not doe this Ans Ergo the Church hath a spirituall judicature This is for uâ— 2. Nor had the Sanedrim the power in all offences as Erastus would make the world beleeve for it was but a shadow at this time void of power and used what power they had against Christ and the Gospel Nor needeth Erastus to prove that by the Church the multitude cannot be understood though he cannot exclude them from their owne part in Church Government both in consenting and in withdrawing from the Excommunicated Erastus But Tell the Church is all one vvith this Appoint some who in the name of the Church may mannage the businesse but how prove they this Then Christ bade Tell the Elders that then were else he did not accommodate himselfe to their understanding to whom he spake when he was to teach hovv our sacrifices pleaseth God be biddeth us first be reconciled to our brother and then sacrifice yet he knevv that sacrifices vvere to be abolished but by Analogie he vvould teach us vvhat he requireth vvhen he saith he vvill have mercy and not sacrifice Ergo by your ovvn confession to tell the Church is to tell the Sanedrim for there vvas then no Church but the multitude Ans 1. Tell the Church cannot in any sense have such a meaning as Appoint Elders and tell them for then Tell the Sanedrim must have this meaning set up a sound Sanedrim according as Moses appointed and tell the Sanedrim The Sanedrim in its right constitution and due power as the Law of Moses required it was not to be had at this time Herod had killed the Sanedrim the Romans made High Priests from yeere to yeere against the institution the power of life and death in the civill Sanedrim was now none at all The Scepter was departed from Iudah those that sate in Moses Chaire corrupted all so the right Sanedrim was no more now to be had then a Christian Church not yet erected Again Tell the Church presupposeth a constituted Church and therefore cannot include a command to erect a new mould 2. Tell the Elders of the Christian Church may as well be meant in these words Tell the Church as the Iewish Church can be understood 3. The word Church and to conveene offenders hear Witnesses give out sentence were all plaine Language to the disciples though they knew not the frame of the Gospell Church as yet Christ being now teaching an ordinance of a Church and the censure of Excommunication that was not to fall under practise while Christ should ascend to heaven and therefore though this Church was not yet it followeth not that the Lord Iesus speaketh of the Sanedrim 4. Say that he meane the Sanedrim Ergo say we he speaketh nothing of the Christian Magistrate 1. Because there was no Magistrate now but Iewish Magistrates as Erastus cannot deny 2. Because this Sanedrim that gained soules of offending brethren was Ecclesiasticall not civill 3. By proportion and Analogie Christ must understand the Church of Christians though the Sanedrim was to be removed shortly Erastus It is a great controversie vvho are to be chosen out of the bodie of the Church to excommunicate judicially Ans The controversie was moved partly by Erastus partly by Morellius not in the reformed Churches Erastus Some say the Magistrate
should chuse the Elders at least at the first even though the Church doe not consent But how can they sit in place of the Church and judge who were against the will and minde of the Church chosen to be Judges for though the Magistrate be a chiefe Member of the Church yet to Tell the Church is not to Tell the Magistrate as you say but to Tell the whole Church and it is no â—xcuse that the Magistrate doth but once chuse the Elders for if hee have no right nor Law from God to doe it he can never doe it and if he have Law from God to doe it he ought alwayes to doe it Ans Here Erastus reasoneth against some Auâ—hor that inclineth to the way of Morellius If there bee no formed Church endued with knowledge and discretion to chuse their owne Elders if there be godly men fit to be chosen they are to convene and chuse from amongst them Elders the godly Magistrate is to joyne his Vote and Power because there is a Church not yet constitute it is now Perturbatus aut corruptus Ecclesiae status and I ever judged it a golden saying of that great Divine Fran. Iunius that when the Magistrate will not concurre the Church in that extraordinary case may doe somewhat which ordinarily they cannot doe and againe when the Church doth not their duty the Magistrate in that case may doe something more then ordinary to cause the Church doe their dutie for its a common Laâ— to ills out of order remedies out of the road way may be applyed So if the Priests and Levites be corrupt Iehoshapaht and Hezekiah and Iosiah may reforme And therefore though the godly Magistrate jure communi by the common Law of Nature imploy his power to appoint Elders all Errors and confusions in the Church are in some measure out of order yet it followeth that jure proprio and ordinarily he should alwayes doe this 2. Elders are not properly Representators of the Church to me while I be better informed for power of feeding and ruling is immediately given by Iesus Christ to the Elders and not by the interveening mediation of the Church but onely by their designation to the office thâ—s power is given by the people 3. The Magistrate as the Magistrate and by vertue of his place is neither a Member farre lesse a chiefe Member of the Church for then all Magistrates should be Members of the Church even Heathen Kings and Rulers which no man can say The Christian Magistrate as a Christian is a Member of the Church But that is nothing to helpe Erastus Erastus Because the multitude can doe nothing in order therefore say they they have power to choose Elders to whom belongeth the power of Excommunication But how prove they this Though a company vvanting a Magistrate have this power shall it follovv that a company to vvhom God hath given a godly Magistrate should have this povver But because confusion vvould follovv therefore Elders are to be chosen Ergo Such Elders as make up your Presbyterie à genere ad speciem affirmativè nulla est consequutio Ans 1. Not only from necessity of eschewing confusion but from the positive Ordinance of God we infer Presbyters we do not own any such consequence Prelaâ—es and Papists argue for a Monarchy in the Church from order we know no creatures of the like frame Erastus is for a Bishop he may so argue not we We finde Christ hath placed such organs in his body as Eph. 4. 11. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 c Act. 6. 1 2 c. and 14. 23. Ergo they ought to be for we think the Church cannot govern it self 2. If the Church wanting a Magistrate as the Apostolick Church did have power to chuse Presbyters and by a Divine Law how dare Erastus say That it followeth not when the Church hath a godly Magistrate she should keep the same power Can the godly Magistrate when he cometh into the Church take any Divine power from the Church Is the Magistrate given to the Church as a Nurse-father to preserve that power that Christ hath given to his Spouse or is he given as a spoiler at noon day to take to himself the power and make the Ambassadors of Christ his Ambassadors and Servants to preach in his Name whereas before when they had no Magistrate Pastors did preach only in the Name of Iesus Christ Erastus Sure the Lord hath concredited to the Magistrate the Command and all power of externall Government so as he hath subjected not only Civill but also Sacred things to his power that he may manage the one according to the Word of God the other according to Iustice and equity which since it is Commanded in the Old Testament and practised by all holy Iudges and Kings and we finde it not changed in the New Testament We justly say that the Church that hath a godly Magistrate cannot by Gods will chuse a new Senate or Presbytery to exercise publikely Iudgement for God hath not armed subjects against their Magistrates Nor hath he Commanded them to take any part of their power from them and give it to others and to subject them to externall Dominion Ans Sure the Lord concredited to the Priest not to King Vzziah to burn incense and to the Priests to rebuke Vzziah and command him to desist and this is no lesse externall Governing of the house of God quoad hoc in this particular then Excommunication for to Excommunication on the Churches part as Excommunication is no more required but that the scandalous and murthering Magistrate should not come to the Table of the Lord or remain in the society and Church-fellowship of the Saints as a Member of the Church Now if the Magistrate obey not the Church as the Church can use no bodily coaction or restraint to hinder the Magistrate to obtrude himself upon the holy things of God though other either fellow-Magistrates or the inferior Magistrates if the party â—xcommunicated be the supream Magistrate or the Parliament may and ought to use their power as Magistrates by the sword to hinder the holy things of God to be prophaned for I think it easie to prove if this were a fit place that inferior Magistrates are essentially Magâ—strates and immediatly subject to the King of Kings for the due use of the sword as the supream Magistrate or King And therefore there is no more externall dominion used in Excommunicating a bloody and scandalous Magistrate then in rebuking and threatning him Now Erastus granteth That Pastors may rebuke and threaten according to the Word of the Lord even Magistrates and Kings 2. If because Iudges in the Old Testament as Eli and Samuel Sacrificed and we finde this not changed in the New and nothing extraordinary in this Ministers in the New Testâ—ment may do the same Then the Iustice of Peace and Mayors of Cities and every constable may by vertue of
and I hope they would not presently in the same moment that they debarred him from the Lords Supper excommunicate him There must be some time required to pray for him to rebuke convince and lay open his sinne before he be excommunicated which moved me to thinke that there was necessity of expresse Scripture to prove Excommunication but that abstention as Divines calleth it or suspension from the Lords Supper may well be sufficiently proved by Analogie by consequent and by the nature of the holy things of God and Pearles that are not to be given to the prophane 3. A visible scandall is a sufficient ground of the lesser excommunication or debarring from the Lords Supper and so we put a Testimony of one banished from the holy things of God on him who hath committed a scandalous offence which is a sufficient ground thereof though the offender be not formally excommunicated This Author saith without the consent of the Church no man though contumacious should be excommunicated What this is against us or for Erastus I see not we say the same He saith The Magistrate may chuse some of the congregation to Excommunicate which if he say I consent not to him and see no warrant for it in Scripture But I rather believe his sense to be That the godly Magistrate may command the Church to Excommunicate and punish them if they be negligent in this But hence it followeth not that the Magistrate may Excommunicate them as Erastus inferreth no more then of old it followeth King Vzziah might command the Priests to burn incense to the Lord and punish them if in this they should neglect their duty Ergo King Vzziah might lawfully in his own person burn incense to the Lord Erastus himself will deny this consequence Erastus saith It is evident this Author meaneth That God commanded not a Presbytery to be but that it is necessary for orders cause But I had rather that he had proved it from the Authors words And so I deny it while Erastus bring his own words to prove it I believe he fancies many things of this worthy Author as that he subjects not the Magistrate to the Presbytery And why Because he saith None ought to be Excommunicated without the consent of the Magistrate Truly it is a weak reason for if the Magistrate be a godly man and a Member of the Church it is necessary that his positive consent be had that he may in light and faith use the sword against him as against other evil doers But I give him no negative voyce nor any authoritative or Ecclesiastically judiciall voyce in Excommunication which can be due to him as a Magistrate So the Author doth not at all disagree from us Erastus is mistasten Erastus God hath Excommunicated Drunkards Hypocrites from the Sacraments except they repent But where hath God commanded such being Circumcised and Baptized to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they professe that they repent of their former wayes for it is one thing to be excluded of God another thing to be cast out of the visible society of the godly Ans God hath Excommunicated Drunkards and Hypocrites who are not known openly to be such to the Church and therefore the Church cannot debar such from the Sacraments and so we grant all That it is one thing to be Excommunicated of the Church and another to be Excommunicated of God 2. He asketh where hath God commanded to debar such from the Sacraments being circumcised and baptized I Answer then If they be uncircumcised and unbaptised God will have the Church to debar them But let Erastus shew any Scripture for their exclusion but such as warranteth us to exclude the openly scandalous though circumcised and baptized 3. What warrant hath the Church or Magistrate if Erastus so will to debar all the uncircumcised and â—nbaptised from the Sacraments Job the Eunuch are not Excommunicated of God Ergo if the Lords non-Excommunication be our rule we cannot Excommunicate all the uncircumcised and baptized as such 4. Erastus addeth They cannot be excluded from the Sacraments Presertim sâ— pâ—nitentiam vitae anteactae prae se â—erant especially if they professe repentance But this presertim especially seemeth to infer though they professe no repentance but be dogs and swine they ought not to be debarred from the Seale Is this piety or rather prophanity But only he would say they are far lesse to be debarred if they professe repentance But we know to professe repentance in Erastus his way is to say by word of mouth they repent Now this saying so may consist with being openly dogs and swine Hence we see the contradicent of Erastus his saying to wit that the most openly scandalous are not to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they say they repent that is especially if they lye and dissemble before the Sun yea though they mock God and repent noâ— I should think their saying they repent when their flagitious and impure conversation doth belye their profession maketh them so much rather worthy to be debarred being both dogs and Hypocrites So far I am from Erastus his presertim especially if they professe that they repent Erastus I grant it â—ighteth with Gods will that pardon should be denied to any by the Word and yet pardon sealed to those same men in the Sacrament But when the Word denyeth remission of sins absolutely to those the Sacraments are not due to them but the Word denieth not remission to them upon condition they repent and so neither should the Sacraments be denied to them Ans But the word denyeth absolutely remission of sins to dogs and swine so long as they repent not and that so much the more that they say they repent and their life belies their words and testifies to their face and before the Sun that they are plaâ—stered Hypocrites Ergo the Sacraments should be denyed to them Erastus But it followeth not that the Sacraments belongeth not to him who is not a member of the invisible Church so he be a member of the visible Church but as he partaketh only of the externall Communion so he receiveth but the externall elements from an externall Minister Ans But if he be visibly no Member of the invisible Church but in the eyes of the Church visibly a dog or a swine neither ought the externall symbols that are even externally the holy things of God to be given to him for otherwise this Argument shall conclude if one be baptised and a member of the Church though a dog yet the pearls of the Gospel are to be cast to such a dog which Erastus himself denieth And so this Argument hurteth Erastus as much as us That this Author saith God commanded those that transgressed his holy Law with an high hand and presumptuously to be killed lest they should live and prophane his holy things I defend not But sure Erastus erreth who will have all such to be killed by
29. Deut. 10. 8 18. Numb 1. 50. and 3. 9 12 41. and 8. 10. Psal 122. 5. In Jerusalem there were set thrones of judgement the thrones of the house of David Mat. 22. 21. Christ commanded to give to Cesar the things that are Cesars and he in his own person refused to usurpe Cesars place Luke 12. 14. Man who made me a Iudge and interdicted his Apostles thereof Luke 22 24 25 26. and yet appointed for them a Judicature of another kinde Mat. 18. 15. Mat. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 5. and if any should deny that the Civill Magistrate had another Court in which he judged the Scriptures will refute him 3. It is evident that Iehoshaphat did not institute but restore those two courts 2 Chron. 19. 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters never any Erastian could satisfie either themselves or others to shew us what were those two courts so distinguished by their two sundry Rulers Amariah and Zebadiah the one a Priest the other a Magistrate 2. By the different formall objects the matters of the Lord the matters of the King and confounded they must be if the King and Ruler be a judge in the matters of God except God make him both a civill judge and a Prophet as were Moses and Samuel which yet were differenced when the God of order established his Church in Canaan The Church convenes for a Church businesse Iosh 18. 1. to set up the Tabernacle but for a civill businesse to make war the State conveneth Iosh 22. 12. 15. 16. Iudg. 21. 12. and Ier. 26. 8. there is the Church judicature discerning that Ieremiah was a false Teacher and they first judge the cause and v. 16. The Civill Iudicature discerneth the contrary and under Zorababel Ezra and Nehemiah they indured different judicatures Iesus Christ was arraigned before Caiphas the High Priest for pretended blasphemie before Pilate the civill judge for treason but Caiphas was to determine onely by Law in questione juris whether it was blasphemie which Christ had spoken but he had no power by Gods Law to lead Witnesses or condemn Christ Nor is it true that the Priests had their government onely about Ceremonialls for they were to judge of Morall uncleannes also which even then debarred men from the holy things of God as is cleare Hag. 2. 12. Ezek. 44. 9. 10 23 24. and if any say that the Magistrate amongst the Iewes did judge of Ecclesiasticall things and reformed Religion We answer extraordinarily the Magistrate might prophecie and did prophecy as did Samuel David Solomon Why do not Erastians bring those examples to prove that Kings Provasts Iustices may now preach the Word and administer the Sacraments which yet is unlawfull to them by grant of Adversaries for the examples of the Kings amongst the Iewes is as strong for preaching as for governing and because Prophets did judge the people of old yet no Protestant Divine will say that now Pastors may also usurpe the civill Sword Now least any should object the case is not alike in the Jewish and Christian Church surely the King of the Church hath no lesse separated such men as Paul and Barnabas for the Ministery now then at that time Rom. 1. 1 2. Act. 2. And sent labourers to his vineyard Luk. 10. 2. Matth. 20. 2. 9. 37 38. And Ambassadors to Preach in his Name 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ministers of Christ and Stewarts of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. Men sent of God whose feet are pleasant for their good News as were the Prophets of old who were not only gifted to preach but instructed with Divine Authority as is clear Rom. 10. 14. 15. Isa 52. 7. 40. 9. Nahum 1. 15. Yea and men that feeds the flock not only by Preaching but also Govern the Church so that they must take heed that Ravening Wolves creep not into the Church who shall not spare the flock Act. 20. 28. 29. Men who must be obeyed because they watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. And can govern the Church as well as they are apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 5. 2. Men that labour amongst us and are over us in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. And men who are to call to the work other faithfull men that are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Such as are separated from the affairs of this life such as Magistrates are not 1 Cor. 6. 3. such as Rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. and are not to receive accusations but under witnesses and are to lay hands suddenly on no man not to call them to the holy Ministery till they be sufficiently tryed 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 22. all which import teaching and governing Now if all these directions be given to Timothy and other Pastors till the end of the world then must all these directions be principally written to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and these Epistles to Timothy agree principally to the Christian Magistrate and to Pastors and Doctors at the by as they be delegates and substitutes of the Magistrates and that by office the Emperour of Rome was to lay hands suddenly on no man and commit the Gospel to faithfull men who could teach others and was not to receive an accusation against an Elder and certainly if the Magistrate call to office those that are over us in the Lord and if those who watch for our soules especially be but the curates and delegates of the King and Parliament then the King and Parliament behoved in a more eminent manner to watch for our souls for directions and commandments of God in this kinde are more principally given to the Master Lord and chief Governour of the house of God if the Magistrate be such then to the servants delegates But where is there any such directions given to the Emperour King or Christian Magistrate by any shadow of ground in the Word It is not much to say The Magistrate was an heathen an enemy at this time and therefore those could not be written to him For 1. No force can strain these two Epistles to Timothy and the other to Titus which contain a form of Church-policy to any Christian Magistrate for then the qualification of the King if he be the supream Governour of the Church should far rather have been expressed then the qualification of a Bishop and a Deacon which is no where hinted at 2. All these directions notwithstanding this do and must actu primo agree to the Magâ—strate for his office who is chief governour what he should be is described in the Word 3. When Christ ascended on high he gave as a fruit of his ascension sufficient means for his intended end The perfecting of the Saints the gathering of his Body the Church and the edifying thereof even
the Iewes that he should not be taken and crucified as is clear in the words but he opposeth not his Kingdome to an externall visible Kingdom for his Church visible consisting of visible Officers is his Kingdom Eph. 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 13 c. The Word of the Kingdom is audible and it is visibly professed and Ministers are visibly and externally called to the holy Ministery by the laying on of the hands of the Elders and voices of the People but he opposeth his Kingdome to a Kingdome fighting with the Sword and using the coactive power of the sword to save him from being apprehended and crucified by the Iewes Now this is the Magistrates Kingdome for he beareth not the sword in vain Rom. 13. 4. and so Christ evidently proveth in these words that the power that beareth the sword which is the very essence of the Magistrates office as a Magistrate is not a part of his Kingdome for his Kingdome is of another World and Spirituall but the Magistrates power is of this World and useth worldly weapons as the sword Then it is evident that the Magistrate as the Magistrate 1. Is not subordinate to Christ as Mediator and head of the Church 2. That when it was said All power in heaven and earth is given to the Mediator Christ The sense cannot be the power of the sword was given to him as Mediator to be a judge and a Ruler on earth which he refused Luke 12. 13 14. though as God he hath the power of the sword 3. That the supream Magistrate as Magistrate is not the onely Deputie Delegate and Vicar of Christ as Mediator for if Christ as Mediator have a substitute and Deputie such as the Magistrate as the Magistrate who beareth his bloodie sword to cut off the enemies of the Church and to fight for Christ then 1. Christs Kingdome surely should be of this World 2. By the same reason since as Mediator he is Priest and a High Priest to offer a sacrifice to God as all Priests must doe that are proper Priests Heb. 8. 3. c. 9. 7. c. 10. 14. c. 10. 1 2 3. c. there must be Priests under Christ properly so called to offer some bloodie sacrifice satisfactorie for sinne which is blasphemie to say I meane proper Priests for otherwise in a figurative and borrowed sense all beleeevers are Priests to offer themselves to God Rom. 12. 1. Revel 1. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. but not the Deputies of the High Priest Iesus Christ and by the same reason he must have Prophets under him that are Vicars and Deputies which is unpossible for Christ as Prophet and great Prophet is essentially Lawgiver and the Author of Cannonick Scripture and he who really by a supernaturall power teacheth the heart but so he hath no Deputies nor any Ministers or Prophets nor any under Law-givers or under Prophets which by an action or any active power communicated to them can as under Lawgivers devise any part of Law or Gospell or any other part of Cannonick Scripture or have any active influence supernaturall to make a new heart Hence all our Divines say Christ as Mediator and King of the Church hath no Deputies neither King nor High Priest nor Pope nor Saint 4. It must follow that the Magistrate who as Magistrate beareth the Sword is not the head officer of the Church under the Mediator for as Magistrate he must act with the sword upon the Church as the Church and the Ministers of the Gospell as they are such whereas when the Magistrate doth act as Magistrate on the Ministers with the sword he doth it on them as men erring and sinning But onely so he procureth as a Magistrate the spirituall good of the Church as the Church indirectly and by the sword in driving away Hereticks and wolves from the flock That Church which is the pattern and rule to all the Churches unto the end of the world in those things that belongeth to a Church as a Christian Church must be our rule and paterne in Government But in the Apostolick Church of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Thessalonica Corinth Galatia Philippi Colosse the seven Churches of Asia planted and framed up as perfect Christian Churches by the Apostles the Magistrate was not the only supream Governour of Churches nor did the Apostles Elders and Teachers in those Churches nor the Church act preach dispence the Sacraments rule governe as servants under and through and from the Authority of the Magistrate or King as his Vicars deputies and servants But by immediate Authority from Iesus Christ placed in them without the interveening mediation of Magistrates Ergo that Church should be the patern of our Church though the adversaries deny the proposition to wit that the Apostolick Churches as Apostolick should be our patern in all things in regard that the Magistrates were then heathens enemies to the Church and Gospel and so de facto actually and by accident could not be the supream officers and Governours of the Church yet now when we have Christian Magistrates that are nursefathers to the Church and beleevers professing the Gospel such as David Solomon Iosiah Iehoshaphat and Ezekiah and other godly Princes of Israel and Iudah were and therefore that the Church as it is a Generall both to the Iewish and Christian Church should be our paterne in Government yet we have though I say they deny this Major a great advantage of the adversaries in these 1. We have the first Christian Church to be our paterne and the New Ierusalem that came downe from Heaven from God Revel 21. 10. The mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Which is builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone Ephe. 2. 20. to be our rule and paterne and all that was prophecied though not compleatly in all the degrees of the Church of the Apostles was then fulfilled as touching the essence of a Church 2. Yet here the Magistrate was no chief officer 3. The adversaries must prove Moses David Solomon and those godly Kings as Kings and Magistrates and virtute officij were supream rulers and Church-officers and so that Constantine and all the godly Princes and Emperours were by vertue of their office as Magistrates all such Prophets as were Moses David Solomon for certainly they as Prophets wrote Scripture had the form and structure of the Temple revealed to them of God received Laws from God for the Priests if our Kings as Magistrates now can do the like we shall then say something to their Headship over the Church 4. And if they reformed Religion in the time of the defection of the Priests when they were holy and zealous and walked with God and did right in the sight of the Lord like unto David such as Jehoshaphaet Josiah when the Priests were corrupt we shall grant the like to Parliaments made up of Josiahs and Ezechiahs when the Assembly of Divines are
Magistrate as Erastus and Master Prinne thinketh exclude Iudasses and knowne traitors and knowne Devills and knowne children of the Devil out of the Church this is to Erastus and Master Prinne both absurd 2. Christ did eat and drink with Iudas knowing him to be all these Ergo we may eat and drink with knowne traitors also the contrary is a truth 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 11. 2 Thess 3 14 15 Rom. 16. 17. evident enough 3. Christ preached the Gospel to those that he knew sinned against the Holy Ghost to the Pharisees who persecuted Christ to death and others Math. 12. 31 32 33 34. Ioh. 15. 22 23 24 25. Ioh. 7. 28 29. Ioh. 12. 35 36 37 38. Ioh. 10. 31 32. Ioh. 11. 47 48. and this is by the exposition of Erastus l. 3. c. 3. pag. 307. 308. and Master Prinne his vindication pag. 38 39. To give holy things to dogs so Mr. Prinne saith that by doggs and swine are meant only such infidels and heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel or harbour or entertain the preachers of it of which the text is principally intended as well as the Sacraments or of such open contemners persecutors of the Gospel and Ministers who runne upon and teare the preachers thereof trampling the pearls of the Gospel and the tenderers of them under their feet as the Text resolves in terminis Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 10 14 15. Luk. 9 5. Act. 13. 46. or open Apostates 2. Pet. 1. 2 21 22 c hence by this we may give the pearls of the Gospel to such dogs as the Pharisees for to them Christ tendred the pearle of the Gospel 4. Christ might have hindred being God equall with the Father the Pharisees and Iews to malice him Ergo he being above the Laws that he gives to us doth not in this example warrant us to cast the pearls of the Gospel to such as we know to be Iudasses Pharisees and malicious haters and heart-murtherers of Christ 2. There is not the like reason of preaching the word and dispensing the seals 1. Because the word is a converting ordinance out of question and preached to heathen and to the non-converted though they refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel and refuse to entertaine the preachers of it as is clear Act. 19. 22 23 24 25. Tit. 1. 10 11 12 13. 2 Tim. 3. 25 26 27. The Texts that Master Prinne alledgeth that the Gospel should not be preached to heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel to wit Mat. 10. 14 15. Luk. 9. 5. Act. 13. 46. are to no purpose for Mat. 10. Luk. 9. is but a Temporary Commandement given for a time that the Disciples should depart from those houses of Iudea there is nothing of the heathen But by the contrary the Apostles are forbidden to go to Samaritanes or Gentiles at all Mat. 10. 5 6. who would not receive the peace of God in the Gospel which precept the Apostles in the story of the Acts did not observe but preached the Gospel to many heathen who refused to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel As Act. 16. and 17. and 19. 2. The place Act. 13. 15. is meant of the blaspheming Iews to whom Paul preached long after they persecuted and stoned the Prophets and had killed the Lord of life Act 2. and 4. and 8. and 9. Mat. 23. 37 38. 3. Those places are to better colour of purpose brought by Arminians and Socinians to prove that the Gospel is preached to people for their good entertainment thereof and denied to others for their unworthinesse and because they will not welcome it So the Arminians in the conference at Hague pag. 87 88 89. God sendeth the Gospel not according to his absolute will sed ob alias causas in homine latentâ—s for secret causes in man Arminius against Perkins p. 199. The will of God in sending the Gospell hath causes in the will of man according to that habenti dabitur So Corvinus ad Wallachros p. 44. Socinus Comment in 1. Epist Ioh. c. 4. p. 307. saith the same and Mr. Pryn is pleased in the same sense to cite them I conceive imprudently for I beleeve that Reverend and learned man doth hate those impious Sects the Enemies of the grace of God but truly if this be a rule to Pastors to spread the Gospell that they are to offer and give the pearle of the preached Gospell to those that willingly receive it and harbour the preachers and presently to depart and preach no more the word of the Kingdom to those who refuse it as the places Mat. 10. 14. Luke 9. 5. carry that sense because they are Heathens who refuse to embrace and beleeve the Gospell and harbour the Preachers as the worthy Divine saith conceiving that to be a casting of Pearles to Dogs and Swine I see not how the Preachers spreaders of the Gospel to the Heathen are to beleeve that God out of meer grace the good pleasure of his will without respect to good or bad deserving sendeth the Gospel to some and denieth it to others 3. Though the Sacrament of the Supper be a converting Ordinance in this sense that it corroborateth faith and conversion where it was once and so applyeth the Promises to one who before beleeved yet it is not a converting ordinance that is to be administred to one dead in sins and trespasses as the word is for then at the first Sermon that ever is preached to a Heathen if he should say though for base worldly ends known to the Church that he desired to have the Sacraments we are obliged to beleeve that he sincerely desireth these Seals and instantly at the same sermon to baptise him administer the other Seal of the Lords Supper to him for how can we deny converting Ordinances to those who desire them say our adversaries 4. An ordinance that cannot be dispensed to a Heathen remaining a Heathen and to an unconverted man knowne to be an unconverted man is not an Ordinance that ought to be dispensed as the ordinance of the Word and as the first converting ordinance to so many as we may safely dispense the Word unto and if it be first a converting ordinance as the preaching of the Word is then it is to be dispensed to all those to whom we are to preach the Word But Erastus and Mr. Pryn grant we may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen and if they deny it as they yeeld it the Apostles did preach the Gospel to the Heathen remaining Heathen but they never admitted nor can we admit to the Lords Supper Heathen remaining Heathen nor could the Iewes upon the same ground admit to the Passeover the uncircumcised now then the preaching of the Word to some cannot make the Church and preachers guilty of casting pearles to Swine and of partaking of their siâ— whose hearing is not mixed with faith and yet if the Church and Ministers should admit to
sinfully separate the one from the other and sin is no ordinance of God 4. What word of Christ hath Mr. Pryn for extraordinary conversion of men by Miracles without the Word He must conceive with Arminians and Socinians that many are converted that never heard of that precious name of Iesus without which there is no salvation Act. 4. 11. or of a faith in Christ as Moses Amyraldus dreameth without the knowledge of Christ and may write books de salute Ethnicorum for this externall conversion doth lead of its owne nature to internall conversion and salvation This may make us fancie somewhat of the salvation of Aristotle Seneca Cicero Aristides Scipio Regulus without the Law or Gospell this way of extraordinarily saving men by Miracles without the Gospell is the doctrine of Arminians and Socinians so say the Arminians at the Synod of Dort pag. 334 335. Those whom God hath deprived of the Gospell he hath not precisely rejected them from a communion of the benefits of the Gospell Adolphus Venator adver Dracenos p. 84. saith The heathen are saved without the Gospell if they â—â—n but pray Ens Entium miserere mei Socinus praelec Thelo c. 3. telleth us of an inspired word that saveth us called verbum interius You may please Schoolmen thus such as Granadus Contr. 8. de grat tract 6. disp 1. numb 43. did Ruiz de Predesti se 8. numb 7. Alexand. Alens 8. p. q. 69. memb 5. art 3. De bonis Philosophis sic credo c. Roa lib. 1. De Provident quest 7. n. 50. Vega lib. 13. in Trident. cap. 12. Enriquez Tom. 2. De ultimo fine c. 14. num 6. quod lib. 8. quest 5. Vasquez 1. par disp 97. and c. 5. Soto lib. 1. de nat grat c. 18. ad 2. Francis Sonnius in demonstrat Tract 12. de consiliis c. 8. Camerarius lib. 1. de grat c. 8. lib. 7. c. 8. who doe all of them send all the good Philosophers and white Morallists to heaven by Miracles inspirations extraordinary workes of providence and that without any rumour of Christ and the Gospell famous Papists to their owne shame yeeld that Divine faith cannot be produced by Miracles Andradius saith often they may be false Maldonatus saith That no necessary argument of faith can be drawn from Miracles Gregorius de Valen. saith Miracles give us no infallible certainty of Doctrine Bellarmine saith Miracles cannot convince the minde Durandus giveth a sure reason why miracles cannot produce faith Because saith he suppose it were known of it self that this miracle of the raising e. g. of Lazarus were true yet it is not known by it self that it testifieth that this is a true Doctrine which he preacheth who worketh the miracle Mr. Prynne then hath put the salvation of those who never heard the Gospel upon extraordinary Pillars when he bottometh them on miracles without the word which are extraordinary rotten Pillars 5. The Lords Supper of which we now dispute is not the mean of our first conversion from formall profession to inward embracing the Gospel For the word must go before and not simply the externall letter of the word but the word first believed and received by the efficacions working of the holy Ghost And so the word is indeed the first converting Ordinance and so the Lords Supper is given to one who already believes and the Sacrament concurreth as a mean to make good corroborate and increase the conversion which was before Mr. Prynne might have spared his pains in proving That the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance because it applieth Christ â—o uâ— we grant it to be a converting and quickning and lively applicatory Ordinance But how He may know that what ever Ordinance addeth a new degree of Faith of conversion of saving application of Christ and the Promises must be a converting Ordinance But it is so converting that it is a confirming Ordinance and necessarily it presupposeth Faith and conversion already wrought by the word it is not a first-converting Ordinance such as is the word but as nourishing or accretion is a sort of vitall generation in the body of a growing childe so as Physicians make nutrition in children to be Aggeneration or Congeneration or a vitall generation with or in the body and it presupposeth the first generation by which life is given to the childe now nourishing doth not give life things void of life are not capable of nourishing therefore nourishing is the continuing of life and as it were prorogated and continued generation so here Sacramentall eating by faith is a spirituall feeding and nourishing of the soul on the crucified Lords body broken his blood shed it is not the act of our first conversion Regeneration is sealed in Baptisme and Christ given as sealing and confirming Regeneration but the Lords Supper is that which exhibiteth Christ to us as food and sealeth our spirituall growing and coalition in Christ I say not this as if the Church could give the Supper of the Lord to none but such as are inwardly and really Regenerated but to shew that the Church taketh such as are externally called to be internally called when they dispense this Supper to them that they are nearer Christ then those that hear the Gospel which Heathen may do ere they can be admitted to the Supper And this Erast every where and Mr. Pryn in terminis teach when they say That those that are recte instituti rightly instructed who earnestly desire the Lords Supper professe sincere Repentance and promise amendment are only to be admitted to the Sacrament and those only excluded who are convicted to be grosse and scandalous and obstinate offenders Whence it is clear they professe Repentance and to the Church they are converts who are to be admitted to the Supper before they come to the Lords Supper Now this must be done by the word Preached and received by faith in profession Ergo this Supper in the Church-way cannot be dreamt to be a mean of their first conversion far lesse in foro Dei in Gods court can men first receive the Lords Supper having never heard the word and then be converted in foro Dei really and inwardly by receiving the Lords Supper then might the Sacrament before and without the word be given if it be a converting Ordinance belonging to all to whom the word belongeth For Mr. Prynne saith It can be denyed to none within the visible Church And what reason if it be no lesse the first converting Ordinance but that it may be administred to those that never heard the word and are Members of the visible Church And by this Mr. Prynne cannot deny but the Lords Supper should be dispensed to infants and children who cannot try themselves nor yet discern the Lords Body Yea those that are convicted of obstinacy in scandalous sins are Members of the Church for how could they be judged convicted and sentenced if they be not within
1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo their being Members of the Church is not enough to admit them to the Lords Supper except they be to the Church otherwise qualified and fitted for it And this doth clearly evidence That the word of the Kingdom may ought to be Preached to many within the Church that they may be converted to whom the Supper is not to be dispensed that they may be cōverted which is enough for our point to exclude promiscuous admission of all to the Supper and to prove some other qualification must be requisite in those that come to the Supper before the Ministers without violation of the holy things of God and being guilty of not distributing aright can administer the Supper to them and this is another visible qualification then is requisite in those that hear the word For Erastus and Mr. Prynne require That all that come to the Supper be rightly instructed 2. That they promise amendment of life But they cannot say none are to be admitted to hear the word while they be qualified thus you exclude the ignorant from the Sacrament do you exclude the ignorant from hearing the word Farther I desire to be resolved why Erastus and his require any qualification at all in the one more then in the other according to their way For suppose persons Baptized be only negatively blamelesse and not visibly scandalous yet Erastus and Mr. Prynne cannot deny the Supper to such Suppose they know not whether they be as ignorant of God as Indians and suppose they promise no amendment and do positively professe no repentance at all 1. Ministers can deny no converting Ordinances to persons because ignorant for if the Supper of the Lord be a converting Ordinance it shall convert men from their ignorance and an Indian ignorant of Christ ought to be Baptized to the end that Baptisme may convert him from his ignorance Now I think our Brethren cannot say this and therefore they must yield that Ministers dare not admit all within the Church to the Seals except they would be guilty of their sin in eating to themselves damnation and yet they dare not debar the ignorant within the Church from hearing the word and so are no way compartners with them in the sin of unprofitable hearing 2. Mr. Prynne may here see some ignorants debarred from the Lords Supper yet I hope he would not be so rigid as to Excommunicate all ignorants because ignorant the most rigid Novatians would condemne that and here is sole suspension without Excommunication which Mr. Prynne saith is not to be found in all the word of God I wondred much when I read those words of the learned and reverend Master Prynne That God who bestoweth no Ordinances on men in vaine must intend in instituting the Supper that visible morall unregenerate Christians may be converted thereby as well as reall Saints be confirmed to which I reply 1. Neither word nor Sacraments nor any thing on the part of the Almighty can be intended in vaine though the end of the Ordinance be not obtained I should have expected some such divinity from the pen of Arminians and Socinians who make God to intend the salvation of all and every one in both the promises of the Gospel precepts and Sacraments and yet he falleth from this end so you may read in Arminius Anti-Perkins pag. 60. that God is disappointed in his end in both Law and Gospel and God shooting beside his mark misseth the salvation of many say the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort pag. 216. and in their confession c. 7. sect 3. and because Socinus thought it hard thus to take from God wise intentions he did no lesse then blasphemously deprive him of his omniscience So Socians contra puccium c. 10. and in prelectionib Theolog. c. 11. made all things that are contingently to come uncertaine to God But if you speak of intentio operis non operantis that the Supper in its nature is ordained this may rather be your meaning that morall men like Cicero and Seneca and Iudas and the like for all are alike in regard of the nature of the ordinances and of that which is the genuine intention not of God but of this Sacrament then you speak not of the supper as divided from the word but as the word going before the Sacrament hath converted the man and the Sacrament following doth adde to and confirme in grace So Sir you depart from the question for we grant that the Sermon going before in the same day of the celebration of the Supper may and doth convert and thus if an Indian heare a Sermon to which the celebration of the Supper is annexed if he be converted by that Sermon as you teach the heart in those is only knowne to God the Church is not to judge he may forthwith ere he be baptised come at the same time to the Lords supper which were much precipitation little speed and so the word formally converteth not the Sacrament But if you mean that the Sacrament formally as the Sacrament is of its nature a mean of converting a morall Seneca you mistake the nature of the seal very farre God never intended that food as food should give life to the dead the Supper as the Supper is spirituall food and presupposeth the eater hath life and how gate he life but by the word of God 2. Doth the Sacrament as the Sacrament humble or speak one word of the Law doth the Sacrament say any thing here but Christ died for thee O Seneca and there is a pledge of his love in dying for thee and the like it speaketh to Iudas as Master Prinne thinketh and can this convert a morall man never yet humbled for sinne But I have gone thus out of the way in this purpose I returne and desire pardon for this digression not I hope fruitlesse at this time If the Magistrate be the chiefe Church-officer how is it that the Church was without Christian Magistrates in the Apostles time then is there no exact paterne of a Christian Church what it should be de jure hath Christ in the New Testament not moulded the Church the second temple in all the dimensions of it as Moses David Solomon did by immediate inspiration shew us the measure of the first Tabernacle Sanctuary and Temple finally should Cesar suppose he had been a Christian have received imposition of hands from the Elders a◠his deputies the Ministers do and be over the Church in the Lord as King and receive accusations against Elders ordaine Elders in every Church put out and cast out the unworthy only for the iniquity of the time Ministers were forced to do these Erastus and his have not one word of Scripture for this or were the keys of the Kingdome of heaven given to Cesar and because Cesar was without the Church therefore Peter received them Matth. 16. while Cesar should be converted what Scripture have we for this for to rule the Church
Ministers of the Gospel in this Government such as it is more then in dispensing the word and Sacraments Surely except the Magistrate put his hand to the Arke without warrant in the one he cannot in the other They answer the Magistrate may limit the Pastors in preaching no lâ—sse then governing because he may command the Pastor to preach this and this and if he preach not sound Doctrine he may punish him but I answer this is no limitting of Pastors in preaching Because this the Pastors may in the name and authority of God exhort the Magistrate to execute righteous judgement Ier. 22. and if he crush the poor and needy and turne a tyrant an heretick and an apostate the Pastors may not only denounce wrath from the Lord against them but also judge them dogs and swine and not dispense to them the pearls of the Gospel yet this is not the Pastor limiting the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth limit the Pastor as his Ambassadour and Deputie though the Magistrate take care that Physitians Painters Shoomakers Professors in Academies and Vniversities doe their dutie in their calling and punish them if they therein doe amisse yet he limiteth not the painter to draw this way not this way nor hath he a negative voyce in acts of Art as he pretendeth a negative voyce in Church-discipline 2. Nor can the Pastor so command the Magistrate in the name of God to execute justice as if he become a tyrant an heretick an apostate he will not only remove him from the Throne and the Bench but he will set himselfe downe in the place of the erring Magistrate and judge righteous judgement for him or in his place for Erastus saith that the Magistrate may dispence word and Sacraments if he had time and leasure as lawfully as the Pastor and I have in another place observed that many so make the King head of the Church and the like must be said of the little heads of inferior Magistrates as of the great head as he is a mixed person partly Civill partly Ecclesiasticall and sacred that is by office Ruler and Pope 3. The Magistrate doth limit the Pastors only in positives and in punishing and inflicting Church censures as they command to censure scandalous persons in such and such scandals but in no other scandals more hainous yet in all the challenges moved by Magistrates against Pastors The Magistrate never made any challenge against Pastors or Synod for their sinfull omissions and want of zeal in not censuring drunkards adulterers hereticks court parasites who injoy many benefices and leave the flock and I give instance in the disputes of the Divines of England making the King the head of the Church court-divines accused never the Pastors that they exceeded their limits in not censuring corrupt Prelates non-residents pluralists idle and unpreaching Pastors or idol-shepherds 4. In the contests of Holland when the Synod of Frizland gave in a declinature to the Senate justifying the deposition of Poppiâ— an unsound and scandalous Minister in all contests with Arminians there the controversie was ever for positives that the Church condemned and censured hereticks never that the Church had been slack in the matter of discipline 5. In Scotland in Master Blackes declinature and when the Ministers condemned to death and then banished such as the godly and zealous servants of Christ Master Iohn Welch Master Iohn Forbes and others appealed to the assemblies of the Church for their standing for the liberties of the Church and Kingdome of Christ King Iames did never quarrell with them Thus you have not done in your Ministery and Assemblies you have not excommunicated the Marquesse of Huntly a bloody man but it was for positives Thus and thus you have done against the mind and Majestie of the King and Authority Now corrupt Pastors need as much to be limited in wicked omissions as is clear You are dumbe dogs and barke not Isai 56. 10. And the diseased ye have not strengthened neither have ye healed that which was sick c. Ezech. 34. 4. as in exorbitances in their positive zeal And this saith that Magistrates intend to intrude upon Christs liberties in this plea rather then indeed to procure that the house of God may be builded and edified or the liberty of the subject vindicated And therefore the godly ought the rather to stand for the freedom of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus which owe not this tribute to earthly Princes since Christ only is King and raigneth in his owne Church CHAP. XXIV Quest 20. Of the reprocation of the subordination of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers to each and their supremacie and independencie each from other FOr the clearing of the question I humbly offer these considerations to the Reader 1. There is subordination of the power and a subordination of the person indued with the power here to be considered 2. So is there a supremacy of power and a supremacy of the person 3. There is a foure fold judgement here considerable 1. The first is apprehensive apprehensivum and common to both Magistrate Christian Pastor and all which must be given to all to whom we can ascribe conscience 2. Discretivum the knowledge of discretion the connaturall guide and principle of every mans beliefe and obedience 3. Definitiâ—um of those that are in Authority and do command in the Lord. 4. Peremptorium et infallibile the supream judgement of the King of the Church who cannot erre The first is common to all Rom. 15. The second proper to Christians and is a judgement of faith 1 Thess 5. 2. 1 Ioh. 4. 1. and it must be builded on the first The third is the Authoritative judgement of the Church Act. 15. 28. Mat. 18. 17. and of judges and it must be swayed by the second both in the commander and the commanded The fourth is Iesus Christs only Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 4. 5. 4. It is one thing that the power of the Ministers be subject to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and another thing that the persons of the Ministers should be subject Not any office at all in their power seems to me to be subordinate to either Magistrate or Minister because all Lawfull power and Lawfull and profitable offices and Arts in abstracto are from God some of them immediately As the the gift of prophesying healing speaking with tongues working of miracles and the offices of Apostle Evangelist Pastor and Teacher Ephe. 4. 11. those be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifâ—s and graces above Nature that God without the interveening of human reason hath devised for a supernaturall end the edifying of his body the Church mens will and reason may interveen in the designation of persons to some of those offices as that Iohn Thomas qualified as 1 Tim. 3. be Pastors or teachers But if we speak of the power of the Ministery in abstracto without connotation of the persons in concerto then the power or the office it selfe is
office in either Church or state for so a Christian Magistrate as a Christian Magistrate should be Ens per aggregationem a thing composed of Magistracy and Christianity as a Christian Physician a Christian Painter and then the question should be whether judgeth he as a Magistrate or as a Christian as we may aske whether a Christian painter painteth as a painter or as a Christian not as a Christian for then all Christians should be Painters and a result of both should neither be a Magistrate nor a Christian but middle between both which fighteth with reason and sense Some say The power of the Magistrate in a Christian Magistrate who knoweth the doctrine of the Gospell and hath help of the counsell and light of godly Pastors and Teachers is perfecter then in Heathen Magistrates and therefore this power as not Christian or heathenish governs men as men but as Christian it governeth them as Christian mâ—n But the learned and worthy professor Jac. Triglandius saith this is said without probation for saith he men as Christians are members of the Church and so are not governed but in an Ecclesiasticall way and where hath the Lord commanded the Christian Magistrate to governe the sheep of Christ as the sheep of Christ Then say I 1. The magistrate must governe the Church as the Church and so rule over the conscience of men in relation to eternall happinesse by promising to them temporall rewards and by compelling them by the sword to be carried toward eternall beatitude for to rule the Church as the Church is to direct and lead them by spirituall means Word Sacraments and Discipline to heaven which the magistrate as a magistrate cannot do by the sword and what he doth as a Christian that he must do in a spirituall way not with a secular arm and power as magistrate and the two powers of a magistrate and of a Christian cannot coalescere grow together in one office which is made up of both as of two parts being in nature and spece different no more then of a Horse and a Lyon you can make a third living creature It is true by Grace and Christianity the power of the magistrate is perfected and an excellent lustre added to it but not one degree of Magistraticall power is added to it by which the magistrate doth rule men as Christians and as a Church For as the office of a magistrate doth not promote the man one step nearer to saving Grace so Christianity maketh not the Heathen magistrate more a magistrate nor giveth him a new sword over the Church as the Church which he had not before nor doth it take any magistraticall power from him no more then a heathen Husband Master Physician being converted to Christ is more a husband more a master or Physician then he was before The former power is only spiritualized and graciously facilitated in its acts but not one whit augmented in its entitative degrees of power over the wife the souldiers the servants the sick Triglandius excellently The Christian magistrate converted is sanctified but he acqâ—ireth no new right over the Church So meat is sanctified by the Word and Prayer but it is not more meat nor doth more nourish because sanctified 7. Distinct The exercise of the Ministeriall power in dispensing Word Sacraments Discipline falleth under a fourfold consideration which because it cleareth a necessary point I desire may be carefully observed by the Reader 1. The simple exercise of that power is considered sine modo without any qualification good or evil Orthodox or Heterodox as the Christian Magistrate procureth by his care that there should be a Ministery to dispense Word Sacraments and Disciplinâ— 2. The second Consideration of this exercise is The exercise of power soundly and painfully in the fear of the Lord the Magistrate exhorting them thereunto for conscience 3. The third Consideration is the exercise of the same in a corrupt and wicked way and manner either negligently or wickedly or for evil ends 4. The fourth Consideration is the free and peaceable exercise of this power without bodily violence Hence I intreat the Reader to carry along in his â—ye 1. The simple exercise of the Ministeriall power 2. The just and godly sound and laudable exercise 3. The wicked and corrupt exercise or the abuse thereof 4. The peaceable exercise Hence our 1. Assertion The Magistrate as the Magistrate is to procure that there be Preachers and Church-officers to dispense Word Sacraments and Discipline For 1. his end is That people under him may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in godlinesse and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. And the Magistrate attaineth his end as a Magistrate if there be simple exercise of Religion in the quiet and peaceable way that may consist with the subjects indempnity and immunity from rapine injuries and violence 2. The difference between the Magistrates and other callings is that the Magistrate was to take care of old That there were Levites who bare the Ark and Priests who should burn incense before the Lord and Sacrifice and yet it was unlawfull for the Magistrate to bear the Ark on his own shoulders or in his own person to burn incense or sacrifice so the Physicians hinder that diseases rage amongst the subjects and the Magistrates do also hinder that they should rage But the Physians hinder them by curing diseases and the Magistrate hinders them not by curing diseases for then he should as a Magistrate also be a Physician but by procuring that there should be Physicians in the Common-wealth The Magistrate hindreth ignorance and losing Ships by Tempests not by professing and teaching Sciences and Arts in Academies in his own person nor by steering Ships and guiding them himself to their Ports for so a magistrate as a magistrate should be a Schoolmâ—ster a professor of Arts and Sciences in the Universities and a Pilot or Shipmaster which were a confounding of all callings but by procuring that there should be Universities and Professors of Arts and Sciences and by providing honorable stipends and wages for them and procuring that in the Common-wealth there should be Sailers who are skilled in Shipping and so doth the magistrate by his office take care that the Word Sacraments and Discipline be dispensed 3. But the magistrate as the magistrate doth noâ— command sincere hearty zealous and affectionate dispensing of Word Sacraments aâ—d Discipline But only the dispensing of those without the qualification of the spirituall or sincere exercise of the power Because 1. The Magistrate cannot command that as a magistrate which he cannot judge of whether the thing commanded be consonant to his command or not But the magistrate as the magistrate cannot judge of the spirituallity sincerity zealousnesse affectionatenesse of that obedience which the Church yieldeth to his command for if the Pastors dispense word and Sacraments and binde and loose by the keys following the rules of the word the magistrate
the spirituall right and power of the keyes of the Kingdome of God from the Church and Pastors the former should complaine as do the latter Object 8. But if the Kingdome be heathenish and the heart of the King be first supernaturally affected then Religion beginneth at him as a Magistrate and he may appoint gifted men after they are converted to preach the Gospell Ergo The first rise of Religion is from the Magistrate as the Magistrate Ans If the King be converted first as a Christian not as a Magistrate he may spread the Gospell to others and preach himselfe but not as a Magistrate as Iehoshaphat commanded the Levites to do their dutie so might he command those of the house of Aaron who had deserted the Priests office to take the office on them to which God had called them so here gifts and faithfulnes appearing to the new converted Prince he is to command those so gifted for their gifts and faithfulnes is as evident a call as to be borne the sonnes of Aaron to take on them the calling of preaching and of dispensing the Seals But 1. he ordaineth them not Pastors as a Prince but commandeth them to follow the calling which now the Church not constitute cannot give 2. He can preach himselfe as a gifted beleever in an extraordinary exigence but he cannot doe this as a Magistrate yea Moses did never prophecy as a Magistrate nor David as a King 2. All the rise that Religion hath from the Prince as the Prince in this case is civill that men gifted may be commanded by civill Authority to dispence Word and Sacraments but nothing Ecclesiasticall is here done by the Prince as the Prince 3. The highest power in the Church as the Church and the highest amongst men as men are much different The Magistrates power in commanding that this Religion that is true and consonant to the Word of God be set up and others that are false be not set up in his Kingdome is a civill power and due to him as a Magistrate but a highest Church power to dispense Word and Sacraments agreeth to no Magistrate as a Magistrate but it followeth not that when the true Religion is erected by his power as a Magistrate that he may as a Magistrate dispence Word Sacraments and Synodicall acts and censures except God have called him to preach the Word and to use the sword of the other Kingdome as a Member of the Church joyned with the Church Object 9. But the Magistrate is unproperly subject to the Pastor who is but a meer Herald servant and Minister who hath all his authority from the word of another and so it is but imperium alienum a borrowed power he is subject properly to Christ speaking in his Word Titius is subject to the King properly but unproperly to the Kings Herald Ans 1. Let the subjection be unproper there can no conclusion from thence be drawn against us If 1. The Pastors as Pastors have their commissions from Christ and be his immediate Servants and have no Commission Pastorall from the Magistrate as the power of the Herald floweth immediately from the royall power of the King and he is the Kings immediate servant then to obey him in those acts which he performeth in the Kings name is to obey the King and in those acts subjects doe properly obey the Herald and so here Heb. 13. Obey those that are over you in the Lord according to that He that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me 2. It is enough for our purpose that Magistrates are so to obey Pastors in the Lord and Pastors are so supreame under Christ as the Magistrate is not above them and they have their Ambassage calling and commission immediately from Iesus Christ without the intervention of the Magistrates Authority Obj. But the obedience of the Magistrate to the Pastors is not absolute but conditionall if they command in the Lord Ergo It is no kindly obedience and subjection Ans It followeth not for so we should give no kindly obedience to Kings to Parents to Masters for we obey them onely conditionally in the Lord as they warrant their Commandement from the Word Yet Vedelius will not say it is unproper subjection we owe to the King nor can he say that the Royall power is imperium alienum a begged power all obedience to men this way is begged and if we come to Logick if I should say the nature and definition of obedience agreeth not univocally to obedience to God and to obedience to the creature Vedelius should hardly refute me It is enough Ministers of the Gospell discharge an Ambassage in the roome and place of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. God commandeth in his Ministers a limited obedience is kindly obedience Obj. 10. The keeping of the booke of the Law is given to the King Deut. 17. and 2 Kin. 11. v. 12. Iehoiada the Priest gave the booke of the Testimony to King Iehoash when they made him King the Priests indeed kept the booke of the Law in the side of the Arke but as servants of the King and custodes Templi Ans You may see solid answers to this in Walens Cabel Iavius and Iac. Triglandius 1. The booke of the Law was given to the King for his practise that he might feare the Lord his God and his heart not be lifted up above his brethren Deut. 17. 18 19 20. and this was common to him with the Priests and all the people of God but to the King in an exemplary and speciall manner that 1. The people might follow his Example and therefore these same words which concerne the practice of the King Deut. 17. 19. are also given to the people Deut. 6. 2. and 10. 13. and 111 2 13 22. and 12. 1 2 28. and 13. 4. and 27. 1. and 28. 1. with a little change sure no change that by any consequent will make the book of the Law to be delivered to the King to this end that his lips by his Royall office should preserve knowledge and that the people should require the Law at the Kings mouth which was the speciall office of the Priest Mal. 2. 7. as proper and peculiar to the Priest as the Covenant of Levi ver 8. and that they should not be partiall in the Law but should teach the people the difference between the cleane and the unclean the precious and the vile in Iudgement not accepting the persons of father and mother Ezek. 44. 23 24. and 22 26. Lev. 10. 10 11 Ieremiah 15. 19. Deut. 33. 9. Yea it was no lesse peculiar to the Priests then to offer Sacrifice to the Lord Leviticuâ— 10. 10 11 12 13. Mal. 2. 7 8. compared with v. 2. and with c. 1. v. 6 7 8. Now the King as King was not a confederate in the Covenant of Levi to burne incense and teach the people but in a farre other Covenant â— Kin. 11. 17 18. 2. In which the
King was to use the sword in defence of the Law and punishing Idolaters for 1. the King is neither commanded to teach Priests and people out of the booke of the Law Nor 2. rebuked for his neglect in this both these we may read of the Priests every where in the Prophets Deut. 33. 10. Mal. 2. 7. Lev. 10. 10 11. Ier. 2. 8. and 6. 13 14. Hos 4. 6 7 8. Deut. 17. 11 12. yea the booke of the Law is put in the keeping of the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 25. And Moses commanded the Levites which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord saying 26. Take this book of the Law and put it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord your God Now if the Priests had been onely the Kings servants immediately subordinate to the King and mediately onely to Iesus Christ the Arke all the holy things the booke of the covenant the burning of incense before the Lord had been principally and first injoyned to the King Ezra the Priest read the book of the Law not Nehemiah nor was it ever commanded that the King should read it in the hearing of the people and give the sense of it as the Priests were to doe by their office Hilkiah 2 Kin. 22. found the booke of the Law that was lost and Shaphan the Scribe read it before the King that they might see their Apostacie and Iosiah might accordingly reforme 2 King 22 9 10. Object 11. Isai 49. Kings shall be thy Nurse-fathers Ergo Kings were Fathers and heads of the Church Ans This text is brought for the Popes Supremacy but it is Isai 60. 10. Their Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall serve thee this is no dominion And the breasts of Kings which the Church is to suck is not the sincere milk of the Word which the King preacheth by himself or others but the externall strength dignity that the King shall adde by his Authority to the Church but the Tutor cannot â—ob the Pupil of the Law and priviledges of the inheritance 2. The Prince is not a father spirituall of the second birth of the Church as Paul was 1 Cor. 4. 15. Object 12. He for whom we are to pray that under him we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty and procureth the good of the Church as the Church to him as the supream Officer and Shepherd is the Church as the Church subject but the Magistrate is such 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo. Ans The Major is false and the Assumption untrue also and all that the conclusion can bring forth is that the Prince hath 1. An externall coactive care by way of dominion to procure the removall of Wolves from the fold 2. To procure the good of the Church in order to a naturall and civill good 3. To procure good to the Church as the Church in a coactive way by the sword in punishing Idolators 2. The Church as the Church is not subordinate to the Prince but as Subjects of the common wealth because he by a coactive power may procure the good of the Church as the Church for indirectly and by the sword the Magistrate defending godlines and procuring the good of souls doth not prove that his dominion and sword extendeth to their soules or that he watcheth for their soules as Heb. 13. 17. Obj. 13. The Kings of Israel and Iudah have reformed Religion Ans I cannot trouble the Reader to adde here what I have answered elsewhere but let the Reader see Triglandius Ant. Walens Gabel Iavius in the cited places they have in the defection of the Priests which is extraordinary Reformed Religion 2. They did many things as Prophets not as Magistrates 3. They have done much in Religion quoad actus imperatos non elicitos by their civill power commanding Priests to doe their dutie Object 14. It s true in severall respects he that is a Governour may be a subject but in one and the same spirituall respect to judge and to be judged to sit on the Bench and stand at the barre of Christ Iesus is as impossible as to reconcile the East and the VVest together so The Bloodie Tenent I demand if the Church be a Delinquent who shall judge It is answered the magistrate Again if the magistrate be a delinquent I ask who shall judge it It is answered The Church Whence I observe which is in most cases of the world monstrous that one person to wit the Church or the Magistrate shall be at one time the delinquent at the Barre and the judge upon the Bench for the Church must judge when the magistrate offends and yet the magistrate must judge when the Church offends whether she contemâ—â— civill authority in the Second Table for thus dealing with him or whether she hath broken the rules of the first table of which say they God hath made him a keeper and preserver what blood what tumults hath been and must be spilt upon these grounds Ib. so the Church calleth one of her members to office and ordaineth him an officer The Magistrate opposeth him as an unworthy officer and according to his conscience suppresseth him upon this the Church complaineth of the Magistrates violation of her priviledges and that he is turned persecutor and not prevailing with admonition She excommunicateth the Magistrate The Magistrate again not induring such violation of ordinances he cutteth off with the sword such prophaners of ordinances Ans All this is but wind devised against the Magistrates punishing of Idolaters and I shew the same followeth upon the Magistrates or Church erring the one in abusing civill authority or the other in prophaning ordinances or preaching the word for instance The Iudges of a land or of Ierusalem make grievous and bloody decrees against the poor the widdows and the Orphane A faithfull Isaiah a zealous preacher by authority from the Lord judgeth and condemneth according to his conscience these judges and cryeth out as Isai 10. 1 in the name of the Lord before all the Congregation Woe be to you who decree unrighteous decrees and write in the Bench grievousnesse to turne aside the needy from judgement and to take away right from the poore Now the Magistrate that decreed those decrees judgeth in his conscience they are righteous decrees and he according to his conscience noâ— induring that Isaiah or any preacher should thus abuse and prophane so holy an Ordinance of prophecying and preaching as to preach lies in the name of the Lord he proceedeth in his civill court and cuâ—teth off with the sword such false Prophets because they â—lander the Lords annoynted and preach lies of him is not here a reciprocation of judging in the same cause What will the Author say to this O saith he the Magistrate ought not to use his sword against those Prophets for they preach according to their conscience the truth of God But say that Shimei were a Prophet and
he calls David his Prince a bloody murtherer and saith this evill is come on him for rising up against Saul his Master The Magistrate may not punish him with the Sword for railing against the Lords anoynted 2. And if the Magistrate ought not to strike with the sword any Prophet for preaching according to his conscience for that is persecution to this Author how shall the Prophets judge and condemne the Magistrate for those same decrees which he hath given out according to his conscience for this is a persecution with the tongue Mat. 5. 11. Iob 19. 22. and it is one and the same spirituall cause saith this Author 3. The same very Author and the Parliament do reciprocally judge and condemne one another for the Parliament make warre against Papists for drawing the King on their side and causing him make warre against the Lambe and his followers that is against godly Protestants Now suppose Priests and Iesuits preach this to the Queen and other Papists and they according to their conscience make warre against the flock of Christ and the Parliament according to their conscience make warre against them this Author sitteth downe and judgeth and condemneth both sides as bloody persecutors for point of conscience Now though the Author in his Bench with his penne condemneth and judgeth both according to his conscience yet if the Papists or possibly the Parliament had this Author in their fingers might not they reciprocally judge and condemne him I think he cannot deny how justly they should reciprocally judge the Author I cannot say 3. This Author would have a contradiction such as is to make East and West both one that one and the same man both sit in the Bench and stand at the barre that the Church judge the Magistrate and the Magistrate judge the Church But I hope contradictions were no more under the Old Testament to be admitted nor under the New Now in the Old Testament the King might put to death the Prophet who should prophecy blasphemies and again the Prophet might judge the King by denouncing the judgement of the Lord against the King let the Author say how the King both did sit in the Bench and stand at the baâ—â—e in divers respects I think Aâ—hab might judge and punish Micaiah unjustly for prophecying that he should dye at Ramoth Gilead and Micaiah might in prophecy give out the sentence of death justly against him but here be two contrary sentences the like may fall out in Synodicall constitutions 2. To answer to his reasons 1. It followeth not that in one and the same spirituall respect one and the same person judgeth on the Bench and is judged at the Bar for the Churches judging is in a spirituall respect as the officer ordained may promote the building of Gods House the Magistrates suppressing him is no spirituall respect but as it disturbeth the peace of the State that so unworthy a person is an officer in Gods House and is hurtfull to the Church of God in their ediâ—icatioâ— which the Magistrate is to promote not in spirituall but in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 3. That one judge on the Bench and the same stand at the Barre and be judged at divers and sundry times is not so impossible by farre as to reconcile East and West together Aâ—â—â—b may judge Naboath to be condemned and stoned for his vineyard to day and immediately after Elias the Prophet may arraigne him before the Barre and tribunall of God to be condemned and adjudged to dye in the portion of Iezreel where the dogs may lick his blood It is true Elias is not properly a judge but a declarer in a propheticall and authoritative way of the judgement of God but this is all the judiciall power which we ascribe to Church or Presbytery and Pastors they are meer Ministers or servants to declare the will and sentence of God When the Minister preacheth wrath against the King for his sins he judgeth the King in a Pastorall and Ministeriall way which is all we contend for in many officers united in a Church way and at that same time the King hath power after that to judge him for preaching treason for â—ound Doctrine if it be found to be treason by the Church and this reciprocation of judging we maintaine as consistent and necessary in Ministers of Gospel and Magistrates But such a distance betweene them as between East and West we see not The Author should have shewne it to us by his owne grounds The Church may excommunicate a Magistrate as a persecutor who cutteth off Idolaters for their conscience yet the godly Magistrate may judge and punish them with the sword for abusing the ordinance of Excommunication so as to excommunicate the godly Magistrate because he doth punish evill doing with the Sword Rom. 13. 4. 4. The Author infers that tumults and bloods do arise from these two But that will not prove these two to be inconsistent and contrâ—dictorious tumults and blood arise from preaching the Gospel what then Ergo the Gospel is a masse of contradictions â—â— followeth not The â—umulâ—s and blood have their rise from mens lusts who are impatient of the yoak of Christ not from these two powers to judge Ecclesiastically in the Church and to be judged civilly by the Magistrates The Author draweth his instance to the actuall judging of the same thing contradictory wayes for example the Church ordaineth one to be a preacher and this they do Ecclesiastically and the Magistrate actually condemneth the same man civilly as unworthy to be a preacher It is one thing to say that the Church hath power to judge righteously in an Ecclesiasticall way any matter and another that the Christian Magistrate hath power in a civill way to judge righteously the same matter and a â—ar other thing it is to say The Church hath a power Ecclesiastically to judge a matter righteously according to the word and the Magistrate hath power to judge the same matter civilly in a wrong and unjust way the former we say God hath given a power to the Church to ordaine Ecclesiastically Epaphroditus to be a preacher of the Gospel because these graces and gifts are in him that are requisite to be in a faithfull preacher and God hath also given a power to the Christian Magistrate to adde his civill sanction to the ordination and calling of the same Epaphroditus But we do not teach that God hath given to the Church a power to call Epaphroditus to the Ministery in an Ecclesiasticall way and that God hath given a power to the Christian Magistrate to anull this lawfull ordination of Epaphroditus Now the Author putteth such a supposition that Church and Magistrate have two lawfull powers toward contrary acts the one of them a power to give out a just sentence the other a power to give out an unjust sentence in one and the same cause which we teach not God gave to none either in Church
c. 12. Zozomen l. 7. e. 8. Theodoretus l. 5. c. 9. Historia tripartit l. 9. c. 14. say that the Emperor ordained him the Synod named him the truth is the Bishops were devided in judgement and its like they referred the matter to the godly Emperour In the mean time Athanasius Epist de solit vita Ambros l. 5. orat ad auxentium and l. 5. Epist 32. ad valentinianum Zozomen l. 6. c. 7. Concilium Toletanum III. Concilium milevitanum and divers others which I have cited elsewhere make the Emperor a Son of the Church not a Head and Lord intra Ecclesiam filium Ecclesiae non judicem non dominum supra Ecclesiam I might adde Augustin Epist 48. 50. 162. l. 1. de doctr Christ c. 18. Cyril Alexandrinus in an Epistle to the Synod of Antioch all Protestant Divines of note and learning CHAP. XXVII Quest 23. Whether the subjecting of the Magistrates to the Church and Pastors be any papal Tyranny and whether we differ not more from Papists in this then our adversaries The Magistrate not the Vicar of the mediator Christ The Testimonies of some learned Divines on the contrary answered IT is most unjustly imputed to us that we lay a Law upon the conscience of the Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church not inquiring into the Nature of the thing This Doctrine we disclaim as Popish and Antichristian It hath its rise from Bonifacius the III. who obtained from Phocas a bloody tyrant who murthered Mauritius and his Children as Baronius confesseth and yet he saith of this murtherer optimortum imperatorum vestigia sequutus he made an Edict that the Bishop of Constantinople should not be called Oecumenick nor universall Bishop but that this should be given only to the Bishop of Rome So Baronius yieldeth this tyranny was inlarged by Hildebrande named Gregorius the seventh a monster of tyrannicall wickednesse and yet by Papists he is sanctitate et miraculis clarus Baronius extolleth him these and others invaded both the swords Bishops would be civill judges and trample first upon the neck then upon the consciences of Emperors and make Kings the hornes of the beast and seclude them from all Church businesses except that with blind obedience having given their power to the beast as slaves they must execute the decrees of the Church Paul the III. the confirmer of the order of Iesuits who indicted the Councell of Trent as Onuphrius saith up braideth Charles the V. for meddling with Church businesse They write that Magistrates do not see in Church matters with their owne eyes but with Bishops eyes and that they must obey without examining the decrees of Councels and this they write of all subject to the Church Toletus in Instruct Sacerdâ—t l. 4. c. 3. Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum morâ—tur in credendo licet sit error Card. Cusanus excit l. 6. sermon obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino Ib. sententia pastoris ligat te pro tua salute etiam si injusta fuerit Envy cannot ascribe this to us Calvin Beza yea all our writers condemne blind obedience as brutish But our Adversaries in this are more Popish for they substitute King and Parliament in a headship over the Church giving to the King all the same power in causes Ecclesiastick that the Pope usurped 2. They make the King a mixed person to exercise spirituall jurisdiction to ordaine Bishops and deprive them and Mr. Prinne calleth the opinion of those who deny Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction legislative a high word proper to God only coercive power of Christian Emperors Kings Magistrates Parliaments in all matters of Religion what in fundamentall Articles of salvation Church-government Discipline Ceremonies c. Anti-monarchicall Anti-parliamentarie Anarchicall as holden by Papists Prelates Anabaptists Arminians Socinians c. It s that which Arminians objects to us and calleth the soul heart and forme of papall tyranny But that the Magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination whither they be right or wrong as Papists teach that the Magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience and submit his faith to them because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church doth erre or not is clear 1. Because if in hearing the word all should follow the example of the men of Berea not relying on the Testimony of Paul or any preacher try whether thâ—â— which concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no and accordingly receive or reject so in all things of Discipline the Magistrate is to try by the word whether he ought to adde his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick and a perverter of souls But the former is true the Magistrates practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing herericks concerneth his conscience knowing that he must do it in faith as he doth all his moral actions Ergo the Magistrate must examine what he practiseth in his office according to the word and must not take it upon the meer authority of the Church else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimaté on the authority of the Church not on the word of God which no doubt is Popery for so the warrant of the Magistrates conscience should not be Thus saith the Lord but Thus saith the Church in their decrees 2. The Magistrate and all men have a command to try all things Ergo to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good 1 Thes 5. 21. To try the spirits even of the Church in their decrees 1 Joh. 3. 1. 3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground that 1. The Church cannot erre in their decrees 2. It s against Scripture and reason that Magistrates and by the like reason all others should obey the decrees of the Church with a blinde faith without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees which is as good Popery as Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the Church beleeveth with an implicite faith so ignorance shall be the mother of Devotion who ever impute this to us who have suffered for non-conformity and upon this ground that Synods can erre refused the Ceremonies are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyall odious to Magistracy in that which we never thought â—ar lesse to teach and professe it to the world 4. Their chiefe reason is the Magistrate by our doctrine by his office is obliged 1. To follow the judgement of the Church and in that he is a servant or inslaved Qui enim
and people which is the highest Papall Tyranny on earth Obj. 3. If the Magistrate be therefore subject to the Church not as a Magistrate but as he scandalously transgresseth the Law of God so that the Church may not rebuke and censure him as either a Magistrate or as a Magistrate doing his duty but onely as a Transgressor Then neither 1. one particular Pastor as a Pastor is subject to the Church yea no man in a lawfull calling or relation as such is subject to the Church for the Church cannot rebuke or censure a Husband as a Husband a father as a father a Painter as a Painter no more then the Church can censure a Magistrate as a Magistrate for then should the Church censure and condemn all these relations and callings as husband father painter Magistrate as intrinsecally unlawfull Nor can the Church censure and rebuke husband father painter musitian c. when they do right and doe but fulfill their relations and callings in doing the duties of husband father painter no more then the Church can censure and rebuke the Magistrate when he doth his dutie Ans 1. This is not the totall compleat and adequate cause why the Magistrate in spirituall things is subject to the Church but the halfe of the cause onely you must take in the other consideration he is in spiritualibus subject to the Church not only as he doth sin but 1. As he may sin scandalously 2. As he may be directed informed and swayed with precepts promises counsels threatnings toward a supernaturall end to eternall life take in all these three and we grant all The Magistrate and all in other relations and professions and callings are equally in spirituall things subject to the Church as the Ministers of Christ and in all other relations and callings as fathers husbands painters musitians are in civill things equally subject to the Magistrate according to the three former cases in a civill consideration Obj. 4. But then you must prove solidly from the word that the Magistrate is subject to the Church in spirituall things Ans It is enough if I prove that the Magistrate is subject to the Church to Pastors and Doctors in things belonging to his soule and as a man and a Christian in civill things are subject to him which to me is clear in the Word of God as 1. Because Timothy and all watchmen in their person are commanded to rebuke them that sin before all and that in the sight of God and the Lord Iesus and the elect Angels without preferring one before another or doing any thing by partialitie 1 Tim. 5. 20 21. 2 Tim. 4. 2. And if Levi must not know his father or his mother in the Lords cause Deut. 33. 9. and Ieremiah in rebuking not be dismayed of Kings Princes and Prophets Ier. 1. 17. neither must Ministers accept the persons of judges Christ rebuked his mother to whom otherwise he was subject Ioh. 2. 4. Luke 2. 51. 2. There is the practise of the Prophets Christ and the Apostles that they have rebuked Kings Rulers Magistrates Priests Prophets every page almost of the Old and New Testament saith this 3. God hath no whit exempted the Rulers from rebukes as they be men they can and do sin 4. Princes are the sheep of Christ and redeemed as a part of the flock for the which Christ gave the blood of God Ergo they are to be fed and watched over lest they also as grievous wolves prey upon the flock Acts 20. 28 29 30. then there must be some over them and those who should speake the word of the Lord to them and so the word of rebuke and who should watch for the souls of Magistrates as those who must give an account whom the Magistrates must obey as others in the same condition who have souls Heb. 13. 7 17. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. 1 Thes 5. 12 13 14. 5. All the censures of the Church are for the good of soules that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. 1 Cor. 5. 5 6. and for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. Iude v. 23. Ergo the souls of Magistrates should not be defrauded of this mean of edification 6. Pastors as Ministers Stewards Ambassadors Watchmen are intrusted with the word of reconciliation 1 Cor. 4. 1 2. and 1 Cor. 3. 5. and 4. 15. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2 Cor. 4 7. Ergo they must divide the Word aright to all within the family 2 Tim. 2. 15. and rebukes and censures are a part of the word of reconciliation no lesse then promises and they are to prophecy death and life as God in his word commandeth Ezek. 3. 17 18 19 20. and 13. 19. and 33. 7 8 9. 10. 7. The power of the Lord Jesus in censuring is extended to men as â—ll doers not as Magistrates or not Magistrates 1 Cor. 5. 2. Gal. 5. 10. the power of binding and loosing is extended to a trespassing brother who will not hear the Church Mat. 18. 15 16. and 16. 19 20. The Magistrate is a brother Deut. 17. 15. one of the Israel of God as Saul was of of the Tribe of Benjamin David of Iudah 8. The Church may judge such as are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. but such is the Christian Magistrate 9. Correction is a priviledge of sons and Members of the family Heb. 12. 6 7. Rev. 3. 19. Ergo the Magistrate should not be deprived of that wherein all Christians share Gal. 2. 28. 10. Discipline is a part of Christs Kingly government if the government be on Christs shoulders as King as it is Mat. 28. 19 20. Ephes 4. 11 12. Esa 22. 22. and if the Gospel be the Word and Scepter of his Kingdome Mark 1. 14 15. and 4. 11. Matth. 21 43. Luke 4. 43. and 8. 1. Acts 1. 3. and 8. 12. and 20. 25. and 28. 31. Psal 45. 3. Rev. 1. 16. Then if Magistrates be the subjects of Christ as King of the Church they must be subject to those who preach the Kingdome carry the Scepter and rule under Christ as King 11. Upon the same ground if they decree grievous decrees Isa 10. 1. Micah 3. 1. and be wolves ravening the prey Ezek. 22. 27. let them have either Royall or Parliamentary power they are to be rebuked debarred from the holy things of God excommunicated and their sins bound in earth as in heaven Mat. 18 18. Mat. 16. 19. Nor should Courts or Parliaments or Thrones be cities of refuge to unjust and scandalous men 12. Upon the same ground Magistrates are not to be deprived of the good of private rebukes and admonitions except we hate the Magistrate in our heart and strive not to gain his soul Levit. 19. 17. Mat. 18. 15 16. Luk. 17. 3 4. Psal 141. 5. 13. Erastus himself granteth that Magistrates may be rebuked and when he granteth that Apostates and Idolaters are not
members of the Church and that they are to be cast out of the Church as he doth also he must either grant that Christian Magistrates cannot turn Apostates and Idolaters which is against Scripture and experience or that if they turn Apostates and Idolaters they remain no longer members of the Church but are to be excommunicated or then Christ must have made some speciall exception that Kings though Idolaters and Apostates do yet remain members of the Church and are not to be cast out of the Church which beside that Erastus cannot shew is contradictory to his words Hence it is clear the Magistrate if he turn as Saul did a wicked man he is to be excommunicated But 1. By whom by the Church Erastus will deny he can be judged by the Church because he is above the Church by himselfe that is against reason By other Magistrates he is the only supream in that Church and by what reason he is above the Church he is above the other Magistrates and other Magistrates are guilty of the same fault Obj. 5. The supream and principall power called Architectonica of governing the Church in externals either agree to the Magistrate or to the Church not to the Magistrate as they say if to the Church Then 1. The universall care and inspection over the Church is taken from the Magistrate and given to the Church Ergo 2. Then the Christian Magistrate not indirectly only but directly must be obliged to follow the judgement of the Church in ordaining depriving punishing of Ministers or of any excommunicated 3. The subjects must be obliged not to obey yea to disobey the Magistrate if he decern any thing contrary to the Church and the Magistrate as a lictor and servant must execute all Ans 1. There is no reason to say that the supream and principall power by way of royall dominion as the argument supposeth in Church matters should agree to either Magistrate on earth or Church it is a Rose of the Crown of him who is the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords and so the Major is false Nor is that care and inspection which is due to the Magistrate taken from him when we ascribe to Christ what is his due 2. Neither doth it follow that the Magistrate is directly obliged to follow the judgement of the Church except we did make the judgement of the Church supream and absolute and armed with such a dominion as the adversaries give to the Magistrate in which case it followeth that the Church is directly and absolutely obliged to follow the judgement of the Magistrate according to the way of the adversaries and that if this argument be good they must ascribe blind obedience either to the Church or Magistrate not to the Magistrate they say Ergo to the Church Nor can they take it off by saying that the Magistrates dominon is limited by the Word of God for they know that we teach that all the constitutions and decrees of Synods made by the Church as the Church is limited by the Word of God yet they cease not to object to us that we make the Magistrate a servant and a lictor to the Church and obliged by his place to give blind obedience to the Church and therefore they are obliged to answer the argument and remove papal dominion from their way according to their owne argument if they will be willing to take in to themselves with the same measure that they give out to others But if they give a ministeriall power of judging to the Church the argument is easily answered which they cannot give to the Magistrate except they make his office to oblige the conscience and his commands as magistraticall to be given out under the pain of the second death Now his sword is too short to reach to this I hope except you make the vengence that he executeth on evil doers Rom. 13. to be eternall fire and his sword to be no materiall nor visible sword but such as commandeth Devils and Hell which is absurd for the Magistrates power of judging and commanding is commensurable to his power of rewarding and punishing that is both is temporary within time on the body of this world The Pastors have a power of commanding though only ministeriall but free of all domination or externall coaction which is spirituall and the punishment is accordingly spirituall a binding in earth and heaven I borrow only the word of punishment it being no such thing properly Obj. 6. If the end of the Church be a spirituall and of the Magistrate be a temporall good and if the Magistrate have no spirituall power to attain to his temporall end no more then the Church hath any temporall power to attain to her spirituall end is not this a contradiction that the Magistrate should determine what the true Church and Ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword for the Magistrates power to judge and punish in spirituall causes must be either spirituall or civill or then he hath none and so acts without commission Now for civill power the Magistrate hath it only over the bodies and goods of men and hath it not over the soul nor can he have it say â— in soul cases It is confessed that the Magistrate hath no spirituall power to attain a temporall end and therefore those who provoke the Magistrate without either civill or spirituall power to punish or prosecute in spirituall causes are to fear that they come too near to those frogs that proceed out of the mouth of the Dragon and Beast and false Prophet who with the same argument stirre up the Kings of the earth to make war against the Lambe and his followers Rev. 17. Bloody Tenent Answ 1. All this argument is builded on a great mistake and a conseqence never proved except by this one word of the Author Therefore say I and it is this The Magistrate hath no civill power over the soul therefore say I he hath no power in soul matters and cannot judge and punish in spirituall causes Sir this is a non sequitur The learned Divine Rivetus saith well The Magistrates power in spirituall things to judge and punish is formaliter and in it self and intrinsecally civill but objective in regard of the object and extrinsecally it is spirituall 1. I ask when the Author and his take a professor into Church-communion they judge whether he be just mercifull and peaceable when they excommunicate any member for murther for unjustice in taking away the goods of his brother whether the Church doth judge and punish in the causes of justice mercy and peace which properly belongeth to the civill Magistrate not to the Church properly but only ratione scandali as they are offensive in the Church of God I ask I say if the Churches power in judging and punishing be civill or spirituall not civill for this Author will say that the Church hath no power over the lives and goods
Deu. 17. they are not to chuse a stranger but one from amongst their brethren and men fearing God and hating coveteousnes Exo. 18. 21. Deu. 17. 15 16 17 18 19 20. and 1. 16. and that a Christian Magistrate receive power to govern in the Church I deny him to be a Governour of the Church from Christian people I see no inconvenience Suppose that a Christian woman chuse a Pagan Husband she sins in her choise and as a sinful woman chuseth a Pagan who hath no other then a Pagan conscience to be the guide of her youth and her head and to love her as Christ loved his Church and to rule her according to his marital and Husband-power in some acts of her Christian conversation Yea when Christians did fight under Heathen Emperours they gave power as all souldiers do to their Commanders to those Heathen Captains to command Christians according to their Pagan consciences for other consciences it cannot be supposed Heathen have as this Author speaketh nor do I see such an inconvenience that men as men chuse a Magistrate who is a Heathen to see not the Church as the Church but men of the Church do their duty and to punish them civilly when they omit Church duties when providence compelleth Iudah Yea when God commandeth Iudah to submit to a Babylonish or Persian King who according to his Babylonish conscience is to command them to keep the oath of God to abstain from murther yea to build again the house of God and is to punish the men of Iudah if they do the contrary Here evidently the Church is to chuse Heathen Kings who according to their Heathen consciences are to judge and punish sins against both Tables but they chuse them to adde there auxiliary power to help and desend the Church not any privative or absolute power to set up what ordinances they will Nor is it supposed that men as men may give to Indian and American Magistrates power to judge by rule of Indian consciences what is blasphemy against Iesus Christ what is apostacy from the Christian saith to Iudaâ—sme and to punish it For in that fare the Indian Magistrate is uncapable of Magistracy in those acts though essentially he be a lawfull Magistrate in other acts just as Christian men and Saints by calling may make a Christian Corinthiaâ— amongst themselves their Magistrate and yet he cannot judge whether Tiâ—ius the Physiâ—ian in Corinth hath poysoned Sempronius as he hath a Christian conscience but not a medicinall conscience to speak so or the skill and art of a Physiâ—ian to know what is poyson what not yet did men as men create this Christian Magistrate to judge punish murthers and poysoning of Christians 2. Let us also turn the Tables the Author cannot deny but Ten thousand Christians and Indians half of each side may come to be one civil incorporation they create with common consent a Christian Magistrate over themselves this they do as a society of men The Indians worship their God in that society by offering their children to the Devil and this is their Indian conscience for it is not to be supposed that an Indian can worship his God with other then an Indian conscience By this Authors way Indians and Christians gave to this Christian Magistrate to judge of this Indian and bloody worship with a Christian conscience for it is supposed he can judge with no other conscience I demand whether or not this Magistrate be obliged to punish such horrid shedding of innocent blood If he be he is set over this incorporation to bear the sword of the Lord and with a Christian conscience to judge and punish Indian consciences Is not this as great an inconvenience as what he objecteth to us Besides that according to this way he must not punish the killing of the children to the Devil why this is against the will of the meek Saviour in whom the Christian Magistrate believes to persecute an Indian for his conscience as this Author thinketh Now it is no lesse an Indian conscience worship and no murther to offer an innocent child to the Indian God then it was to the Jews to offer an innocent Bullock or a Ram to Jehovah Obj. But God hath forbidden in the Law of nature to kill infants to God upon any pretence Ans In the Law of nature God hath forbidden all false worship 2. The Law of nature hath forbidden to offer any blood to God that is the Law of nature will never warrant us to offer in a whole brunt offering an innocent Beast to God created for the use of man and it should be against the Law of nature to kill Beasts for any religious use or for any use except to be food or medicine for man Except God in a positive Law had commanded whole burnt offerings and offering of Beasts to God so the Law of nature forbids Indians to kill infants but they tell you there is a positive Law of their God and in conscience they are obliged to kill their children to this God and you must convince their conscience that this is murther not right worship by reason and light of truth not with a club and force of sword which hath no influence upon the conscience 3. It followeth not that God hath subjected God Christ Heaven the Spirit to naturall men for an Indian Magistrate remaining an Indian never received power from mem as men nor from God to judge of Christian worship yea Indian Magistrates as Indians are uncapable of judging or punishing what is against Christ Heaven the Spirit and yet they are Lawfull Magistrates for their ignorance of Christ excludeth them from having any such formal power what Magistraticall power they have which they cannot put forth in acts is not to a purpose for this power which they cannot exercise shall never subject Christ Heaven the Spirit to the consciences of naturall men or Indian Magistrates this consequence therefore should have been proved not presumed as a truth 4. He saith If any Church should arise amongst those who have Indian Magistrates Christ should betrust the Indian civill power with his Church I answer This is non-consequence also for the state of heathenship in the Indian should exclude him from any such trust if a Church arise they are to be under the Indian Magistrate while God in his providence free them from under him that they may chuse a Christian Magistrate who may be a nurse-father to them 5. The Lord be trusteth his Church to the civil power as an auxiliary power not to exercise any magistraticall power over the Church and over their conscience but only for the Churches good and for their conscience These would be distinguished a governour of or over the Church 2. A Governour in the Church 3. A Governour for the Church neither Christian nor Heathen Magistrate is a Governor of the Church or over the Church An Heathen Magistrate may be a Governour in the Church giving to
the civil Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments 4. They never condemned the Discipline of Geneva Erastus doth 5. They acknowledge there was in the apostolick Church an Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery Erastus saith this is a devise wanting Scripture 6. They denied Excommunication to be exercised by all the Church as a devise of the Anabaptists Bullinger saith 1 Cor. 5. a dilectis ad hoc hominibus Erastus saith it must be exercised by the whole Church if there be any such thing 7. Bullinger and Gualther think that Discipline is necessary in the Church Erastus refuseth any such thing 2. Bullinger and Gualther do think that the Lords Supper which is an action of publike thanksgiving and communion should not be turned into a punishment which is a Use that Christ and his Apostles hath not taught us But this is easily answered 1. The pearls and holy things of the Gospel are not turned into another Vse then Christ hath ordained because they are denied to dogs and swine as a punishment of their swinish disposition and if these pearls were given to swine should they not be turned to another Use then is ordained by Christ Is not the union of members in a Church-body a sweet bound is this communion translated to a bastard end unknown to Christ and the Apostles because the incestuous man is cast out of that Communion This is as who would say the Table of the House is a symbol of a sweet Communion of all the children of the House Ergo the Table is turned from its native Use and is abused if a flagitious and wicked son be turned out at the doors and removed from the Table I think the contrary is true the Lords Table ordained for children is converted into an Use not known to Christ and his Apostles when the Table is prepared for dogs and swine and this argument is against Christ Mat. 7. as much as against us 2. By this the excommunicated cast out of the House is not debarred from the Table of the House What sense is here the offender is cast out from amongst the children of the Lords family and yet is admitted to the Table of the family 3. These great Divines teach that in the dayes of Christ and the Apostles there was such an ordinance as excommunication and that the Church who worketh not miracles for any thing that we read and received a precept from the Holy Ghost for Excommunication as a moral and perpetual mean to remove scandals to humble and shame an obstinate offender to preserve the Church from contagion and to edifie all as is clear Mat. 18. 15 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. that the Church I say or men must be wiser then Christ and remove this mean of edification and substitute the sword of the Magistrate that hath no activity or intrinsecal influence for such a supernatural end as edification this cannot but be a condemning of the lawgiver Christs wisdom Whereas Mr. Prinne and others say that by the preaching of the Word not by Church-discipline men are converted to Christ as witnesse the many thousands of godly people in England where there have been no government but prelatical I answer 1. This is to dispute against the wisdom of Christ who ascribeth to private rebukes and Church censures the gaining of souls the saving of the spirit repentance and humiliation Mat. 18. 15 16. 1 Cor. 5. 5 6. 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. because preaching is more effectual Ergo is the Discipline not effectual 2. Consider if thousands more would not have been converted if Christs Government had been set up for which Mr. Cartwright Mr. Vdal Mr. Dearing and the godliest did supplicate the Parliament 3. Consider if there hath not been in Scotland as many thousands comparing the numbers rightly when the Church was terrible as an Army with Banners 4. Consider how the Tigurine Churches and others for want of the hedge have been scandalously wicked 5. The Magistrate by punishing drunkennesse or fornication or extortion for he cannot take away the life for these doth not keep the lump of the whole Church from being leavened and infected with the contagion of such The Church by removing and casting out such an one must do that and the personal separating from such as walk inordinately cannot be an act of the Magistrate and yet cannot but be a perpetual and moral mean or ordinance that the Church is to use not only when they have not a Christian Magistrate but perpetually for we are to withdraw from those that walk inordinately and are not to be corrupted with having intire fellowship with wicked men whether the Church have a Christian Magistrate or no I am to gain my brother by rebuking and by telling the Church and to esteem one that heareth not the Church as an Heathen or a Publican that I may gain him Whether there be a Christian or an Heathen Magistrate in the Church except it can be proved that the Magistrate as the Magistrate is to gain souls to God Yea Musculus Bullinger and Gualther have alike reason to say there is no need that we rebuke privately a trespasing brother and that we forgive him seven times a day when the Church hath a Christian Magistrate as they can say there is no need of Excommunication for if the sword can supply the room of one spiritual ordinance of God why not of another also and the text will bear us out as well to say we are not to eschew the company of a scandalous brother for shaming of him and for the danger of being leavened by him because the Magistrates sword may supply the want of that mean of edifying as well as it may supply the want of Excommunication Yea they may say there is no need of publike rebukes by the Word the sword may supply these also The Helvetian Conâ—ession is approved by the Tygurine Pastors by the Divines of Berne Basil Geneva Deus ad colligendam vel constituendam sibi Ecclesiam eamque gubernandam et conservandam semper usus est Ministris Ministrorum virga institutio functio vetustissima ipsius Dei est non nova non hominum est ordinatiâ— cumque omninò oporteat esse in Ecclesia disciplinam et apud veteres quondam usitata fuerit excommunicatio fuerint que judicia Ecclesiastica in populo Dei in quibus per viros prudentes et pios ipsisimum presbyterium exercebatur disciplina Ministorum quoque fuerit ad edificationem disciplinam moderari c. Magistratus officium praecipuâ—m est pacem et tranquillitatem publicam procurare et conservare Gallica Confessio the 29. Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ sive disciplinâ quam D. N. I. C. sanciviâ— ita ut viz. in ea sâ—nt pastores presbyteri sive
is not now an ordinance of God necessarie if any burne Incense to it these who are by authoritie obliedged to remove it and doth not remove it they doe morally and culpably scandalize Hence we see it is foolish and vaine that some say such as Hooker D. Forbes D. Sanderson and Lyndesay pretended Bishop of Edinburge and Mr. Paybodie That as Rome and Corinth the Church had not past her determination upon eating and not eating nor made any Church lawes upon these things indifferent and therefore to eat or not to eat were matters of every private mans choise But it is not the like case with our Ceremonies for they remaine no longer indifferent but are necessarie to us after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them and so the scandall that ariseth from our dutie of obedience to lawfull authoritie is taken and not given I answer it is most false that eating and not eating in case of scandall was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co rinth For these most indifferent acts in their use and cloathed with their Circumstances when where and before what persons were under the unalterable law of nature as destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died a law which as the course of conformitie saith well cannot be dispenced with by no power but Gods And Paul proveth by stronger arguments to eat in the case of Scandall was not indifferent but simply evill Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments as we have seen that it fighteth against Charitie v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died and so murther 3. Contrary to Christs love who died for that weake brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Libertie to be evill spoken of v. 6. c. It is a sham then to say that eating or not eating was indifferent because free from any ty of a Church Canon seeing eating before a weake brother is under the ty of unanswerable Arguments taken from the law of nature and Gods Canons written in the heart forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathema and curse heavier then the Church anathema that we should for meat destroy him for whom Christ died and so are the Canon-makers and Lords of Ceremonies under a curse if they for crossing kneeling surplice destroy him for whom Christ died or command him to be destroyed by the practice of Ceremonies 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these Notwithstanding the eating of meates which some suppose to be forbidden by Gods law be a killing of him for whom Christ died and against Charity and a reproaching of our Christian liberâ—ie yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us the Prelates of Rome and Corinth to command eating of such meats before weake ones for whom Christ died But certainly Paul would never have commandâ—d in a Canon that which he writeth in Canonicall Scripture to be a murthering of him for whom Christ died and that which he would not practise himself to the worlds end so long as it standeth in the case of indifferencie as he saith of eating of fleshes conceived by some weake ones to be against Gods law 1 Cor. 8. v. last The Pope himselfe would nor dare in conscience to practise any of his owne Canons even though they were yet not Canonically commanded or forbidden Paul would not dare to put a law upon the Romans or Corinthians to eat or not to eat meats before the weake but commandeth not eating in the case of scandall 4. Idolatrie is ever idolatrie saith the course of conformitie and so scandall being sinne it cannot cease to be sinne because superiours commandeth it 5. Though Apostolick authoritie being meerly divine should command that which is in it self murther and was â—urther before it be Canonically commanded which I think also is a false hypothesis yet it shall never follow that humane authoritie or Ecclesiastick authoritie can command scandall which is spirituall murther For if Ecclesiastick authoritie may command murther they may command idolatrie for active scandalizing is as essentially murthering of one for whom Christ died as to worship an idoll is essentially idolatrie Therefore Master Sydserfe pretended Bishop of Gallâ—way being straited with this argument sayd Though humane authoritie cannot invert the nature of things or make spirituall murther to be no murther yet they can by a Church Canon put the mindes of people in such a change as now they are not in the hazard to be justly scandalized for a scandall sayd the Prelate is ens rationis no reall thing but a fiction of reason the nature of it being in the apprehension of the ignorant and blind who are scandalized and a law may remove this ignorance when it giveth light and sheweth the expediencie of things indifferent To which I answered you may call idolatrie if you please and all sinnes fictions of reason but not only doth scandall given proceed from ignorance and blindnesse of the apprehension of the partie scandalized but also from the unseasonable practising of a thing which is no wayes necessarie in the worship of God The course of confirmitie saith well He that denieth that there is any scandall is like one who could not see the wood for the trees the walking of Diogenes is meetest for a Zeno who against all reason denyeth that there is any motion We may hence judge what to say of D. Forbes his Answer to the place 1 Cor. 9. Who saith that Paul was under no Ecclesiasticall law not to take wages and therefore in not taking wages he was not a contemner of Ecclesiasticall authoritie but we are under a Church law to practise the Ceremonies and yet we refuse them I answer If then the Church of Corinth had commanded Paul in their Canons to take stipend for preaching he was obliedged to take stipend yet he proveth that it was not lawfull for him as the case of scandall then stood to take wages v. 18. he should abuse his power in the Gospell and v. 19. 20 21. he should not have becommed all things to all men to save some and these things had been sinfully scandalous if as the case was then Paul for a penny of wages which he might have wanted having no familie to provide for should have layd a stumling block before many And the Doctor â—aith No humane power can compell a man to doe that which he cannot doe except inevitably he give scandall The Doctor addeth The Apostle teacheth not that to take stipend was unlawfull or of it selfe scandalous yea he taught it was lawfull and that they should not be scandalized thereat because Christ hath ordained that he who serveth at the altar should live upon the Altar but you teach that the Ceremonies are unlawfull I Answer 1. In this argument of Scandall we
marrying both free to the conscience and also not necessarie to salvation they had laid bands upon Pauls libertie 3. We see not how the Ceremonies are left free to the conscience because they are alterable by the Church for the reason of kneeling to bread of humane dayes of Surplice is morall not Nationall there is no reason why prophaning of the Lords Supper should not be eschewed in all the world and at all times as in Britaine and at this time and Crossing and Surplice doth signifie dedication to Christs service and Pastorall holinesse in all the world as in Britaine and therefore they cannot be nationall rites and alterable but must be universall and at all times and in all places doctrinall 4. The very externall Washings Feasts New-Moones Offerings though they should be thought free toward the conscience are externall burdens against Christian libertie as our Divines Calvin Chemnitius Polanus teacheth and Bellarmine answereth the places alledged speaketh of Jewish servitude But our Divines especially Junius and Whittakerus answer Bellarmine that Paul Coll. 2. speaketh against all Commandements of men yea hee speaketh against Angel worship which is not a Jewish shadow whereof Christ is the bodie But they say it is a wide rule that all things that may be wanting in Gods worship are to be omitted in the case of scandall I answer there be three sort of things here considerable 1. Things not commanded of God as all religious observances these are utterly unlawfull when the using of them scandalizeth 2. Things that fall under an affirmative precept and these cannot be totally omitted for eschewing scandall for what ever God hath commanded is some way necessarie Ergo it some wayes and in some cases may be done though offence be taken at it but branches or parts of affirmative precepts may be omitted for eschewing of scandall as such a particular kneeling in prayer in such a place but Gods affirmatiue precepts leave not off to be alwayes scandalous actively though information be given for where the use hurteth the abuse and scandall is not taken away by teaching to teach how Images should not be abused make not Images to leave off to be scandalous objects 3. There bee some things of meere civill use as Bells Gownes Pulpits preaching on Tuesday or Thursday These be considered two wayes 1 As necessarie with necessitie of conveniencie simply 2. With necessitie of conveniencie secundum prevalentiam graduum as convenient in the highest degree of necessitie or that morall maximum quod sit in the first degree what scandalizeth is to be rejected in the last respect they oblige and if any be scandalized thereat it is taken and not given It may be the Church sees not alwayes the highest and superlative conveniencie in these Physicall circumstances but they oblige not because of the Churches authoritie no more then the word of God borroweth authority from the Church but they have an intrinsecall necessitie in themselves though right reason in the Church see not alwayes this necessitie therefore that a signe be given for convening the people that the Preacher officiate in the most grave and convenient habite is necessarie Jure divino by Gods law and that tolling of Bells and a Gowne a Pulpit bee as particulars most convenient for these ends the Church Ministerially doth judge so as the obligatorie power is from the things themselves not from the will of humane Superiours No necessitie of peace which is posterior to truth no necessitie of obedience to authoritie no necessitie of uniformitie in these externals simply and as they are such are necessities obliging us to obedience for things must first in themselves be necessarie before they can oblige to obedience I must obey Superiours in these things of convenient necessitie because they are convenient and most convenient in themselves and so intrinsecally most necessarie but they are not necessarily to be done in themselves because I must obey Superiours and because I must keep uniformitie with the Church The will of Superiours doe find in things necessitie and good of uniformitie but they doe not make necessitie nor the good of uniformitie We should be servants of men if our obedience were ultimatè resolved in the meere will of Superiours in any the least circumstance of worship and what I say of actions holdeth in matters of meere custome also But Master Sanderson D. Forbes M. Paybodie teach that we are not to regard the scandall of the malitious as of Pharisees To which I answer We are to have alike regard in case of scandall to wicked and malitious as to weake and infirme For we are not to regard the passive scandall of the weake more nor of the wicked for who ever stumble at the necessarie ordinances of God they take a scandall which is not culpably given But that we are to regard the active scandall of all even the most malitious I demonstrate thus 1 Rom. 14. 15. Paul proveth that we are not to scandalize our brother 1. because it is against charitie 2. Because we are not to destroy him for whom Christ died but we owe love to the malitious even to our enemies and must not walke uncharitably toward him as the law of God requireth 3. A malitious man is one for whom Christ died very often as is cleare in Paul before his conversion 2. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Wherefore give no scandall neither to the Jewes nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God 33. Even as I please all men in all things not seeking mine owne profit but the profit of many that they may be saved Here be many arguments for our purpose All men whether weake or wilfull are either Jewes or Gentiles and none more malitious against Paul and the Gospell then the Jewes yet must we take heed that we give them no scandall 3. If we must please all men in all things indifferent Ergo also malitious men 4. If we must seeke the profit not of our selves but of all men and seeke to save them and so seeke the salvation even of the malitious as Christ prayed for his malitious enemies so must we not scandalize them 5. I argue from the nature of scandall scandall is spirituall murther but the sixt Commandement for biddeth murthering of any man either weake or wilfull for no murtherer can have life eternall 1 Joh. 3. 15. Now weaknesse or malice in the scandalized is accidentall to the nature of scandall active for active scandalizing is to doe inordinately and unseasonably that which hic nunc may be omitted from which any is scandalized either weake or wilfull to lay a snare to kill a wicked man except it be by the authoritie of him who beareth the sword under God is murther no lesse then to kill an innocent man 6. To scandalize actively is to be accessarie to the sinne of the partie scandalized but we may not be accessarie to the sinne of either wilfull wicked or weake
that beare no fruit were to be cut down as not so necessarie for mans life Now this reason is morall and perpetuall and so are houses to sence off the injuries of the clouds a Manslife except they bee forbidden by a positive law of God and so necessarie as without the â—se of houses no worshipping of God can be ordinarily And therefore in the second place as we use Gold Silver Tamples and materiall houses though abused to Idolatrie because the Lord hath created them for our use his law of Creation warranting us to use them so can we not refraine from the use of them though abused by Papists except wee have a speciall positive law to warrant us to refraine from the use of these necessarie creatures of God so usefull for the life of man For according to the grounds of these against whom we now dispute the Garments of silke or cloth of Gold that hath covered Popish Images the Gold and Silver of the Popish Images though melted and dissolved into innocent mettall the Materiall Temples builded to the honour of Saints are to be cast away and utterly abolished as unlawfull to be used in any sort for the Jewes according to the Law Deut. 7. 19. 20. might make no use of the gold or silver of the Heathen-Image and Achan brought a curse on himselfe for the simple taking for his use the wedge of Gold and the Babilonâ—sh Garment Now we have no law in the New Testament to abandon the use of the creatures for as Cornelius was not to count that meat uncleane which God â—ad clâ—nsed Act. 10. 15. So neither are we to count Silver and Gold and houses uselesse which God in the Creation made Good and usefull for our life and therefore no morall contagion can adhere so to these creatures as we are utterly to disuse them as creatures cursed because they were abused except it can be proved that the abuse of them hath deprived us of the necessarie use that they have by the law of Creation for certaine it is as the killing of the sucking infants of the Amalakites was typicall and tyeth not us to kill the young children of Papists so was the disusing or not using of Gold Silver and Houses abused to Idolatrie typicall And before I come to the second Conclusion An house for the worship of God is amongst the things that are necessarie by way of dis-junction in speciè not in individuo that is a house is necessarie in its Physicall use to fence off our bodies the injuries of Sunne Aire and heaven but not this house for another house may serve the turne as conveniently But some object Then this or this house Dedicated superstitiously to the religious honour of a Saint ought to be removed out of the worship of God 1 because by your owne confession Thâ—â— individual house so abused is not necessarie God may will be worshipped without this house though it never had been in rerum naturâ 2. From the worshipping of God in so Superstitious a place many truly godly are so scandalized that for worshipping God in such Superstitious and Idolatrous places they have Separated from your Church conceiving that in so doing you heale the wounds of the Beast It is true it may be their weaknesse yea but be it so that it were their wickedness that they are scandalized yet by your doctrine in things not necessarie you are not to doe any thing by which either the weake or the wicked may be scandalized as is cleare in the eating of meats Rom. 14. Ans This argument may 1. be retorted against these who hold with us the same doctrine of Scandal for without eating of Swines flesh my life may be preserved and a malitious Iew may be and necessarily is highly scandalized that I who possibly am a Iew converted to the Christian faith doe eat Swines flesh before him for he conceiveth me to be an Apostate from Moses his law therefore I should abstaine from eating Swines flesh before a Iew who out of Malice is scandalized by my doing a thing not necessarie hic nunc But the conclusion is absurd nor doe I think that many truly godly of the Strictest Separation doe stumble at our Churches out of wickednesse Many truly Godly and Sincere refuse to come to our Churches whereas many scandalous well lustered hypocrites who knoweth nothing of the power of godlinesse but are sitten downe in the Scorners Chaire are admitted to the Lords Supper and as the former cannot be excused so I pray God that the latter draw not downe the wrath of God upon both Kingdomes 2. Things not necessarie which actively produce scandall must not be only indifferent Physically in their naturall use as This or this house but they must be indifferent both Physically and Morally for the Meats spoken of Rom. 14. at that time were both wayes indifferent 1. They were not necessary but indifferent Physically in an ordinarie providence both then and now for ordinarily my life may be preserved and suffer little losse by not eating Swines flesh or such meats in case of extreame necessitie of sterving if any could have no other meat they might eat then as the case was Rom. 14. because Mercie is better then Sacriâ—â—â— at alltimes 2. These things Rom. 14. were indifferent Theologically or Morally in their owne nature 1. v. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him 2. Because v. 17. The kingdome of God is not meat and drink Sure in Moses his time to abstaine from such meats and eat such as the Lambe of the Passeover the Manna to drinke of the water of the Rock was worship and so some part of the kingdome of heaven but it is not so now saith Paul 3 Paul clearly maketh them Morally indifferent 1 Cor. 8. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are wee better morally and before God neither if we eat not a e we Morally theworse Now this Temple or House Physically is indifferent and not necessarie for the worship of God for men may be defended from the injuries of Sunne and aire Though this house had never been in rerum naturâ But this Temple or house though dedicated to a Saint is not Morally indifferent but Morally necessarie so as if you remove it from the worship because abused to Idolatrie and give it in no use in the defending of our bodies from the injuries of the Wind Raine and Sunne you Iudaize and doe actively scandalize the Iewes and harden them in their Apostasie and so this house though abused to Idolatrie is not indifferent Morally as the meats Rom. 14. But the using of it is necessarie and an asserting of our Christian libertie as to eat blood and things strangled and Swines flesh even before a Iew so to use all houses for a physicall end to defend our bodies from heat
according to the places cited by our godly Brethren of the contrary minde except the Churches were first purified in some Ceremonial way as God prescribeth that the spoyle of Midian be purified which our Brethren cannot say except we would make our selves debtors to the whole Law for so the law was Num. 31. and so Paul doth reject Circumcision Gal 5. 3. and if it be said the necessitie of the poore requireth that these Temples be not loosed but imployed for the poore as David in point of necessitie eat the Shew-bread I answer 1. The poore as the case was Rom. 14. might eat Swines flesh and so ruine him for whom Christ died which is absurd for their necessitie might require it But certaine it is Davids necessitie was layd on him by the sixt Commandement as an act of mercie in the point of starving and if any poore Iew were in the like case I conceive it should have been scandalizing to that Jew to eat Swines-flesh before another weake Iew. Providentiall necessitie may make that which is a sinfull scandalizing to bee obedience to the sixt Commandement but the will of Superiours can make no such providentiall change as the D of Aberdeene doe dreame But if the necessitie bee lesse then the Necessitie in point of sterving it could justifie the poore Iewes eating of meats conceived to be against the law of God as the case was Rom. 14. But that the Church or house dedicated to a Saint should have no physicall use in the worship of God to defend us from the injuries of Sunne and Heaven and yet have the same use in common for the poore to dwell in wanteth all shadow of reason for how can it be proven that the same physicall use in the worship is unlawfull and yet out of worship is lawfull except there intervene some Ceremoniall and religious purging of the house by fire or some other way which were Iudaical under the New Testament for the necessity of the poor is not like the necessity of Davids eating of Shew-bread It s certain that the necessity of disusing the creature in a Physical usage in the worship must have a warrant in Scripture as well as the using of the same in the same usage must have the like warrant Object 5. But Bels are more hurtful to the souls of Gods people who are scandalized by them then they are useful for the tymous and seasonable convening of the people and therefore they may well be abolished being lesse necessary and necessary onely ad melius esse for the better ordering of the Worship of God and not simply necessary for the being of the Worship Now as the Lord our God will have a lesser necessity to yeeld to any greater a bodily necessity to give place to a soul-necessity the soul being more excellent then the body as is clear in that God would have his people to dispence with the lesser losse of the spoyl of the Amalakites of their Idols gold and silver that the greater necessity may stand to wit their not being allured nor their teeth put a watering and their heart to a lusting after the Idols of Canaan so would he have us to abolish the Saints Temples the gold of Popish Images the Bels that are lesse necessary seeing the Sun may teach as well as the Bell for eschewing soul-dangers in laying stumbling blocks both before our own souls and others Answ 1. It is denyed that Bells which have a necessary use though onely for the better ordering of the worship of God are any active objects of scandal and the meer passive scandal taken at any thing not indifferent but physically necessary and so necessary that without it sinful inconvenients of either wearying in the service of God or sinful neglect should follow is no sinful scandal given but meerly taken 2. There be two necessities of things one natural and first in that regard another religious and in that regard secondary the former necessity doth alwayes stand except God remove it by some posteriour commandment It s necessary that Adam and Evah eat of all things that God created for eating God I grant may remove this necessity in some and command either Adam to fast for a time or not to eat of the tree of Knowledge So say I warning by Bells hath a physical necessity the use of the Temples in worshipping hath the like necessity so have Gold and Silver a necessity god onely either by a Commandment or by an exigence of providence that standeth to us as in the case of a scandal for a command can remove the physical necessity and inhibite Israel to use such and such Gold as have been in use in the Heathen Idols and may forbid to perform an act of obedience to an affirmative command in the case of scandal as he may forbid Paul to take wages for Preaching the Gospel though Paul have some natural necessity of taking wages But the Church without a higher warrant from God hath no power to restrain us in the necessary use that God hath given us Make Bells and Temples as indifferent and unnecessary as some meats were Rom. 14. and I shall yeeld the Argument 3. That the Lord our God will have a bodily necessity as the smaller to yeeld to a soul-necessity as the greater is a ground not so sure but it ought to have been proved except by a soul-necessity you mean a necessity of saving the soul and not sinning against God and oppose it to a meeâ— bodily necessity including no sin in it then I shall grant the Assertion That the one necessity iâ— greater then the other But otherwise Cateris paribus other things being alike I conceive it is contradicted by Iesus Christs saying Matth. 12. cited out of Hosea Chap. 6. I will have meâ—â—â— and not sacrifice And here we must determine the case of scandal to the soul from the exsuperance of necessity to the body and life The case falleth out David and his followers are at the point of starving for hunger it may be a question if the presenâ— necessity be so great there being no bread for them but the Shew-bread which by a Ceremonial Law of God onely the Priests should eat If any of the followers of David out of a groundlesse scrupulosity of conscience should have taken Pauls Argument Rom. 14. and said to David I will starve rather ere I eat this bread for a divine law forbidâ— me and if thou eat of it it shall be a scandal to â—â— and wilt thou for bread destroy him for whom Christ died The Apostle Paul would not for so smal a thing as to eat swines flesh before a weak Jew in the case Rom. 14. destroy the soul of one for whom Christ died by laying before him a stumbling block by his unseasonable and scandalous eating I think if Scripture cannot possibly be contrary to Scripture this doubt might easily be removed by answering the case was not alike with David in his hunger and
so in a Physicall and naturall necessitie to save his owne temporall life that by all probabilitie was in great danger and these who being in no such necessitie did eat such meats scandalous and so distructive to the soules of weake ones and having varietie of other meats to keep them from sterving and so a meere necessitie of preserving the bodily life if we compare one affirmative command of God with another may remove that which may be supposed a soule necessitie And the reason is because in the doctrine of scandall which is more intricate and obscure then every Divine conceives God placeth acts of providentiall necessitie as emergent significations of his approving will which are so to us in place of a divine Commandement of Gods revealed will and these providentiall acts of necessitie doe no lesse oblige us to morall obedience then any of the expresse written Commandements of God I cleare it thus There is an expresse law It is sâ—â— and unlawfull for David or any man who is not one of the Lords Priests to eat shew-bread But God commeth in and putteth David in such a posture of divine providence that if he eat not shew-bread he shall be sinfully guiltie of violating a higher morall law of God who saith I will have mercie and not sacrifice Then David shall be cruell to his owne life and sinne against the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther If he eat not for not to eat when you are in a providentiall condition of sterving if you may have it is to kill your selfe and this providentiall condition doth no lesse oblige you to the Morall obedience of the sixt Command then if God in the letter of the Law should command you to eat This fact of David was not done by any extraordinarie impulsion of the Spirit but by a constant chanell that Providence ordinarily runneth in according to which I or any Professor must be obliged to preferre a worke of Mercie to Sacrifice that is by which we are to give obedience to the sixt Command which is not to kill even as without extraordinarie impulsion I may absent my selfe from hearing the Word when I find going to Church may indanger my life for non-obedience to affirmatives in a greater necessitie is ordinarie And therefore Christian prudence with which the Wisdome of God keeps house Prov. 8. 12. doth determine many things of scandall And prudence is a vertue commanded in the word of God for a wise man observes times and so will he observe all other circumstances yet there be rules here which standeth alwayes and they be these 1. Comparing a physicall and meerely naturall necessitie with a morall necessitie if we yeeld to the physicall necessitie and neglect the moral we sinne against God and may lay a stumbling blocke before others as to eat such meats where the losse is small and the necessitie of eating meerely physicall and the eating be a scandall to the weake we sinne and give scandall the case is cleare Rom. 14. for eating the case being indifferent as it was Rom. 14. is a meere physicall necessitie and not scandalizing a weake brother is a morall necessitie 2. Rule if we compare a greater morall necessitie with a lesse morall necessitie the lesse necessitie must yeeld to the greater a necessitie of mercie must yeeld to a necessitie of sacrificeing if David then should not have eaten the shew-bread in his providentiall necessitie of samine he should have been guiltie both of active scandalizing the soules of others in killing himselfe and should have killed himselfe and the lesse morall necessitie ceaseth and is no necessitie when a greater moral necessitie interveneth 3. Rule Where there is a physicall necessitie of the thing yet not extreame and a morall necessitie of abstinence we are to abstaine The Jewes had a physicall necessitie of the Babylonish Garments but not so extreame in point of perishing through cold as David had of Shew-bread in point of sterving for famine therefore Achan should have obeyed the morall necessitie of not touching the accursed thing and neglected the physicall necessitie which if it had amounted to the degrees of necessitie of mercie rather then obeying a Ceremoniall Command such as was Touch nâ—t the accursed spoyle Achâ—â— might without sinne or scandall to himselfe or others have medled with the spoyle 4. Rule That which is necessarie in speciè in the kind as to goe to Church and heare the Word to come to the house of God and Worship may be in individuo in a particular exigence of providence not morally necessarie but the contradicent thereof morally lawfull David doth lawfully forbeare to come to the Lords house if he knew Saul may kill him by the way â— The things which we are to forbeare only for necessitie of scandall and upon no other ground these I may doe in private if I know they cannot come to the notice of these who shall be scandalized upon the ground of lesse physicall necessitie as Rom. 14. beleevers for their necessitie ordinarie and for nourishment might eat fleshes in private though before a weak Jew they could nâ—â— because the sinne is not in the act of eating but wholly in the scandall and in the manner of the unseasonable doing of it But these things which are morally not necessarie because tâ—â—â—â—bstance of the fact is against a law we are to forbeare both in private because they are against a law and in publick before others for the scandall as Achan sinned in taking the Babilonish Garment though in private and his sinne should have been more scandalous if he had done it publickly Now these we are upon no ordinarie necessitie to doe but such as may incroach upon the hazard of the losse of life in which case an exigence of providence does stand for a Command of non-murthering had Saul and his Army been reduced to a danger of starving in a wildernesse and could have no food except they should kill and eat the Cattell of the Amâ—lâ—kites â— conceive The Lords preferring of Mercie before Sacrifice should warrant them to eat of the Amalakites Cattell yet would this providentiall necessitie be so limited as it may fall out that it stand not for a divine Command for it holdeth in affirmative commands only and 2. so positives as there must be yea there can be no sin eligible by such and such a case as Lot sinned in exposing his daughters to the lust of men to redeeme abstinence from Sodomie Hence it is cleare we may not doe a lesse nor counsell another to commit a lesse sinne to eschew a greater as the Jesuites wickedly teach So Tannerus so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum a scandall that a Christian may hinder another to fall in and yet he permitteth him to fall in it But God hath a prerogative to permit sinfull scandals men have no such power when they are obliged to hinder it The divinite of
Church to a supernaturall happinesse nor can the Church be governed by the light of nature or by the rules of morall Philosophie or civill prudence or humane lawes as Cities Common-wealths and Kingdomes are 4. It is a rule in Circumstantials of worship because some time some thing as the Lord day is both worship and a Circumstantiall of worship but not properly a Circumstance in all these the Church as the Church must â—â—ir by the Word of God 3. What ever is in Rome in physicall or natural circumstances is not by us judged Popisâ—â— But what ever religious observance Symbolicall signe new worship such as â—renging to Bread Altars humane Festivals Surplice and the like that are neither things of nature nor 2. things of prudence and civill policie nor 3. Miraculous things nor 4. Things of art and science nor 5. meere Circumstances and yet are added to the worship of God not necessarie in themselves not warranted by Precept practice or promise in the word of God we take to be devised by the wil of men and if by Papists so much the more unlawfull and may well be tearmed Popish as Popish is contradistinguished from that which is â—ound and warranted by the Word and that which is not thus agreeable to the Word is repugnant thereunto and either Popish or worse or heathenish Hooker The question is whether wee may follow Rome in orders Rites and Ceremonies wherein we doe not thinke them blamable or else ought to devise others and to have no conformitie with Rome no not so much as in these Ans We never dreamed of such a Question it is as if one should have formed such a question to debate with Moses Whither may we follow Egypt and Canaan in rounding the corners of our head and cutting our flesh for the deaâ— in sowing oâ—r land with mingled seeds c. or ought we to devise others the like and have no Conformitie with them no not so much as in these Now Moses gave never leave to Israel to devise either these or any other the like The Question supposeth two things for granted which are plainly false 1. That if we may refuse Popish Ceremonies as scandalous because Papists devised them that therefore the worship of God hath need of other Symbolical and religious signes of the like nature which we ought to devise But the worship of God neither needeth these nor any Phylactaries of that kind 2. It supposeth we doe not thinke the Rites of Rome blamable this is a begging of the question for both we blame them as positive religious Rites beside and so contrary to the Word and because Romish and so in a high degree scandalous Hooker When Reason evicteth that all such Ceremonies are not to be abolished they answer they doe only condemne Ceremonies unprofitable or Ceremonies in stead whereof as good or better may be devised so they cannot get out of the Bryars Ans 1. Who answereth so Hooker should have knowne that if the Testament of Christ warrant not Ceremonies they and all their kind are unprofitable and to be abolished whither they lay in the wombe of the mother of â—ornications or be bastards of any other Mother 2. Yea we condemne all such Ceremonies because unnecessarie as devised by the will or lust of men for all necessatie and usefulnesse of positive religious and teaching observances is from the will of God And when he saith we condemne only all unprofitable Ceremonies wee are not in the briars for he saith his owne Ceremonies are unprofitable briars for we condemne them as unprofitable Chartwright that godly and learned witnesse of Jesus Christ from whom Hooker would bring this answer saith Popish Ceremonies are not to be used to adorne the worship when as good or better may be established But he meaned never that as good positive Symbolicall rites without the word of God can be lawfully devised at all this should have been proven from Cartwrights words But saith he we retaine these because we judge them profitable yea so good that if we had either simply taken them cleane away or else removed them so as to place others in their stead wee had done worse But who authorized them to sit judges the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on them Ans 1. It is a proud Reply Wee retaine popish Ceremonies because we judge them profitable where as the question is not what the Prelates who must bee called the Church judge them to be but what they are for it is a farre other question who should sit Judges though we can prove Christ never made Prelates at all and so he never made them judges and whether the Ceremonies be profitable or not When Prelates say we retaine Popish Ceremonies because we judge them profitable it is to say We judge Popish Ceremonies to be profitable because we judge them profitable For we say to retaine them is to passe a law and a judgement that they are profitable But our argument is against their judgeing them to be profitable and against their retaining them Might not Pharisees say as much Wee retaine the precepts and traditions of men used by our fathers because we judge them profitable and who authorized Christ and his Disciples to judge the Church the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on the Disciples Christ said their Ceremonies were the doctrines of men and so unlawfull and the like argument bring wee against the Ceremonies and so they must be unprofitable 2. If the Church make or retaine lawes beside and without the Word they are under the burden of proving them to be profitable for they affirme and affirmanti incumbit probatio for they ought to give another reason of their lawes then we judge We affirme it is Gods prerogative to say that 3. If Prelates should doe worse to have cleane removed these or brought others in their place Then must the Prelaticall Church be better then the Apostolike Church for they neither had these nor any in their stead except they make us see that Peter and Paul dispensed the Word and Sacraments clothed either with lineing Rochets and crossing the aire with the Thumbe or then they adorned Word and Sacraments with other the like mysticall Rochets or some merry toyes like crossing the aire with the Thumbe and if not they did worse then our Prelats who raise bloody warrâ—s in three Kingdomes for such fooleries and for an office which of old for shame had no kinred nor house but mans law jus humanum by their owne grant But that saith Hooker wherein the Israelitâ—â— might not be like to the Egyptians and Canaanites was such as peradventure as had beene no whitlesse unlawfull although those Nations had never been I would know what one thing was in these nations and is here forbidden being indifferent in it selfe yet forbidden only because they used it Ans This is not our argument I am not to say the only reason why the Lord forbade
in the Idoll-Temple to come to the Lords Table except they repent and try themselves Hence it must follow that if Christ have commanded his Stewards to dispense the word of promise and threatnings and comforts according to the temper of the flock so must they dispense the Seals and so by good consequence Paul said I will not have the Lord and Satan mingled nor a partaker of Satans Table admitted to the Lords Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God spared not idolaters and murmurers yet they eat we and they of the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke and so had the same Sacraments otherwise the Argument of the Apostle were nothing if ours and their Sacraments were not all one if then those that were idolators fornicators were admitted to their Sacraments then also to ouâ—â— under the New Testament Ans Beza answereth well to that Manna and the water ouf of the Rock as they had a spirituall Relation to Christ were holy things and types of Christ just as our Sacraments are signes of Christ already come in the flesh and so agreed in the kinde of holy signes with our Sacraments yet Manna and the water out of the Rock were also ordained to be bodily food for the famishing and thirsty people good or bad holy or unholy these two Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Priests to the people both as Gods people in Covenant with God and to them as men starving in the wildernesse and dying for thirst for they had not plowing earing harvest bread vineyards wine fountains in the wildernesse and therefore no marvell then such holy things being also beside that they were holy things such as were necessary to keep them from starving and bodily death as the shewbread which was also a type of the word of life revealed to the Ministers of God was given to keep David and his men from starving No marvell I say then these bodily helps though in another higher signification they were Sacramentalls were by Gods command bestowed on many wicked men who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famishing because they are mixt with the people of God But Erastus if he would prove any thing against us should have proved that circumcision the Passeover and other holy things of God ordained for the visible Saints to shew forth our spirituall Communion with Christ and which were never ordained for necessiry helps to sustain the naturall life were to be administred to those that were openly prophane and wicked and therefore we deny this connexion Manna signified the very same thing to wit Christ our food of life which bread and wine signifies Ergo As Manna was given both as a holy signe to figure out Christ our life and to feed the bodies of openly holy or openly prophane to sustain their bodily life so also baptisme and the Lords Supper which serve for no bodily use should be administred to those that are openly prophane Erastus is put to a poor shift with this solid Answer of that Reverend Learned and holy Divine Theod. Bezâ— he saith Vis dicam quod sentio Tui ubique similises The sea and the cloud saith he were not necessary to feed the body It is true Erastus the Physician would think the cloud and pillar of fire can neither be Physick for the sick nor food for the whole yet Physitians say Manna is apt for both not is the dvided Red-Sea food or Physick But good man he knowes the cloud was their guide and convey by night and day through the wildernesse and appointed by God to convey the Leapers the unclean and all those who were Excommunicated from the holy things and the Idolators and openly wicked as well as the clean and the holy and he knew the sâ—me that the people had no food but Manna a holy signe that those who were unclean seven dayes and often many times longer were not to starve for hunger but must eat Manna though a holy yet their only necessary food then without which they could not live But I hope Erastus cannot prove while they were unclean or put out of the Camp or yet extreamly wicked that they might eat the Passeover which was a meer holy Sacrament not ordained for the feeding of the body as Manna and water out of the Rock were Erastus may know the dividing of the Sea was necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean God being pleased for his Churches cause to bestow Temporall deliverances on wicked men mingled with the godly from being drowned with the Egyptians and that God who will have mercy and not sacrifice may well by a positive Law appoint that holy and unholy clean and unclean shall have the use of such holy things as are not meerly holy but mixt being both means of Divine institution and also necessary Subsidies for mans life but it followeth not therefore holy things that are purely holy should be prostitute to holy and unholy the clean and unclean Erastus God in the Church of the Jews punished wicked men with bodily punishments not with Exclusion from the Sacraments and Paul threatneth death and sicknesse not Excommunication to those that did eat and drink unworthily Ans Then putting out of the Campe was no Exclusion from the holy things of God all the world not onely will cry shame on this Divinity But they will say Erastus his Logick is bad God punisheth some wicked men with death and the sword of the Magistrate and stoning Ergo he appointed no Ecclesiasticall debarring of the unclean from Circumcision 2. It is false that Paul threatneth death to unworthy Communicants only he saith God â—lew many of them for that sin and hence it follows well the Officers should hinder the scandalous to rush into such a sin as is the not discerning the Lords body which bringeth death and diseases on the actors What consequence is this God punisheth wicked men Ergo the Officers should not rebuke them for those sins nor the Magistrate or Church punish wicked men God punisheth â—â—ubborn Rebels to parents Ergo the judge should not stone them the contrary Logick is the arguing of the Spirit of God Erastus Every one is to try himself therefore there is no need of any other to try him for Paul speaketh of that which is proper to every mans conscience Ans It is an unlearned and vain consequence It is commanded that every one try if he be in the Faith or no for the peace of his conscience and this is so proper to a man himself and so personall that no man can try or know certainly whether be in the state of grace but he himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rev. 2. 17. None can joyn with him in this as none can joyn with a man to try if he have faith to discern the Lords body and eat worthily
Church judgeth of internalls and that they may debarre men from the Sacraments for only heart-unbeleefe knowne to God only This must lye on Erastus as a calumnie while he make it good from our writings and Doctrine that we thus teach exclude those that are visibly scandalous and prophane and we are satisfied 2. He that brings his offering to the Altar and hath done a knowne offence to his brother for it is a sinfull and visible scandall which scandalizeth one brother He useth not the holy things of God right even as touching externals He that comes to the Lords supper desiring and asking the ordinance of righteousnesse as Isaiah speaketh and promiseth amendment and yet is openly ignorant and not sound in the faith he useth not aright the Sacraments even in externals of which only the Church judgeth rightly as he that in the same day commeth to the temple to worship now the very personall presence of a Iew in the Temple which was a Type of Iesus Christ was a worship and a holy thing of God whereas our presence in the place of meeting for worship is no such thing when he hath killed his sonne to Moloch prophaned the Temple and the name of God even in externals for the Priests of old who were to put differences between the clean and the unclean no more were to judge the inward thoughts and heart-dispositions of men knowne to God only then we can now judge them in the New Testament 1 Chro. 29. 17. 1 King 8. 39. 1 Chro. 28. 9. Prov. 15. 11. Hence that is an ignorant speach of Erastus Quistatuit malus esse non prodibit in ecclesiae faciem ut se poenuere prioris vite testetur ac meliorem promittat That man shall never come before the face of the Church to testifie that he repenteth of his former wicked life and promise amendment who purposeth to be wicked Will not men purpose not to be reconciled to their brethren and suffer many suns to go downe in their wrath and malice who come and bring their offring to the Altar why did then Christ forbid offring at the Altar without being reconciled to an offended brother Mat. 5. might not the offending brother offer his gift and were not the Priests to except his offring He could say all that Erastus requireth I acknowledge I have offended my brother I promise to crave him pardon and I desire to offer according to the Law Then the Priest was obliged to beleeve he dealt sincerely and lay his gift upon the Altar though he should not obey the command of Christ and go and leave his gift at the Altar and not offer while he were first reconciled to his brother and the like I say of one that hath killed his brother and cometh with hot blood to the Table of the Lord and goeth not to the Widdow and Orphanes whose Husband and Father he had killed to be reconciled Surely the man that should thus offer should not come to offer nor to eat at the Lords table rightly even in regard of externals which the Church may judge for he should omit this externall Be first reconciled to the Widdow and then offer and eat as Christ commanded 3. It is against Scripture and experience that a man that hath a purpose to kill his Father and in the highest point of treason to invade King Davids throne as Absolon did to say he will not professe to pay his vows at Hebron And might not Judas by his very eating the Passeover professe he beleeved in the Lambe of God that taketh away the sins of the world and that he would serve Christ and yet purpose in his heart to sell his Master Christ for 30 peeces of silver They seeme to be little acquainted with the mysterie of the hypocrisie naturally in men who put in print such a position The Author against whom Erastus writeth saith We have reason to rejoyce if we finde any such who will not professe faith and repentance though they be Hypocrites and therefore there is need of Excommunication and his meaning is that there is need of Excommunication alwayes and therefore there will be many who professe Repentance in words whose life and conversation belie their Repentance and Erastus cannot deny this if he know what it is â—o have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power which forme many have who are to be debarred from the Sacraments and to be Excommunicated in regard they are lovers of their owne selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankefull without naturall affection truce breakers false accusers incontinent fierce despisers of those that are good traitors headie high minded c. 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 c. and such they are in the eies of men otherwise Paul would not forbid to withdraw from such Erastus The Author I thinke would yeeld that the Sacraments should not be denyed to those who seeke them and desire to use them aright and are not excommunicated for the writeth that the deniall of the Sacraments is onely a Testimony of excommunication So when we give not a Testimony of a thing for example of learning to any to whom the thing it selfe to wit learning doth not agree we cannot deny the Sacraments to those who are not Excommunicated for hee should not be blotted with a Testimony of a banished man who is not declared to be banished Ans 1. The Author I thinke would never yeeld but the Sacraments ought to be denied to those who aske for them and desire to use them aright if they be otherwise Truce-breakers false accusers incontinent traitors for those have and may have a forme of godlines and aske the Sacraments and desire to use them aright I meane they may say they desire to use them aright for of their inward desire God onely can judge who knoweth the heart yet the Author cannot he will not say that such are to be admitted to the Lords Supper all thaâ— Erastus goeth on iâ— That the Church is obliged to beleeve that those doe repent and use the Sacraments aright who say in word of mouth they doe so and therefore are to be admitted to the Sacraments though they come but an houre before out of the Bordell house and have hands and sword hot and smoking with innocent blood Now Dogs and Swine Câ—in Iudas known to be scandalous may give faire words and cry Lord Lord and professe all this as is cleare Isa 58. 2. Mat. 7. 21 22. Rom. 16. 18 Mat. 23. 13 14 23 c. 2. Exclusion from the Sacraments is a Testimony of Excommunication but not testimonium proprium quarto modo for some that are not excommunicated are to be debarred from the Sacraments as the thing it selfe will force us to acknowledge should any come with his sword hot in blood from killing his father and Pastor to the Lords Table I hope the Church knowing this would not admit him to the Sacrament and yet he is not yet excommunicated