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
Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercitâ— of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is tâ— come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the patternâ— shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And
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
and expedient But we know no such question in this Controversie as who shall be judge but supposing the Church to be a ministeriall judge and the Scripture the infallible Rule the question is whether this judge have any such power as to prescribe Laws touching things indifferent and to injoyne these though they have no warrant from Scripture as things necessary and to binde where God hath not bound Quest But doth not the Church determine things that of themselves are indifferent as whether Sermon should begin at nine of clock or ten in the morning and after the Church hath past a determination for the dyet of ten a clock the indifferency of either nine or ten is removed and the practise without any warrant of Scripture restricted to one for order and peace sake and why may not the like be done in Positives of Church-Government Ans The truth is the Church by her will putteth no determination on the time but only ministerially declareth that which Gods providence accomodating it self to the season climate the conveniency of the congregation as they lie in distance from the place of meeting hath determined already But neither Providence scripture nor naturall reason hath determined that there should be in every Diocesan Church a Monarch-Prelate Pastor of Pastors with majority of power of jurisdiction and ordination over Pastors more then there should be one Pope Catholick Pastor of the Catholick visible Church or that Crossing should betoken Dedication to Christs service only will as will must determine positive Religious observances such as these are SECT VI. What Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Service Worship c. are FOr the more clear opening of the ensuing Treatise it is necessary to speak somewhat of worship and Adoration and especially of these 1. Honour 2. Praise 3. Glory 4. Reverence 5. Veneration 6. Devotion 7. Religion 8. Service 9. Worship 10. Love 11. Obedience 12. Adoration 1. Honour is a testification of the excellency of any Arist Ethic. l. 8. c. 8. Aquinas Honos est signum quoddam excellentiae Honour is a signe or expression of Excellency in any it doth not import any superiority in the party whom we honor as Adoration doth Praise is a speciall honouring of any consisting in words Glory is formally the effect of Honour though it be taken Pro claritatè for the celebrity or renownednesse of any yet glory seemeth to be founded upon celebrity as its foundation Reverence is a sort of Veneration of a person for excellency connotating a sort of fear Veneration is a sort of fear and reverencing of a person I see not well any difference between Reverence and Veneration except that Veneration seemeth to be some more and cometh nearer to Adoration Devotion is the promptitude cheerfulnesse or spirituall propension of the will to serve God Religion is formally in this when a man subjecteth himself to God as to his supreame Lord and thence ariseth to give him honour as his God and absolute Lord. The two integral parts of Religion are the subjection of the reasonable creature to God 2. An exhibition of honour if any object that the subjection of the creature to God is humility not Religion Raphael de la Torres in 22. tom 1. de obj adorat q. 81. art 1. disp unic n. 8. answereth that subjection to God as it issueth from a principle of tendering due Honour to God for his excellency its Religion but as it abandoneth the passion of hope in the way of attaining honour it is an act of humility to God as the giving of money for the paying of debt is an act of justice but as it is given to moderate the desire of money it is an act of Liberality The acts of Riligion are of two sorts some internall and elicite as to Adore Sacrifice Pray by these a man is rightly ordered toward the Honouring of God only But there be other acts imperated and Commanded by Religion which flow immediately from other vertues as it may be from mercy and compassion to our brother but are Commanded by Religion as Jam. 1. 27. Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this to visit the father lesse and the widows c. Service is from the bond of subjection to reverence God as an inferior or servant doth his Lord and Master A servant doth properly do the will of his Master for the gain or profit that redoundeth to his Master but because we cannot be profitable to the Almighty by way of gain therefore we are to serve him in relation to an higher end then accession of gain of which the Lord is not capable Psal 16. 2. Iob 22. 3. For the declaration of his glory For Worship formally is to give reverence to God for his excellency in one and the same act we may both Worship God and serve him Only service doth include the obligation of a servant to a Lord. As concerning Love Faith and Hope they are internall Worship not properly Adoration Love as Love doth rather import an equality with the thing loved and a desire of an Union rather then a submission It is true there is a perfection in that which we Love but not essentially to perfect the Lover that possibly may agree to the Love between man and man but not to Love as Love for the Father Loves Christ his Son and did delight in him from eternity Prov. 8. 30. A superior Angel may Love an inferior yet the Father cannot be perfected by Loving Christ nor a superior Angâ—l by Loving any inferior Faith and Hope may suppose a resting on a helper as a helper and so are internall Worship if they be adoration formally may be a Question It is an untruth which Raphael de la Torres with other schoolmen say That with the same Religion by which we Honour holy men we Honour God upon this reason because holinesse in them is a participation of the Divine Nature therefore God must be the intrinsecall end and formall reason for which we Honour the Saints For Holinesse in Saints is a participation of the Divine nature but it is a Temporary and a created participation it is not the same very holinesse that is in God but the created effect thereof and so the Love I bear to any Creature because there is somewhat of God in every Creature And the Love to our Neighbour Commanded in the second Table of the Law should be the Love of God Commanded in the first Table of the Law 2. When I bow to the gray-haired and to the King I then do an act of obedience to the fifth Commandment No man can say that when I bow to the King or to an holy man that I am then bowing to the God of heaven and Worshipping God No acts terminated upon Saints living or dead are acts of Worshipping God yea reverencing of the Ordinances of God as the delighting in or trembling at the Word are not properly acts
an offence before God to despise the church Yea saith our Saviour with a grave asseveration Verily I say unto you they that despise the sentence of you the Ministers of the Gospel being according to truth given out they and their sinnes shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith he is said to bind who doth retaine the sinne when he maketh the obstinate brother unexcusable and he looseth who remitteth or pardoneth the injury and gaineth to repentance his brother by a brotherly admonition for except he speake of a brotherly composing of private injuries to what end should Christ subjoyne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again I say to you if two agree c. Answ 1. Christ doth argue from the lesse to the more he proveth what the Church bindeth on earth shall be bound in Heaven because if the prayers of two or three gathered together in the name of God and agreeing together on earth are not rejected in Heaven farre more shall that be ratified in heaven which the whole church of Christ decreeth on earth in the name of the head of the Church Iesus Christ 2. When in the chapter going before Christ had ascribed to the Apostles and Pastors which are the eyes of the Church a power of the keyes and here he ascribeth to them the power of binding and loosing there was no cause to dreame that he speaketh here of a private forgiving of private finnes betweene Brother and brother for then he might have said at the first step Thou hast gained thy brother that gaining or convincing of thy brother shall be bound or loosed in heaven no lesse then the Churches judiciall binding and loosing in heaven which yet is set downe as an higher degree of power But I may here say with Beza in the whole Scripture the word of binding and loosing is never spoken of any other but of these who are in publike places and by a borrowed speech here it is spoken in regard of Spirituall power To bind and to loose is by a judiciall power in subordination to Christ the King to remit and retaine sinnes So Iosephus saith the Pharisees ruled all so that they would banish or recall from banishment loose and binde whom they pleased and upon the Authority according to the which Christ sent his Disciples as the Father sent him so he instructed his Ministers with power to remit and retaine sinnes Ioh. 20. 23. and Mat. 16. 19. What thou bindest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on earth shall be bound in heaven what thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So doth Lucian bring in that prisoner speaking to Iupiter Loose me O Iupiter for I have suffered grievous things Mat. 22. 13. Then the King said to his servants take him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binde him hand and foot binding here you see is done by the command of the great King Acts 21. 11. So shall the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binde Paul they bound Paul with Law and authority such as it was Iohn 18. 12. The Captaine and Officers tooke Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bound him they bound him not by private authority Mat. 27. 2. and Act. 24. 27. Felix left Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bound if Lictors binde any Malefactors they doe it by authoritie and Law So do the Hebrews speake Psal 105. 20. The Ruler of the people loosed him Psal 102. 20. The Lord looketh downe from heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to open or loose the children of death Psal 146. 7. The Lord looseth the Prisoners Iob 12. 18. 3. It cannot be denyed but when one private brother pardons another repenting Brother God ratifieth that in heaven But it is cleare the pardon here holden forth by our Saviour is such a loosing as hath witnesses going before 2. Such an one as cometh higher to the knowledge of the Chuuch Nor doth the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again signifie any thing but pretereà moreover 4. And who can say that binding and loosing here is some other thing then binding and loosing in the Chap. 16. ver 9. Where the same very phrase in the Greeke is one and the same except that the Lord speaketh Mat. 16. 19. in the singular number to Peter as representing the teachers and Governours of the Church and here Mat. 18. He speaketh in the Plurall number relating to the Church Now Mat. i6 i8 19. binding on earth and loosing which is ratified in heaven is evidently the exercise of the power of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven I will give to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven What be these keyes he expoundeth in the same very verse and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven then binding and loosing on earth must be in these to whom Christ hath committed the power of the keyes but 1. Christ hath not committed the keyes to all but to Church-rulers that are the Stewards of the House and the dispensers of heavenly Mysteries Hence the keyes in Scripture signifie authority and officiall dignity that is in Rulers not in private men as Esa 22. 22. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder So Christ is said to have the key of David to open and no man shutteth to shut and no man openeth By which out of doubt saith Camero is pointed forth the kingly authority and power of Christ so saith Vatablus And our owne Calvin Musculus Gualther Piscator Beza Pareus agree that the keyes are insigne potestatis an Ensigne of power given to the Steward or Master of a Noblemans house who is a person in office The giving of the keyes saiâ—h worthy Mr. Cotton is a giving power for the preaching of the word the administring of the seales and censures by which these invested with power doe open and shut the gates Now we desire any Word of God by which it can be made good that the keyes and power to binde and loose is given to all that are in the house even private Christians But we can shew the Keyes and binding and loosing and opening and shutting to be given to the Officers and Rulers of the house Hence I argue that interpretation that confoundeth the key-bearers and the Children with the Servants of the House and the Governours that are over the people in the Lord with the governed and putteth the Characters proper to the Officers and Stewards conâ—usedly upon all that are in the house is not to be holden but this interpretation is such Ergo c. also to binde and to loose is expounded by Christ Ioh. 20. 21. to be a power to retain and remit sins on earth which are accordingly retained and remitted in Heaven and that by vertue of a calling and Ministeriall mission according to which the Father sent Christ Jesus and Iesus Christ
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
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
22. A broken heart dryeth the bones And therefore it is to be observed that â—rastily Erastus insisteth most on those points and syllables of a Text whereon all Divines Ancient and Modern do place least strength for Excommunication I might therefore passe all Erastus his force against Excommunication in these and he shall be not a whit nearer his point 2. But I shall follow him when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirit are put together I see no reason that the one should signifie the body the other the soul I know the contrary to be Rom. 8. 1. Those that walketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the inordinate affections and lusts of the flesh are opposed to those that walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the spirit and Gal. 5. 17. the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lusteth against the spirit and the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the flesh Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is flesh it is not that which is born of the body as body and that which is born 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the spirit is spirit so Rom. 8. 9. 13 14. Erastus should have shewed us such places wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and the spirit signifieth the body and the soul when the matter of salvation is spoken of as here That the spirit may be saved ver 5. then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh is for the most part if not alwayes taken in an evil part for the corruption of mans nature Erastus How could they desire the Apostle not to deliver him to Satan that he might as Beza expoundeth it destroy his flesh that is bring him to repentance How could Paul assent to such a Petition How could the Apostle write that he did forgive him Did Paul by forgiving him permit him not to mortifie and destroy his flesh and sinfull lusts Ans Let Erastus answer How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul grant such a Petition as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul by pardoning the man permit that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord for the saving of the mans soul is no lesse a fruit of this delivering to Satan then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh 2. They might well desire that upon the mans repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends the mortification of his lust and the saving of his soul then the last and most dreadfull remedy which is the censure of Excommunication 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scripturall remedy for saving of the soul in the day of Christ at is clear Rom. 7. 7 8 9 10. Gal. 5. 24 25. But whether miraculous killing be such a mean ordained of God is the question and ought to be proved by some word of God beside this place in controversie Erastus These words that the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord do hold forth that the miserable man was presently to die Ans That they hold forth no such thing is evidently proved for how were they to cast him out and judge him And how was Paul to pardon him and they and Paul to confirme their love 2. When Peter saith 1 Pet. 1. 7. That your faith may be found unto praise honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ were all these presently Because Paul and the faithfull Philippians were waiting for their Saviours second coming who should change their vilde bodies were they to die presently When Paul prayeth that Onesiphorus may finde mercy in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. I pray you will it follow that Onesiphorus was presently to die Erastus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuke doth not signifie rejecting from the Sacraments 1. Rejecting from the Sacraments is never put for punishment in Scripture 2. It is but a rebuke inflicted by many and Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth him from this as a sufficient punishment a rebuke is no punishment Ans 1. To be debarred from the society of the faithfull as Hagar was as Cain was as David was Cast out of the Lords inheritance by Saul yea to be rebuked Ezech. 3. 25 26. are evils but they are not evils of sin Ergo He speaks not like a Divine who will not have them punishments if to injoy the Sanctuary Church holy things of God and the society of the Saints be a rich blessing of God as the Scripture saith it is Psal 42. 4. Psal 27. 4. Psal 84. 10. Psal 110. 3. Psal 63. 1 2 3. Cant. 1. 7. 8. Cant. 2. 16. 17. Cant. 5. 1. Cant. 6. 1 2 3. Rev. 2 1. and to deny this be a symtome of prophanity then to be separated from these as a Heathen must be to the children of God the greatest evil of punishment and matter of sorrow on earth it smelleth not of piety to deny this Erastus If the man was only rebuked How was he to be delivered to Satan to be tormented and killed Some Ancients answer he was but delivered to Satan to be afflicted in his body with sicknesse and at length delivered by Paul others say more congruously to the minde of Paul that Paul purposed not by himself to deliver the man to Satan but to do it with the Church congregated together and when the Church saw him swallowed up with griefe they deferred while they tryed Pauls minde and obtained pardon to him and in the means time threatned him if he should not repent and obtained at length that Paul should pardon him Ans Many learned Divines hold the former yet so as they conclude Excommunication out of this Chapter of this I say no more But Erastus hath a way of his own To which I say 1. There is no Scripture but this controverted one to warrant that the Apostles who had the gift of Miracles 1. Suspended the working of Miracles either on the prayers or free consent of the whole multitude of beleevers 2. That the execution of a miraculous work was committed to Deputies and substitutes under Paul who had it in their power miraculously to kill him or in their free will and Christian compassion to suspend the miracle and not kill 3. That the Apostles in acts of miraculous justice sought advise of any or might be broken by requests to desist from miracles as they saw the party repent or not repent or friends intercede or not intercede 4. So many circumstances of the Text laying a command on the Church of Corinth to put him out and judge him and yet the matter remaine a miracle These to me are riddles if God had told us such a History I could have beleeved it but to gather these by uncertaine conjectures without any
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
brother that is a fornicator Erastus saith he forbiddeth no such thing 2. Though I think Christians may eat with heathens 1. Cor. 10. 27. and that Paul did eat with heathen yet it is no argument to say it is therefore lawfull to eat with one cast out of the Church because we may eat with heathens to gain them and we are not bidden abstain from heathens company that they may be ashamed of their religion though Christians are to use no heathens with intimate familiarity as we do our brethren in Christ But we are to eschew intire fellowship with a scandalous and cast out brother to gain him that he may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. and in this a scandalous brother is in worse case then a heathen But in other respects he is in better condition as being under the medicine of the Church 3. Though we may have commerce and buy and â—ell with heathens and neglect no dutieâ— of humanity to them as to receive them into our house and to be hospitall to them Heb. 13. 2. Iob 31. 32. Yet this will conclude intire fellowship with neither heathen or scandalous brethren Yea we are not to receive a false teacher into our house 2. Ioh. ver 10. Yet are we not forbidden to neglect duties of common humanity to false Teachers though we be forbidden intirenesse of Brotherly fellowship with them Erastus There is not the same reason of holy things and of private civill things for this not eating belongeth to private conversing with men not to publike Communion with them in the holy things of God One saith It is in our liberty Whether we converse familiarly with wicked men or not But it is not in our power Whether we come to the Lords Supper or not And Paul will not have us to deny any thing that belongeth to Salvation and therefore he saith 2 Thess 3. Admonish him as a Brother and none I hope can deny but the Sacraments are helps of godlinesse and Salvation Ans 1. It is true that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren hath in it something civill but it is a censure-spirituall and a Church-censure two wayes 1. Objectively in its tendency Respectu termini ad quem 2. Effectively in its rise and cause Respectu termini à quo it is a spirituall censure Objectively because it tendeth to make the party ashamed that he may repent and become a Brother with whom we are to converse and therefore is destinated for no civill use but for the good of his soul that is a member of a Church that he may return to what he was 2. This censure though one private Brother may exercise it upon another yea a woman on a man who yet hath no Authority over the man is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause a Church-censure 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemne another while first he rebuke him and if he be not convinced while he do the same before two or three witnesses and if he yet be not gained one private Brother may not after conviction before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen or complain of him before an Heathen Iudge as Erastus saith How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother by his own private Authority while he first be sentenced before the Church And the Church shall convince him to walk disorderly to cause divisions and offences to be a Fornicator a Covetous person and so to be unworthy of the intire Brotherly fellowship of another For if this order were not in the Church every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother and so break all bands of Religious Communion and Brotherly fellowship and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches Now certain it is These Texts Rom. 16. 17 18. 2 Thes 3. 11 12 c in the letter intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed as clear by other Scriptures we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother but after such an order Now the places in the letter except we expound them by other Scriptures do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother before we withdraw from him contrary to Levit. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother all Brotherly fellowship by these places then I am to esteem him as a Heathen and as a Brother in name not in reality 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I esteemed him a Brother and did keep Brotherly fellowship with him now this is materially Excommunication I do no more in this kinde to one who is formally Excommunicated yea I am not so strange to a Heathen Ergo This I must have done upon some foregoing sentence of the Church otherwise I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath nor can un-Church and un-Brother 3. Eschewing of Brotherly fellowship to any is an act of Government distinct from the Preaching of the Word tending to make a Brother that walketh disorderly ashamed that he may repent and of a Brother in name only may become a Brother in reallity 2 Thes 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Christian Magistrate for every Brother saith Erastus may exercise it toward his Brother Ergo here is Church-Government that the Magistrate hath no hand in contrary to the way of Erastus and not in the hands of Pastors for it is distinct from Preaching nor is it in a Colledge of Pastors Doctors and Elders for Erastus denyeth any such Colledge Ergo here every one must govern another the man the woman and the woman the man the son the father if he walk unorderly and the Father the Son this can be nothing but the greatest Confusion on Earth 4. To put any to shame especially publikely by way of punishment for publike sins must come from some Iudges or others armed with Authority Iudg. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apostles sense cannot be that every one hath power of himselfe without the Church or any authority there from to put his brother to shame for when a brother is not to eat with a scandalous brother he must be convinced by the Church to be scandalous and so cast our 1 Cor. 5. 11 12 13. as we have proved before and every man here should be his owne judge and party in his owne cause except he put his brother to some shame by an higher authority then his owne The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to put a publike note or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the offender So Stephanus So Piscator Nota ignominiosâ excommunicationis Pomponius laetus de Magistr Rom. â— 21. Censores quintoâ— quoque anno creari solebant hic prorsus cives sic notabantur ut qui Senator esset ejeceâ—etur Senatu qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet c. Mathaeus Harnish Gec Gabellus who adde to Zanchius his Commentary in 2
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
and every where to be observed in all Churches Yet Paul neither practiseth it here nor else where nor commandeth others to practise it now here he desireth they may be cut off but not excommunicated Ans We say the last is no question you never read in the New-Testament or in the Old that Prophets or Apostles consulted or advised with the people whether they should work miracles or not 2. Though Excommunication was an ordinary power as the power of binding and loosing given to the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 22 23. Yet the actuall exercise of Excommunication being the highest and weightiest censure and the most severe of any other on earth it is no wonder that Paul be as sparing and rare in the exercise of it as the Apostles were in killing mens bodies 3. It is a begging of the question to say Paul neither practised himself nor commanded others to excommunicate for he did both Erastus That which is Rom. 16. spoken for eschewing of those who cause offences is that every one single person beware of false Teachers it is not spoken to the Church to Excommunicate those false Teachers and therefore there is no such need of such a Presbytery as you dream of but only of good and diligent Ministers who may rightly instruct and prudently teach their hearers what Teachers they ought to eschew Ans 1. The eschewing of false Teachers is a generall and a duty no question given to all and every one of the Church But the place doth no more say in expresse terms that a single Pastor should give warning particularly by name that this man Iohn Hymeneus Alexander are those false Teachers to be eschewed then it saith that the Presbytery which we assert doth in expresse termes shew what false Teachers they be who by name are to be Excommunicated and eschewed but you see that Erastus is overcome by truth so far as he must say one single Minister may declare that such a false Teacher by name is to be eschewed as a Heathen and a Publican and so in effect excommunicated and put out of the Church but he denieth that the Church may declare him a Heathen as Matth. 18. and that many Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the name of Christ as it is 1 Cor. 5. may put out a false Teacher or a wolf out of the flock 2. We grant that it is spoken to every one that he should eschew false teachers yea and 2 Thes 3. All that walketh unordinately all fornicators extortioners drunkards 1 Coâ— 5. But that every man should eschew those whom he in his private judgement conceiveth to be such before he rebuke them and labour to gain them and in case of obstâ—nâ—cy Tell the Church as Christ commandeâ—h Matth. 18. is not commanded buâ— forbidden Matth. 18. Lev. 1917. Col. 3. 15. For if this should be that I might immediatly upon my own private grudge unbrother and cast out of my heart and intire fellowship every one whom I conceive offendeth me and walketh unordinately without observing Christs order or previous rebuking of him I make a pathway to perpetuall Schismes 2. A violation of all Laws of fraternity and Christian Communion 3. A dissâ—lving and breaking of all Church Communion and iâ— were strange if Erastus will have Christs order kept Matth. 18. in private offences done by one brother to another and not in publick offences when a brother offendeth twenty and a whole Church as if I were obliged to seek to gain my brothers soul in private and lâ—sse injuries and not in publick and more hainous offences Hence it is clear to me If we are to reject an Heretick after once or twice admonition and not to receive in our houses false Teachers and 1 Tim. 6. 3. If any teach otherwise and consent not unto the wholesome word even the words of our Lord Iesus Christ being given to perverse disputing as men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. We are to withdraw our selves from such and to save with severity and plucking out of the fiâ—e those that cannot be cured then certainly the Church of Christ must also turn away from such men and acknowledge them as no members of the body whereof Christ is the head if we say not this if one hath leave in a constituted Church to jâ—dge and condemne his brother and then we shall not take the course of the Apostles in the like case as Act. 15. which is not Apostolick for when false Teachers troubled the Brethren they would not peremptorily though great Apostles as Paul and Barnabas determine against either the false doctrine or the persons of the Teachers while the Apostles Elders and Brethren did meet in a Synod and determine against the Error and against the men as such as troubled the Brethren with words and perverted their souls Act. 15. Now Erastus is willing to acknowledge a sort of Divine Excommunication not a humane as he is pleased to call that Ordinance of separating of wicked men from the Church and holy things of God which yet was in the Church of the Jews instituted by Christ and his Apostles and which no Church wanted as learned Beza saith even in the time of persecution had Erastus explained to us his divine Excommunication as he calleth it it were easie to bring most of his owne Arguments with greater strength of reason against it then against ours which is the truely divine Excommunication CHAP. XIV Quest 10. Whether Erastus doth strongly prove that there is no Presbytery nor two distinct judicatures one of the Church another of the State Erastus I deny not First such a Presbytery as the Evangelists mention which is called a Presbytery a Synedry a Synagogue this was the civill Magistrate who had amongst the Jews the power of the sword 2. I deny not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. when the Church wanteth a civill Magistrate 3. I deny not a Presbytery of learned men who being asked may give their judgement of doubts of which Ambrose there was nothing of old done sine seniorum consilio without the Counsels of the Elders But I deny a Senate collected out of the body of the Church to judge who repenteth and are to be excommunicated and debarred from the Sacraments and who not or I deny any Ecclesiasticall judicature touching the manners and conversation of men different from the judgement or court of the civill Magistrate or that there be two supream Courts touching manners in one Common wealth Ans One simple head in a moment may deny more then many wise men can prove in a whole day it proveth they are more cumbersome in their disputes then strong that there was a Iewish Presbytery â—hat is a civill judicature is conâ—uted by Lev. 10. 10. where there is a Court of Aarons sonnes whose it was to judge of Church matters only and to put difference betweene holy and unholy betweene
Synedry was the Civill Magistrate Erastus When the Priest accused Jeremiah Chap. 26. of blasphemy he sate not amongst the Judges but stood as an accuser before the Magistrate So Beza Erastus replieth Your Synedry had no Civill jurisdiction because it is a dream 2. Should Pashut the Priest be both accuser and judge 3. In Ieremiahs time there was a Monarch in whose hand was all power in Christs time there was an Aristocracy the Government being in the hands of some chosen men Ans Certainly Ier. 26. 10. the Princes sate down in judgement but that the Priests sate with them we have not one word only the Priests accused him as worthy to die in the question of Law and so the people ver 8. Now the people undeniably cannot have been Iudges 2. Nor do we say the Priests were both judges Civill to condemn Ieremiah to die and accusers that doth not hinder but they in an Ecclesiasticall way were Iudges touching the question of Law whether he had spoken blasphemy or not and also Accusers before the Civill Iudges 3. It is to beg the question to say that all power even of Church-censuring was in the hand of the King 1. The King might exclude none of the Lepers out of the Camp the Priests only could by the Law of God do this and excluded Vzziah the King as a Leper out of the Congregation The King could not judge who were clean who unclean 2. That all power was in the hand of the Kings as if the Kings of Iâ—dah were by Gods Law absolute can never be proved but the contrary is evident Deut. 17. And that inferiour Iudges were essentially Iudges and the Lords immediate Deputies is clear by Scripture Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 5 6 7. Exod. 18. 21 c. Numb 11. â—6 17 18. Psal 82. 6 7. Rom. 13. 1 2. Erastus You ask how Caiaphas and the Priâ—sts had power against Iesus I ansvver 1. From God 2. From the Kings of Persia 3. From the permission of the Romans They apprehended him and bound him which was a part of Civill power nor was this some of the confusion under the Maccabees Hovv can this be proved Christ never rebuked it nor his Apostles the contrary is clear in Iosephus Ans A permissive power from God can prove no Law-power 2. Persians and Romans could not give to Priests and Levites the power of the sword to do what the Law of God had exempted them from doing they were not so much as numbred for the war but set apart for the service of Gods house Num. 1. 3. 45 c. they might in some extraordinary cases judge in civill businesse with the Civill Iudges in the same Iudicature but this was no standing Law 2. Erastus seeketh we would prove that the practise of bloody Pharisees was not against Law He knoweth it is his own Argument Affirmanti incumbit Probatio 3. Christ and the Apostles rebuked not particularly many other sins Pilate might have accused them for binding one of Cesars Subjects of whom he had said he found no fault in him 4. That Ioseph was a Priest or a Levite I reade not he was an Honourable Councellor some think of Pilates Councell 5. That they had any Law of God to apprehend Iesus or that Ioseph had any hand in either condemning or doing any thing in the Sanedrim but shewing his judgement as a Iudge in the question of Law what was blasphemy we must deny let Erastus prove it if so be Erastus make him either Priest or Levite Ioh. 18. 31. The Iews expresly deny the power that Erastus giveth them Pilate therefore said unto them take him and judge him according to your Law which was a salt mocking of them I knovv if you had povver you should not have brought him to me therefore if ye have povver use it The Ievvs therefore said unto him It is not lavvfull for us to put any man to death and the Evangelist addeth ver 32. That the saying of Iesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die that is God had taken power of life and death from the Iews in his admirable providence that Iesus might die a Roman death due for treason that is that he might be crucified Ergo the Iews had no power to put him to death It is weak and empty that Erastus saith They had not povver to put him to death for saying he vvas King because that was a civill crime But they had power to put him to death and to stone him for blasphemy for the Iews say universally without distinction of causes with two negations which in the Greek Language is a strong and universall negation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have not power to kill any man Ergo the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him because the Iews might kill no man you will say Hovv had they povver vvith svvords and staves to take the Kings free subject and binde him which yet they did I answer it was an usurped power for by Erastus his doctrine they had no more power to take him and binde him for Treason which was a civill crime then they had to kill him for Treason both was alike unlawfull by the Roman Lavv and Pilate being a man willing to please the people as the event of the businesse sheweth did not in a legall way challenge them for binding him but he durst not be answerable to his Prince Cesar if he had past by such a high point as their putting Christ to death But we desire any Law of God for practises especially of wicked men are no binding rule that Priests or Levites in the Old-Testament might either binde a Iew or put him to death and when Pilate did stand so much to put Christ to death they would have used their own power malice so necessitating them if they had had any and might well have said to Pilate It is lavvfull for us to put him to death for blasphemy but vve vvill not use our povver vve so love to be loyall to Caesar but they say the contrary We have no povver to put any man to death They say indeed that by their law he ought to die But that they had no power to put him to death for the Common people said that as may appear if we compare Ioh. 19. ver 5. with ver 12. with Matth. 27. 25. and with Act. 2. 36. Act. 3. 12. c. and yet Erastus will not say that the common people were Members of the Sanedrim or had power of life and death as the Civill Magistrate had Erastus Steven was stoned by the Sanedrim not by tumult for there vvere vvitnesses as the lavv required Act. 7. The vvitnesses vvho by the lavv vvere to cast the first stone at the man condemned vvere here therefore there vvas Lavv-povver to stone him though they did it unjustly Ans Beza meant that Steven was stoned by tumult that is without
not subjected to them in conscience after any Ecclesiasticall way for the power of commanding in magistrates as magistrates must be commensurable to the power of punishing the transgressors of the command if the one be in order to a temporary good the other cannot but be in order to an eternall ill if ministers command in the name of Christ in order to an eternall reward they cannot threaten the transgressors in order to a temporary punishment but it must be in order to an eternall punishment so that it is most clear that the magistrate though he be in some sense a little God and invested with the authority and Majesty of God in that he commandeth and threatneth upon proposall of temporary reward and temporary good the very same duties that God injoyneth and forbiddeth the same evills of sinne that God forbiddeth yet he holdeth not these out to the soul and conscience of the subjects as the Ambassador of Iesus Christ upon condition of eternall life if they obey and of eternall death if they disobey but he holdeth out to the external man these that are materially divine commandements divine inhibitions but in another consideration but formally only they are the mandates of the Magistrates in order to temporary reward and temporary punishment Then the Ministers as Ministers in preaching and Synods forbid adultery incest murther but they propose them to those that are within the visible Church And that 1. to their consciences 2. Under the paine of eternall wrath 3. As the Ambassadors of Christ craving spirituall subjection of conscience and divine faith to those charges But Magistrates as Magistrates hold forth in their Law-abstinence from those same sinnes of adultery incest murther But 1. Not to the consciences of their subjects but to the outer man as Members of the common-wealth 2. Not under the paine of eternall wrath and condemnation before the judge of quick and dead Magistrates as Magistrates have neither calling office place nor power to threaten or inflict eternall punishment if Magistrates do perswade the equity of abstinence from adultery incest murther in their Statutes or Acts of Parliament from the word of God from the sixth and seventh command of the Decalogue from the judgement and eternall punishment that followeth these sinnes they so perswade not as Magistrates but as Divines and as godly and Christian men yet my sense is not that the Magistrate can Lawfully command obedience in matters of Religion not understood or knowne by the subjects that were to exact blind obedience but my meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate holdeth not forth his commandements to teach and informe the conscience as Pastors do but he presupposeth that his mandates are knowne to be agreeable to the word of God and proposeth them to the subjects to be obeyed 3. Magistrates as Magistrates hold forth in their Law abstinence from these sinnes not as the Ambassadors of Christ craving subjection of coâ—science and divine faith to those charges but only externall obedience for though Ministers as Ministers crave faith and subjection of conscience to all commandements and inhibitions as in Christs stead 2 Co. 5. 19 20. yet the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth not crave either faith or subjection of conscience nor is he in Christs stead to lay divine bands on the conscience to submit the soul and conscience to beleeve and abstaine he is the depâ—â—y of God as the God of Order and as the Creator and founder and another of humane societies and of Peace to exact externall obedience and to lay bands on your hands not to shed innoceat blood and on your body not to defile it with adultery or incest nor to violate the châ—stâ—â—y of your brother hence it is evident that the adversaries are far our who would have Ministers who do hold forth commands that layeth hold on the conscience and craveth faith and soul-submission under the paine of eternall wrath to do and act as the deputies and Vicars of those who have nothing to do with the conscience and have neither office nor authority to crave soul submission or to threaten or inflict any punishment but such as is circumâ—cribed within the limits of time and which the body of clay is capable of yea when the Magistrate punisheth spirituall sinnes heresie idolatry he punisheth them only with temporary punishment Obj. 5. When a Minister speaketh that which is treason against the Prince in the Pulpit by way of Doctrine the Church only doth take on them to judge him and censure him and he will not answer the civill judge for his Doctrine but decline him and appeal to a Synod and yet if another man in private speak these same words of treason he is judged by the civill judge and can give no deâ—linature against this civill judicature this must be unequall dealing except the civill judge may by his office judge whether the Minister spoke treason or not Ans It cannot be denied but that which is spoken by way of Doctrine by an Ambassador speaking the word in publick and that which is spoken in private although the â—ame words are very different for a private man in private to slander the Prince may be treason he hath no place nor calling to speak of the Prince but a Pastor hath a calling as the watchman of the Lord of hosts to rebuke Herod for incest and in a constitute Church the Church is to try whether Iohn Baptist preached treason or not 2. If it be a slander of the Prince and treason indeed the Prophet who preached it is first subject to the Prophets who are to condemne and censure him and then the magistrate is to inflict bodily punishment on him for it but the Church should labour to gaine the slanderers soule before the civill judge take away his life IV. Assert The Magistrate de jure is obliged not only to permit but also to procure the free exercise of the ministery in dispensing Word Sacraments and Discipline and owe his accumulative power to convene Synods to adde his sanction to the lawfull and necessary constitutions and ordination of worthy and to the Deposition of unworthy officers in the Church 1. Because he is a Nurse-father in the Church Isa 49 23. 2. And by office as a Publike father to procure the good of the soules of the subjects in his coactive way that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlines and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. 3. He is not onely to permit but also positively to procure all peace in the exercise of all lawfull and profitable trades and Arts Ergo farre more that glory may dwell in the Land and that the Peace thereof may be as a River Isa 48. 18. by the presence of Christ walking in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks V. Assertion When the Magistrate commandeth painfull and sound administration in preaching and governing with provision of the praysing and rewarding of well doing he doth not subordinate
as Saylors subjects these reduplications be consening and deceiving notions painters as painters are regulated by Art subject to be judged by painters but as men they are subjects so are Ministers as men subject to Cesar as Ministers they are the servants of Christ not subjects Ob. As Ministers they are either Magistrates or subjects but Ministers as Ministers are not Magistrates He that is not with Christ is against him M. Coleman in his Brotherly examination p. 21. saith He that doth not manage his office under Christ and for Christ must manage it under the Devil and for the Devil if therefore the Christian Magistrate do not manage his office under and for Christ he must manage it under or for the Devil which were blasphemous Ans I deny the Major proposition Ministers as Ministers are neither Magistrates nor subjects but formally the separated servants of Christ set a part for the work of gathering the Saints Now to be subjects is to be judged by the Magistrate in those things in which they are subjects that is in all Civill businesse they are and false teaching discerned by the Church to be false teaching or in case the Church corrupt themselves then are Ministers obnoxions to bodily punishment to be inflicted by the Magistrate But this is properly to be a subject of the Magistrate to be lyable to the civill cognizance trying and bodily punishment inflicted by the Magistrate and to be a subject and a member of the other Kingdome is to be subject to the Ecclesiasticall cognizance tryall and censure of the Church as a matter that concerneth the soul hence the former concerneth the body and outward man the latter the inner man and the soul 2. The former concerneth peace with men and edification to be procured by a mean extrinsecall to edification to wit by the sword the latter concerneth peace with God by a spirituall sword the Word of God 3. The former is carnall and of the Kingdome of this world the latter spirituall and of Christs other Kingdome that is not of this world Ioh. 18. 36. 4. The former worketh by coaction and bodily violence the latter by removing unwillingnesse and making a rebellious soul obedient 5. The former is an act of justice not terminated on repentance or the mans turning to God as an end for whether this end be obtained or no the Magistrate is to use the sword the other is terminated on repentance as its end He that is not with Christ is against Christ and with the Devil It s true in all professors of the Gospel as professors no man but he must be either on the one side or on the other either for or with Christ or against him But it is not true with every reduplication thus Ministers as Ministers are subjects of or to the King and to obey him in the Lord and so with Christ hath this sense Ministers essentially and formally are subjects of or to the King to obey him in the Lord so as Ministers do lose the essence and formality of the office of the Ministery if they be not the Kings subjects and with Christ this is most false for Iudas should not be a Minister of Christ then in that he was not subject to the Law of Cesar that is that the servant and disciple should be for and under his master and Lord it only followeth Ergo Iudas was not a godly Minister but under the Devil not under Christ Magistrates do neither essentially as Magistrates cleave to Christ nor â—ight against Christ but as holy men they cleave to Christ as sinfull men they fight against Christ 2. Master Coleman knoweth that we speak of the office of a Magistrate as a Magistrate not under the accidents of Christian or heathenish there was no reason he should apply his Argument to the Parliament except to make us odious as if we did not as much honour or pray for the Parliament and King as himselfe But it concludeth equally against all Magistrates and let him see it in a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth either manage his office under Christ and for Christ or under the Devil and for the Devil This I and Master Coleman also shall deny for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth not manage his office under or for Christ as mediator because he is utterly ignorant of Christ for he hath no more but what God as creator and nature gave him saith Master Coleman pag. 20. and the other horne of the Argument is as weak for this The heathen Magistrate as such manageth his office under or for the Devil is blasphemous for so Magistracy and the office should be intrinsecally unlawfull and for the Devil But it is intrinsecally the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. and apply this to God as creator it shall appear of force The Magistrate as the Magistrate doth either manage his office under and for God creator or under and for the Devil The former part is true because God creator and nature made the office of Magistracy apply it to a heathenish husband Father Master Musitian Painter under these reduplications and it shall make the relation of Husband Devilish or this proposition a Husband a Father as a Father and a Husband manage their office under and for Christ the mediator or under or for the Devil is most false and blasphemous the former part is false for there should have been and was Father and Husband which did manage the duties of these relations for God creator not for Christ mediator though Christ had never taken on our nature never been mediator never been King and Priest of his redeemed Church The latter part is blasphemous for then Adam had managed the part of Husband and Father under the Devil and for the Devil even before he fell in sinne and in the state of Innocency 3. Mr. Colemans meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate and by office is under Christ mediator as his supream and immediate vicegerent as mediator now in this sense Christs saying he that is not against us is with us shall not prove the truth of the proposition which must be this and is most false to wit that The Magistrate as the Magistrate by office is either under Christ mediator as the supream and immediate vicegerent of him as mediator or he is by office under the Devil This we deny for one might argue thus of the Apostle Paul who was either as an Apostle for Christ or against Christ Paul as an Apostle is either under Christ the mediator and his supream and immediate vicegerent having power of both Swords or he is under the Devil The proposition is most false for Paul is neither of them so say we here the Magistrate doth neither manage his office as a Magistrate under Christ mediator as his Vicar and a little head of the Church nor yet doth the Magistrate manage his office under or for the
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
Spirituall and Christs Kingdom must be of this world and the weapons thereof carnall to fight for Christ and the supream Church-officer as such must bear the Sword be a valiant man of warre by office and Christs Kingdome must be not of this world and the weapons thereof not carnall but spirituall Joh. 18. 36. 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. and the supream Church-officer must be no striker no fighter no man of war no sword-bearer by office which are contradictory 3. We prove the Pope to be no Vicar of Christ because we read not in the Word of any such Vicar nor do we read any thing of a supream Church-officer who is the Vicar of Christ 4. No spirituall Ambassador as such can substitute other Ambassadors with Majority of power that he hath in his Name to dispense Word Sacraments and Discipline nor can one great Ministeriall Church-head create lesser Ministeriall Church-heads such as Justices Majors Sheriffes Bailiffes Constables no more then the High Priest could substitute in his place other little High Priests if he were sick and absent to goe into the Holy of Holiest with blood once a yeere no more then the Apostle Paul immediately called of God can substitute other lesser Apostles immediately called of God to act as lesser Apostles but limited by the higher in the exercise of power nor can these lesser Apostles create other Apostles yet lesser and these in a subalternation yet lesser while you come as low as a Constable as the King doth send lesser Kings indued in part with his Royalty or Iudges under him and those Iudges may appoint other Iudges under them and because the whole visible Catholick Church hath an externall visible policy if Oecumenick councels have any warrant in the word then ought Christ to have instituted one civil Emperour over all the Churches on earth to conveen Oecumenick Synods to preside in them to limit and regulate them to make Lawes to all the world and that this is not it falleth out through mans corruption but it ought to be according to divine institution no lesse then every single Magistrate is by institution the head of every particular Church indued as our adversary say with that supream power under Christ the mediator that they call Potestas Architectonica the headship of the Church Proposi 2. The Magistrate as such is not a Vicar of Christs mediatory Kingdom 1. Because then as the Magistrates are called Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture Exod. 21. 6. Psal 82. 1 Ioh. 10. 34 35. so the Magistrates should be called little Mediators or submediators between God and man little Kings of the Church little Priests little Prophets of the Church for God giveth his name to Magistrates because he communicateth also to them some of his Majesty and power now what mediatory what Princely Priestly o◠Propheticall power hath Christ communicated to Magistrates as Magistrates Erastus saith they may dispense word and Sacraments if they had leasure But if they be by office little mediators and Pastors under Christ they should take leasure for every Magistrate ought to say woe be unto me if I preach not And Master Coleman saith that Christian Magistracy is an Ecclesiasticall administration he must speak of Christian Magistracy formally as Christian Magistracy otherwayes a Christian Tentmaker a believing fisher was an Apostle if he mean that Christian Magistracy is a Church officer formally he might say it is a Mediatory office and a Princely and Kingly office under Christ to give repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of sins instrumentally would Master Coleman teach us how the Magistrates sword openeth the eyes of the blind converteth men from the power of Sathan to God begetteth men through the Gospel to Christ as Pastors do and that formally as Magistrates we should thank him 2. Christian Magistracy if it be a Church or Ecclesiasticall administration then is it formally so either as Magistracy or as Christian not as Magistracy for then all Heathen Magistrates must formally ho◠ipso that they be Magistrates be Ecclesiasticall persons so Nero when Rome makes him Emperour they make him formally a Church-officer and invest him with power to dispence Word and Sacraments and Discipline if he might find leasure for killing of men and such businesse so to do for quod convenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where doth the Old or New Testament hold forth such an office given by Christ as a fruit of his ascension to heaven Where do the Apostles who shew us the duty of Magistrates Fathers Masters Pastors Teachers Rulers Deacons Husbands insinuate any such office If as Christian Christian Magistracy be an Ecclesiasticall office and administration Christianity 1. Is common to the Magistrate with all other professors Painters Merchants Seamen Lawyers Musitians and no more can Christianity make a heathen formally a Church-officer then it can make a Painter formally a Church-officer can faith in Christ and professing thereof make any to be formally Church-officers then must all be Church-officers that are Members of the Church for posita causa formali ponitur effectus formali◠Now Master Coleman saith The heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate is an Ecclesiasticall administration because saith he he should and ought to manage his power for Christ as the heathen and uttermost parts of the earth are given for Christs possession and inheritance and Christ hath given no liberty to a great part of the world to remaine infidels and enemies to him and his Government I suppose Christ hath all Nations given to him and all Nations ought to receive Christ though as yet actually they do not God and Nature hath made Magistrates and these Magistrates thus made God hath given to Christ But 1. The title of Christian added to Magistracy by this is superfluous and put in only ad faciendum populum for Christianity maketh no man formally a Magistrate by M. Colemans way yet saith he pag. 17. a Christian Magistrate as a Christian Magistrate is a Governour in the Church he should say by his way a Magistrate Christian as a Magistrate is a Governour not only in the Church but a Governour of the Church Arg. 2. If the Magistrate as the Magistrate be the Vicar and deputy of Christs mediatory kingdom then all and every Magistrate as Magistrate by his office is obliged under the pain of Gods wrath to command that the Gospel be preached and that men believe and obey Christ as mediator in all his dominions that so he may manage his office for Christ But the latter is utterly false and contrary to the Gospel Ergo so is the former The Major is undeniable all service that Magistrates by office do they sin before God if they do it not and so must be obliged under the pain of sin and Gods wrath to do it And therefore are obliged to command that the Gospel be preached and that men believe and obey Christ if by office they be
to the power civil that is of God If the Magistracy be an Ecclesiastical ordinance and a vicegerent power of the mediator as they say it is then to be subject to the Magistrate is to be subject to this Church power and to be subject to the Church 2. The punishing power of the Magistrate as such doth not bind and loose on Earth and open and shut Heaven for then hoc ipso because the Magistrate doth judge and punish evil doers the mans sin should be bound in Heaven now so the judging and punishing power should take hold of the conscience But it is certain the Magistrate as judge may take away the life of a Capital Delinquent when he knoweth the man repenteth and believeth and findeth mercy with God Ergo this magistratical power is not Ecclesiastical for if the man to the knowledge of all repent the Church hath no power to bind his sin on Earth nor will God bind his sin in Heaven but yet the Magistrate as a Magistrate is to punish Ergo this punishing power is no Ecelesiastical power nor any part of Church-government 3. The punitive power of the Magistrate hath influence on men as ill-doers whether they be within the Church or without the Church and worketh on men as Members of the Common wealth whether Christians or Heathens Indians or Americans But no punitive power of the Church is or can be extended to those that are without the Church but Pastors and the Church leaveth them to be judged of God 1 Cor. 5. 12. nor can they be cast out of the visible Church who were never within it 4. The punitive power of the Church as such floweth from Christ as Mediator Head and King of the Church because Christ as Head and Mediator hath appointed a shepheards staffe discipline or rebukes Church-censures and Excommunication for his sheep his redeemed ones family and people for whom he is Mediator his Scepter and Rod must be congruously and sutably proportioned to his Crown and spiritual Royal power But the punitive power of Magistrates floweth from God the Creator as the whole world is the family of God so for the preservation of humane society the Lord hath been pleased to appoint Magistrates and the punitive power of them by the sword to correct ill-doers for the peace good and safety of humane societies 5. All punitive Church-power is for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. That the mans spirit may be savdd in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. that the party may be gained by private and publike Church rebukes Mat. 18. 15. If he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother v. 18. If he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen c. Ergo if he hear the Church his soul is gained 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 1 Tim. 1. 19. but the intrinsecal end of punishing an evil doer is not the gaining of his soul but a political civil satisfaction of justice for a wrong done to humane society that others may fear and do so no more the Magistrate in using his sword as a Magistrate looketh not to this as the intrinsecall end of the sword to convert a soul to augment the number of the subjects of Christs mediatory Kingdom nor doth he as a Magistrate proportion the measure of the stroke of the sword according to the repentance aud godly sorrow of the man who hath sinned but in justice his eye is not to pity or spare the blasphemer though as dear to him as a father and friend Deut. 13. 6 8 9. 10. Deut. 33. 9. whether he repent or not repent but the Church censure respecting intrinsecally the gaining of the soul is proportioned to the offenders sorrow for his sin that he be not swallowed with over much sorrow 2 Cor. 2. 7 8 9 10. 6. This punitive part of Church Government is neither in name nor in thing in Scripture Triglandius denieth that there is any Ecclesiastical co-active or compulsive power properly so called in the Church there is no violence used by Christ as King of his Church this shepheard carrieth the Lambs in his bosome Isai 40. 11. Hyeronimus said well The King or Magistrate ruleth over men that are unwilling he meaneth in punishing them but the Pastor doth it to men that are willing And renowned Salmasius citing this addeth that of the Apostle Peter to the Elders Feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not pena a proper punishment that the Church doth inflict nor doth the Scripture speak so nor is the thing it self punishment or any punitive power here indeed all co-active power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate and all punishment issuing from it is against the will of the punished and is inflicted with the dominion of the sword we know how the Adversarie side here with Papists who make all Church censures to be pennances inflicted upon penitents against their will Therefore saith Salmasius Of old censures were so voluntary that to deny them was a punishment and they were desired and sought as a Benefit as the ancient Canons of Councels and Canonick Epistles and writings of Fathers bear witnesse and this doth prove if Iesus Christ have a willing people Psal 110. and if rebukes and censures be to the Saints as medicine that will not break the head Psal 141. 5. no medicine is received unwillingly by wise men and no medicine is a punishment then the punitive power of the Magistrate hath no place in the Church as the Church 7. The Magistrate dispenseth no Ecclesiasticall censures as a Magistrate For 1. He rebuketh not as a Magistrate for rebukes as rebukes intrinsecally tend to the gaining of the soul so as to receive rebukes willingly is a Character of a child of God and to hate it a signe of a wicked man Ecclesi 7. 5. Prov. 28. 23. and 6. 23. and 1. 23. c. 13. 18. c. 15. 5. 10. 31. 32. Prov. 5. 12. and 10. 17. and 15. 10. and 9. 8. and 13. 1. so the sword cannot inflict this censure nor can the Magistrate cast out of the Synagogue or Church he can banish which is a locall casting out but not excommunicate if he be said to be an Ecclesiasticall person exercising punitive power in the Church because he judgeth and punisheth sins against the Church 1. This is nothing except he inflict spirituall punishment of rebuking and excommunication which he cannot do because he hath not to do with the conscience or the converting of a sinner 2. If he be a Church-governour because he punisheth sins against the Church but in so far as they disturb the Peace of the State then Pastors may be civil Governours and use the sword which Christ forbiddeth Luk. 22. 26 27. and 12. 13 14. because they inflict spirituall punishment such as publike rebukes on murtherers parricides but in a spirituall way to gain souls to Iesus Christ and they rebuke murthers thefts thought not as committed against the State and Peace of
names and most superstitious and cannot be used in a religious state I grant we may not term our Jehovah Jupiter or Baal nor Christ Mercurius though he be the word of Gods mind to us for God teacheth us other words and language in his Word The truth is that learned noble Lord said well and judiciously all the indifferencie in the world lyeth in our understandings and the darkenesse thereof but there is none in the things themselves or actions which are still either unlawfull or necessarie And this is most true in actions morall and humane The Church putteth indifferencie on nothing there a necessitie in respect of our darknesse many be scandalized at things which seeme not necessarie to them yet are they in re in themselves necessarie But conformists object That the very will of the Church Act. 15. made things indifferent before the act now to become necessarie if then the Church may take away indifferencie she may give also But I answer The antecedent is most false Junius Calvin Beza Bullinger Brentius Pomeranus Marloret and the text clearly saith by the law of Nature these were scandalous So Origen thinketh to eat blâ—oà was scandalous And Strabo saith the heathen in their sacrifice dranke blood Yea saith Tertullian the heathen dranke mens blood and Augustine saith they forbade these for a time in the case of scandall that the ancient Synogogue might be buried with honour Yea Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian will have these drawne to a spirituall sense that they should abstaine from Idolatrie shedding of blood and fornication And the Jesuit Lorinus saith this was a positive Law which without the case of scandall doeth not strictly abolish Cajetanus Fornication by Gods law was forbidden the other things in the Canon were forbidden to gratifie the Jews Philippus Gamethaeus a Sorbenist saith they were forbidden to nourish concord betwixt Jew and Gentile for the infirmitie of the Jewes 2. That the will of the Councell made them not necessarie whereas before the act they were indifferent is cleare 1. It had then been needlesse to discusse the matter by Scripture 2. To alledge the holy Ghost as author of the Synod It seemed good to the Holy Ghost c. if the bare will of men had made them necessâ—rie But saith Paybodie Any good thing may become an occasion of evill by accident and through our fault the Word condemneth not occasions of ill by accident but such only as are occasions of evill and in themselves evill things indifferent are not in themselves evill Ans All occasions whether ill in themselves or indifferent are occasions of sinne by accident and through our fault who abuse them but all occasions because occasions and not because evill are forbidden when as they are not necessarie and this is Gods argument to prove that the Jewes are not to marry with the Canaanites for saith the law they will turne away your heart after their Gods to send abroad a goaring oxe to seeke his food hath no sinne in it save only it may occasion the killing of men and the building of houses without battlements and the going by the doore of the whoore or comming neere her house are not of themselves ill but only forbidden under this reduplication because they are occasions of ill sinnes as sinnes are forbidden and as occasions of sinnes they are also new sinnes having a distinct illegalitie and guiltinesse in them from this that they occasion sinne and Gods law as all Divines reach forbiddeth sinne and all occasions of sinne Drunkennesse is both forbidden as intemperancie and also as an occasion of lust and of speaking perverse things as is evident Pro. 23. 33. For then the spirit of Gods argument were null to disswade from drunkennesse as he doth in these woâ—ds Thine eye shall behold strange women and thine heart shall utter perverse things Now we can shew that many wayes Ceremonies occasion sinne as 1. they trimme and decore a Church for harlot lovers from Rome forbidden Jer. 2. 33. Suarez Franciscus de sancta clara Gretserus and other Papists for these werein love with the Church of England 2. They occasion dissention in Gods house and are contrary to peace Ps 34. 14. Heb. 12. 19. Rom. 12. 18. and so to be rejected 3. They beare false witnesse of Poperie which we disclaime 4. They are against the spirituall worshiping of God and lead us backe to the carnall commandements and beggerly rudiments of the law from the Gospell against the word of God Joh 4. 24. Gal. 4 9 10. Heb. 7. 16. Heb. 9. 8. 9. Gal. 3. 25. 26. Gal. 4. 1. 2. Coll. 2. 20. They are torches in day light and vaine and uselesse 5. They bring us under bondage to men contrary to the Apostle Col. 2. 20. and to the ordinances of men and under the power of things 1 Cor. 6. 12. 6. They are against our Christian libertie They answer especially Paybodie and D. Forbes that Christian libertie is not restrained by doing or not doing a thing indifferent for so there should be no lawes made at all by the Church concerning things indifferent but Christian libertie not hurt if 1. the Ceremonies be free to the conscience and not made necessarie 2. If they be not made necessarie to salvation 3. If they be holden alterable by mans authoritie Ans The question is perverted for we question not if the use of things indifferent lay a bond on Christian libertie but if the will of authoritie can make a law of things indifferent when there is no intrinsecall necessitie in the things themselves when necessitie of edification layeth on a tye Christian libertie is not indeed restrained for God then layeth on a bond 2. Externall eating of meats and observing of dayes is a part of the libertie wherewith Christ hath made us free Coll. 2. 21. Eat not touch not taste not men eat not meat with their minde or conscience but with the teeth of their body and to such externall eating men are dead with Christ as touching externall observation thereof and Paul Gal. 2. 19. as dead to the Law living to God and crucified with Christ is freed from such Judaizing as Peter fell into but that Judaizing did not bind Peters conscience neither was it repute of him as necessarie to salvation as he had taught Act. 10. And the false Apostles pressed Circumcision not as tying the conscience or as necessarie for salvation but Gal. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. only that they may not suffer affliction for the crosse of Christ and yet to be circumcised externally without necessitie of conscience before God crossed directly the libertie wherewith Christ had made them free Gal. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a wife and sister aswell as others Yet if the Prelates at Corinth should have made an act forbidding Church-men to marry though they had esteemed not