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
saith Ergo beside Ministers there must be some chiefe men which we call ruling Elders to represent the people that there may be as all our Divines and Scripture teach a threefold government in the Church A Monarchy in regard of Iesus Christ the onely head and King of the Church as the Iewish Church had their High Priest a Type of him and Aristocracy in Pastors and Teachers as the Iewes had their Priests and Levites and a Democracy in the ruling Elders as the Iewes had their Zekenim and their Heads of families and Elders in the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim and we in the Presbytery to represent the people and of these three the Iewish Ecclesiastick Sanedrim is made up 2 Chron. 19. 8. of the Levites and the priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the heads of Fathers or Masters of families Now Erastus yeeldeth that good Iehoshaphat departed not from Gods institution in his reformation all this Erastus passeth over in silence being ignorant of the Iewish Church government and not able to answer and he addeth something of Doctors not to a purpose and saith there be no Doctors but Pastors onely in the Word contrary to Rom. 12 7 8. Ephes 4. 11. where they are clearly distinguished Erastus Some chosen men must be in the Presbytery to represent the people Ergo these must be Doctors and Prophets but there is no need of that for Bishops of old represented the whole Church Ans Beza hath not any such argument he contendeth for Ruling Elders not for Prophets and Doctors to represent the people 2. Where doth the Scripture speake of such an office as a Bishop having Majority of power above Presbyters for since Erastus denieth all Ecclesiasticall Government in Teachers he must deny all Majority of Ecclesiasticall Governement also he that denieth the positive denieth also the comparative degree now this is a Bishop that neither Scripture nay nor popish Antiquity dreamed of 3. In what is a Bishop the representative Church The like is Erastus his third Argument Erastus 1 Cor. 12. How is Government a Presbytery how are Overseers governments Doctors Prophets There be many kinds of Governours I wonder that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Miracles you understand not the power of Excommunication that hath terrified all the World how are Doctors Prophets added to Pastors are they not teachers as well as Pastors but that they administer not the Sacraments how doe you prove that how prove you Overseers to be â—ther then Ministers Ans Governements to us are but a part of the Presbyterie 2. There be many kinds of Governours but he durst not venture to shew what is signified by governments lest he should say his Magistrate must be the onely Church Governour but he knoweth that a Magistrate as a Magistrate is no member nor part of the Church but as he is a Christian for then Cesar Herod Pontius Pilate as Magistrates must be set in the body of Christ as Apostles and Teachers and Prophets which all the World will cry shame on 3. Beza said never that Teachers and prophets are cast to Ministers to make a Presbyterie for by Teachers he meaneth Pastors 4. Because Paul setteth downe Governments different from Apostles Prophets and Teachers they must be some Officers different from them we can finde none else but such as rule well and yet labour not in the Word 1 Tim. 5. 17. let Erastus shew us what they are he dares not open his minde for he meaneth a Justice of Peace or a King or a heathen judge must be in the wombe of this 1 Cor. 12. 28. let himselfe be mid-wife Erastus answering to 1 Tim. 5. 17. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to labour is to labour diligently the meaning is like this I wish well to all Pastors but especially to those who with great industrie fidelity and paines feed the flocke committed to them as I love all inclined to studie but especially such as watch night and day upon studies for some are more diligent in teaching then others here 's no Tautologie to say I love all that sincerely and soundly teach the Word especially those that diligently teach it Ans I cannot particularly discusse this place I have done it else where fully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with two Articles noteth two species of Elders as Tit. 1. 11. 1 Tim. 5. 8. Gal. 6. 10. Phil. 4. 22. 2. This is a Tautologie I love all well governing and faithfull Elders especially those that labour in the word they may be well and painful feeding Pastors who are not painfull in preaching the Word and this is Tautologie I love all that are studious and studie excellently and especially those that studie night and day as Erastus must say if he make the phrase agree to the purpose to feed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well in a feeding Pastor includeth labouring in the Word since Erastus expoundeth the place 1 Tim. 5. 17. of Church officers he cannot deny but the place holdeth forth a Government and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church Officers for beside labouring in the Word and doctrine which is preaching here is well governing it is a shame then to Erastus to expound this place so and yet deny all Church Government except in the hands of the Magistrate Erastus Ancient and moderne Doctors deny two sorts of Elders Ans I have made the contrary appear in the place cited I will not weary the Reader with reasons set downe at full in another place Erastus Shew where the Church hath a judicature to punish sins different from the Magistrates judicature as the Lord made a power of burning incense to the Lord to be different from the Kings royall power Ans Mat. 18. Mat. 16. Ioh. 20. Mat. 28. 19 20. Eph. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 c. Rev. 2. 1 2. and 20. 21. Ministers are no lesse separated under the New Testament to all ministeriall acts of feeding by the word and rod of Discipline then Priests were of Old Erastus Nathan did not Excommunicate David Ans Nathan had assurance from God that his sin was pardoned 2. That the Sanedrim did not cast David out is a fact and proveth not they had no power for 80. Priests cast Vzziah out of the house of God for a lesse fault that carried in its face lesse scandall Erastus The Prophets never accuse the Priests that they admitted the unclean to the sacrifices and holy things of God Ans The contrary is evident Ier. 5. 31. Ezek. 22. 25 26. and 44. 8 9 10. contrary to their Office Deut. 17. 11 12. Levit. 10. 10. Erastus David Psal 51. sheweth he would have given Sacrifices but God craved a broken heart Ergo he had power to sacrifice Ans Not except withall he had offered a contrite heart to God Paul saith Erastus speaketh of coming to them with the rod of delivering to Satan of his comming with the authority God had given him of his
But the King is head of the Church Ergo he maketh lawes to regulate the Family Ans The Antecedent is false if not blasphemous it is proper to Iesus Christ only Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. The King is the head of men who are the Church materialiter he is not formally as King Head of the Church as the Church and therefore we see not how this Statute agreeth with the Word of God Henric. 8. Stat. 37. c. 17. The Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by under and from the Kings Royall Majesty the onely and undoubted supream head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by holy Scripture is given all authority and power to hear and determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever for neither is the subject the Archbishops Bishops c. lawfull nor is the limitation of the subject lawful for Ecclesiasticall officers are the Ambassadors of Christ not of the King Obj. All Christians are to try the Spirits Ergo Much more Magistrates Ans This proveth that Christians as Christians and Magistrates as Christians may judge determine of all things that concerneth their practise and that they are not with blinde obedience to receive things Mr. Pryn cannot say that 1 Iohn 4. 1. is meant of a Royall Parliamentary or Magistraticall tryall Iohn speaketh to Christians as such But this is nothing to prove the power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate for thought the man were neither King nor Magistrate he ought to try the Spirits 1 Iohn 4. 1. The speciall objection moved for Appeals is that which Paul did in a matter of Religion that we may do in the like case but Paul Acts 25. did appeal from a Church Iudge to a civill and a heathen Iudge in a matter of Religion when he said before Festus Acts 25. I appeal to Cesar Ergo so may the Ministers of Christ far more appeal to the Christian Magistrate and that Paul did this jure by Law not by Priviledge but by the impulsion of the Holy Ghost is clear in that he saith He ought to be judged by Cesar so Maccovius so Videlius so Vtenbogardus so Erastus Ans 1. This Argument if it have nerves shall make the great Turk when he subdueth people and Churches of the Protestant Religion to be the head of the Church and as Erastus saith by his place and office as he is a Magistrate he may preach and dispense the Sacraments and a Heathen Nero may make Church constitutions and say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me and by this Nero by office is to excommunicate make or unmake Pastors and Teachers judge what is Orthodoxe Doctrine what not debarre hereticks Apostates and mockers from the Table and admit the worthie and Paul the Apostle must have been the Ambassador and Deputie of Nero in preaching the Gospel and governing the Church and Nero is the mixt person and invested by Iesus Christ with spirituall jurisdiction and the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven This Argument to the Adversaries cannot quit its cost â—or by this way Paul appealed from the Church in a controversie of Religion to a Nero a Heathen unbaptized Head of the Church and referred his faith over to the will judgement and determination of a professed Enemy of the Christian Church and Paul must both jure by the Law of God and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost appeale from the Church to a Heathen without the Church in a matter of Religion and Conscience then Nebuchadnezzar was head of the Church of Iudah and supreame judge and governour in all causes and controversies of Religion how can we beleeve the adversarie who doe not beleeve themselves and shall we make Domitian Dioclesian Trajan and such heads of the Church of Christ 2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour or civill judge as is clear Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten dayes he went downe to Cesarea and the next day sitting in the judgement seat commanded Paul to be brought vers 10. And Paul said I stand at Cesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged he refused v. 9 10. to be judged by Festus at Ierusalem but saith v. 11. I appeal to Cesar Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar for the Iews laid many grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove vers 7. And it is said vers 8. That Festus was willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure and so was manifestly a partiall Iudge and though the Sanedrim at Ierusalem could have judged in point of Law that Paul was a blasphemer and so by their Law he ought to die for so Caiphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Iesus Christ yet his appeal from the Sanedrim 1. corrupted and having manifestly declared their bloodie intentions against Paul 2. From a Sanedrim in its constitution false and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution Deut. 17. 8 9 10. it now usurping civill businesse which belonged not to them Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloodie and degenerating Church judicature acting according to the bloodie lusts of men against an innocent man to a more unpartiall judge and yet be no contemner of the Church this is nothing against our Thesis which is that it is not lawfull to appeal in a constituted Church from a lawfull unmixt Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death 3. Paul appealed from the Sanedrim armed with the unjust and tyrannicall power of Festus a man willing to please the bloodie accusers of Paul as is clear v. 9. And Festus willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure answered Paul and said Wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me 3. The cause was not properly a Church businesse but a crime of bodily death and sedition I deny not but in Pauls accusation prophaning of the Temple teaching against the Law of Moses was objected to him Materialiter the enemies made the cause of Paul a Church businesse but formally it was sedition 1. It was a businesse for which the Sanedrim sought Pauls life and blood for which they had neither authority nor Law by divine Institution therefore they sought the helpe of Felix Festus and the Roman Deputies so Lysias vvrote to Felix Act. 23. 29. I perceived Paul to be accused of questions of their law but to have nothing layd to his charge worthy of death or of bonds Now it is clear the Roman Deputies thought not any accusation for the Iewish Religion a matter of death and bonds and therefore Gallio the Deputie of Achaia Acts 18. 14. saith
not a first converting ordinance yet a confirming one ibid. The Lords Supper presupposeth Faith and Conversion in the vvorthy Receiver in a Church-profession p. 523 c. The Magistrate subject to the Church p. 528 The Church a perfit society without the Magistrate p. 529 530 God efficacious by Preachers not by Magistrates p. 532 Differences between the Preachers and the Magistrate p. 532 c. The Magistrate cannot limit the Pastors in the exercise of their calling p 535 That Magistrates are more hot against the Churches punishing of sin then against sinful omissions argueth that they are unpatient of Christs yoke rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the Subject p. 536 c. Of the Reciprocation of the Subordinations of Magistrates and Church-Officers to each other ibid. Not any power or office subject to any but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons p. 538 A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate different p. 539 Two things in a Christian Magistrate jus authority aptitudo hability p. 539 c. Christianity maketh no new power of Magistracy p. 542 A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary upon which and the former distinction followeth ten very considerable assertions page 542 c. The Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth the exercise of the Ministerial power but not the spiritual and sincere manner of the exercise p. 544 Magistrates as godly men not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of Ministerial power p. 545 c. A twofold goodnesse in a Christian Magistrate essential accidential p. 548 The Magistrate as such commandeth onely in order to temporary rewards and punishments nor holdeth he forth commands to the conscience p. 549 c. Magistrates as Magistrates forbid not sin as sin under the pain of eternal wrath p. 550 Two sorts of Subordinations Civil Ecclesiastick p 553 Subordination of Magistrate and Church to each others p. 554 c. Church Offices as such not subordinate to the Magistrate ibid. What power Erastians give to Magistrates in Church matters p. 557 The minde of Arminians touching the power of the Magistrate in Church matters ibid. A threefold consideration of the Magistrate in relation to the Church p. 558 Reciprocation of subordinations between Church and Magistrate p. 560 The Ministers as Ministers neither Magistrates nor Subjects p. 564 c. The Magistrate as such neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator nor under Satan but under God as Creator ibid. The Prince as a gifted Christian may Preach and spred the Gospel to a Land where the Gospel hath not been heard before page 570 c. The King and the Priest kept the Law but in a far different way p. 572 c. The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another p. 574 c. God hath not given power to the Magistrate and Church to Iudge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause p. 577 Whether Appeals may ly from Church-assembles to the Civil Magistrate p. 578 Of Pauls appeal to Caesar ibid. Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in Causes Ecclesiastical p. 579 c. It is one thing to complain another thing to appeal p. 580 What an appeal is ibid. Refuge to the Magistrate is not an Appeal p. 581 A twofold appeal p. 582 The Magistrates power of punishing or his interest of faith proveth him not to be a Iudge in Synods p. 585 c. Pauls appeal proveth nothing against appeals for appeals from the Church to the Christian Magistrate p. 587 Paul appealed from an inferiour Civil Iudge to a superior Civil Heathen Iudge in a matter of his head and life not in a controversie of Religion p. 588 What power a conqueror hath to set up a Religion in a conquered Nation p 590 There were no appeals made to the godly Emperours of old p. 594 To lay bands on the conscience of the Magistrate to ty him to blinde obedience the Papists not our Doctrine p 595 Subjection of Magistrates to the Church no Papal tyranny p. 600 c. The Magistrate as a Magistrate cannot forbid sin as sin ibid. The Magistrate pomoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom ibid. The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediator Christ p. 601 The Adversaries in the Doctrine of the Magistrate Popish not we at all ibid. Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates in their whole Ministery by the Adversaries p. 603 c. Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiastical Administration p. 604 The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediatory Kingdom ibid. Heathen Magistrates as such are not oblieged to promote Christs mediatory Kingdom p. 606 Magistracy from the Law of Nations p. 608 The Adversaries must teach universal Redemption p 610 Magistrates as such not members of the Church p. 613 Christ mediator not a temporary King p 614 The Magistrat not the servant of the Church p. 616 The adequate and complete cause why the Magistrate is subject to the Church p. 617 That the Magistrate is subject to the Rebukes and censures of the Church is proved from the Word p. 618 c. The supreme and principal power of Church-affairs not in either Magistrate or Church p 620 Though the Magistrate punish Ecclesiastical scandals yet his power to Iudge and punish is not Ecclesiastical and spiritual as the Church censureth breaches of the second Table and yet the Churches power is not Civil for that p. 622 People as people may give power to a Magistrate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church to judge and punish offenders therein p. 625 A Governour of or over the Church a Governour in the Church a Governour for the Church different p. 628 The distinction of a Doctrinal or Declarative and of a Punitive part of Church-Government of which the former is given to Pastors the latter to the Magistrate a heedlessâ— and senselesse notion p. 629 c. That the Magistrates punishing with the sword scandalous persons should be a part of Church-government a reasonlesse conceit p. 631 There is neither coaction nor punishment properly so called in the Church p. 632 Bullinger not of the minde of Erastus p. 634 The Iudgement of Wolfâ—ag Musculus Aretius and Gualther p. 634 c. The Errour of Gualther to please the usurping Magistrate p. 638 Their minde different from Erastus p. 639 The Christian Magistrates sword cannot supply the place of Excommunication in the Church p. 640 The confessions of the Protestant Church for this way p. 642 c. The testimony of Salmasius p. 644 Of Simlerus p. 645 Lavater Ioan. Wolphius ibid. Of Râ—b Burhillus 646 The Contents of the Tractate or Dispute touching Scandal WHether things indifferent can be commanded Introduction p. 1 Indifferent things as such not the Matter of a Church-constitution Introd Actions are not indifferent because their circumstances are indifferent Introd Marrying not indifferent Introd Indifferency Metaphysical and Theological Introd Necessity of obeying the Church
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
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
a lege aeternâ as they depend on the eternall law Ergo they oblige in Conscience it followeth not They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition in that which is morall can be proved out of Gods word but so in their morallity they are meerely divine and not humane and positive and so the argument concludeth not against us They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law that is as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God in a Major proposition without probation of the assumption that we deny and it is in question now The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge rejected God not because Samuel had a power of making lawes without the warrant of Gods word Neither Moses nor Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines hand then Jackson saith For Bellarmine saith In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power to make that which is sinne to be no sin and that which is no sinne to be sinne So Iackson the interposition of derived authority maketh that which would be murther other wayes to bee a good worke that is men may doe what God onely can doe If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice then Abrahams derived authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice as to strike a Prophet of it selfe is a degree of murther but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet it is lawfull But can any blasphemer say that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord such as are humane positive lawes and our humane ceremonies see the text 1 King 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord smite me This was immediate divine and Propheticall authoritie and not humane Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull Court Parasites speake so he refuteth himselfe The Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State maketh that which is Piracy lawfull then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetick power and a law laid upon the Conscience but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine done to the State of England may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawfull Magistrate Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place which have no warrant of the word of God Yea even Stapleton a Papist saith as Doctor Field also observeth That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter and not from the will of the Lawgiver And so saith Gerson Almain Decius Mencha and our owne Iunius saith The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent not in the instrument Doctor Iackson saith unlimited and absolute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers that is due to God but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedience if they speake from God suppose they fetch not an expresse commission from Scripture for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture I were no more bound to beleeve obey my governours then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr 3. lih 4. cap. 6. not 89. my Governours then ther are bound to believe and obey me for equals are oblieged to obey equalls when they bring a warrant from Gods word and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall but titular and the same do th Sutluvius and Bellarmine say Answ We owe to equalls to Mahomet conditionall and cautionary faith and obedience thus I beleeve what Mahomet saith so he speake Gods word yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way so they speake according to Gods word 2. It followeth in no sort if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls Infetiours because there is a double obedience one of conscience and objective coming from the thing commanded And in respect of this the word hath no lesse authority and doth no lesse challenge obedience of Confcience and objective when my equall speaketh it in a private way yea when I writ it in my muse then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority for we teach against Papists that the word borroweth â—o authority from men nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man but as indeed the Word of God as the Scripture saith 1. There is another obedience officiall which is also obedience of Conscience because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular commanded in humane Lawes as humane so I owe obedience of subjection and submission of affection of feare love honour respect by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers when they command according to Gods Word and this I owe not to equals or inferiours and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular because they must warrant their mandates from the Word But it s alwayes this mans hap to be against sound truth But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this Thou shalt not murther Beleeve in Iesus Christ when Rulers and Pastors command them then when I read them in Gods word I prove 1. If this from a Ruler Thou shalt not murther challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees but as I read it my selfe or as my equall in a private way saith Thou shalt not murther it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely then is it more obligatory of Conscience and so of more intrinsecall authority and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it then when I read it or my equall speaketh it to me This were absurd for the speaker whether publike or private person addeth not any intrinsecall authority to the word for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word as the bearers were publike or private more or lesse worthy As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience should be resolved as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler and not on the authority of God the Author of his own word 4. I answer to Sutluvius That Christ in the externall policy of his owne house is a Lawgiver ordaining such and such officers himselfe Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency
and against order in which case the formall object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a particular humane Law but the violation of the morall goodnesse annexed to it and of the scandall given Now in this meaning the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindely Per se of it self punishable but by accident and so it bindeth the conscience by accident And in this sense great Doctors as Ambrose Anselme Theodoret Chrysostom Navarra Felinus Taraquel say That humane Laws oblige the conscience But the most learned of the Canonists aver that not to obey civill Laws laying aside the evil of scandall is no mortall sin and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltinesse before God 2. They object To resist the Laws of the Magistrate is to resist himself and to resist himself is to resist the Ordinance of God Ans To resist the Laws positive and particular in connexion with the morall reason of the Law is to resist the Ruler true But so the question is not concluded against us for by accident in that sense humane Laws binde the conscience but to resist the particular Laws as particular Laws as particular positive Laws is not to resist the Ruler A Ruler as a Ruler doth never command a thing meerly indifferent as such but as good edificative profitable and except you resist the morality of the positive humane Law you resist not the Ruler yea nor yet is the Law resisted 3. The Iesuit Lod. Meratius objecteth Every true Law obligeth either to guiltinesse or to punishment but the civill and Canonick Laws are Laws properly so called But they do not ever oblige to punishment only Ergo They oblige to sin Ans It is denied that Laws civill or Canonicall as meerly particularly positive do oblige as Laws or that they are Laws they be only Laws according to the morality in them that can promove us to our last end eternall felicity It is also false that the Iesuit saith If thou wilt be saved keep the Commandments doth command the keeping of all Civill and Canonick Laws or that hence is concluded a Law obliging the conscience that is humane and positive as if a Lent Fast a Pilgrimage and not carrying Armour in the night were commanded by Christ as necessary to life eternall The same Meratius striveth to answer the Argument of Almain and Gerson which is this Who ever can oblige to sin mortall before God he can inflict eternall punishment but no mortall man can inflict eternall punishment 1. Saith he This Argument would prove sins against the Law of nature as homicide and adultery not to be deadly sins for by the Law of nature eternall punishment is not inflicted for sins against the Law of nature but by the positive will of God If any say God is the author of the Law of nature because he is the Creator of that humane nature in the which this law is written So if that be sufficient that the law of nature oblige under eternall punishment so also the civill and Ecclesiasticall lavv shall binde the conscience because he is the author of that power which maketh Civill and Ecclesiastick laws for there is no power but it is of God Ans 1. By the Law of nature sins against the Law of nature deserve eternall punishment and that essentially laying aside the positive will of God to whom I grant it is free to inflict punishment or not to inflict and this agreeth to all sin But to carry Armour in the night laying aside the case of scandall and the morality thereof that no murther follow thereupon deserveth neither temporall nor eternall punishment And if this Argument of the Iesuits hold good no mortall sin shall oblige to eternall punishment because Gods positive will is the nearest cause of actuall punishment eternall in all sins 2. God is not the Author of a propper noâ—othetick power in man for that is the question 2. He answereth Distinguishing the Proposition None can oblige to a mortall sin but he who can inflict the eternall punishment of a mortall sin It is true saith he of the punishment which wholly dependeth upon the will of the judge who made the Law but it is not true of that punishment which no way dependeth upon the will of the Iudge such as is eternall punishment excommunication dependeth upon the vvill of man and it obligeth to eternall punishment yet man cannot inflict that eternall punishment for a man may command an act the omission whereof or the commission whereof is of such moment that it serveth much for the good of a community and therefore he vvho of knowledge and vvillingly doth such an act doth sin against right reason and so against the eternall lavv of God Ans 1. The distinction of the Jesuit is but a begging of the question He vvho can oblige to mortall sin by his Lavv can also oblige to eternall punishment if eternall punishment depend vvholly on his free vvill as the Lavv doth What is that but the inflicting of eternal punishment belongeth to him who maketh a Law obliging to sin mortal so being the inflicting of eternall punishment belong to him But our Argument is he who hath dominion and authority to make a Law hath dominion and authority to inflict a punishment answerable to the transgression of that Law for it is one dominion and power to make the Law and to inflict the penalty of the Law Man cannot make the penalty of eternall wrath Ergo he cannot make a Law obliging to eternall wrath 2. Excommunication is not done by mans will but by the power of the keys for a mortall sin deserving excommunication and so eternall wrath If any Excommunicate upon his sole will as wicked Popes have done in that case the will of a man obligeth neither to punishment nor to eternall punishment it is but Brutum Fulmen and not to be feared 3. If any Commit an act that hurteth a whole Community and is forbidden by men in Authority he sinneth against the Law of God though men had never forbidden that Act And we deny not but humane Laws agreeing with the Law of Nature doth oblige the Conscience both to sin and eternall punishment but then they are not humane Laws but Divine Laws and in that case two guiltinesses Duo reatus are Committed one against the fifth Commandment in doing what Superiors according to Gods Word forbiddeth and there is another guiltinesse against the matter it self and a Divine Law which also should stand as a sin before God thought the Ruler had never forbidden it But if any carry Armour in the Night being forbidden by the Iudge for eschewing of night homicide if no homicide follow at all and the matter be not known and so not scandalous the carrier of Armour is involved in no guiltinesse before God CAP. III. Of the power of the
Magistrate in matters Ecclesiasticall QUEST 1. That Christ hath a spirituall Kingdom not only in the power of preaching the word but also in the power of the keys by discipline COncerning the Christian Magistrate we are to consider two heads the one negative what he cannot do in the matters of Christs Kingdom 2. Positive What he ought to do for the opening of the former We are to cleare whether or no all externall scandalls Ecclesiasticall as well as civill are to be punished by the Civill Magistrate and that as in Civill scandals that disturbeth the peace of the Common-wealth the Magistrate hath a twofold power one to command what is good and just another to reward and punish so the Lord Jesus in his Kingdom hath not onely a directive power to teach and forbid but also a power by way of Discipline upon the external man ecclesiastically to reward and punish to binde and loose in an externall Court on earth It is granted by the Adversaries that Christ as King hath a power of binding and loosing but meerly internall purely spirituall in regard of the Conscience by the Preaching of the Word but for any externall power to take in and cast out of the Visible Kingdom of Iesus Christ his Visible Church This they deny and so refuse all externall Ecclesiasticall censures of receiving into the bosome of the Church and casting out by rebukes or Excommunication and therefore that there is no externall Court in the Church to punish Ecclesiasticall scandals all scandals and externall offences of the Church are to be punished by the Christian Magistrate onely In opposition to which error I say 1. Conclusion There is not only a rebuking of an offender in the Church by private admonition as between Brother and Brother common to all Christians Col. 3. 16. Levit. 19. 17. And of the Pastor only he applying the Word by way of Preaching to such and such offenders and closing the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven upon impenitent sinners which is acknowledged by the Adversaries But there is also a Church-rebuking by way of censure which must presuppose an Ecclesiasticall Court and a rebuking of a Publique sin put forth by many whereas one only not a Church or multitude may Preach the Word and so rebuke by way of Preaching which I make out from the Word of God 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rebuke or punishment in the old Translation it is Objurgatio in the Newer Increpatio Piscator Muleta is a chastisement whether this punishment was actuall excommunication as many Learned Interpreters do not improbably gather out of the Text or if it was a Rebuke of the Church in order thereunto Certain it included a rebuking not of one man but a Church-rebuking inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And by the Representative Church of Corinth gathered together with Pauls spirit and the power of the the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. And so presupposeth a Court or Convention of many inflicting this punishment 2. The Adversaries who deny that there is such a thing as Excommunication say it was onely a rebuke but if it was Excommunication it must include a rebuke coming from the many who do excommunicate 3. It is such a rebuke as must be taken off and pardoned by many as ver 7. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him ver 10. To whom ye forgive any thing I also forgive So here is a rebuking put upon an offender by many convened in a Court who did rebuke by way of judiciall Authority and the power of the Lord Iesus Ergo it was some higher censure which was inflicted by many and taken off by many then that which was inflicted by one by way of Preaching where there is no necessity that many either rebuke or comfort the rebuked for one Pastor is to give out the sentence of Death or Life rebuking and comforting toward any one offender or a person Repenting whether many be convened to consent and joyn or not Yea I may being a Pastor of Iesus Christ dispense rebukes and comforts by way of Preaching against the will and minde of the whole flock But a rebuke and a forgiving by many cannot be dispensed except these many convene together in the Name of the Lord Iesus in a Church way and consent 2. If the convened Church must be heard and obeyed when she rebuketh a Brother for a fault done between Brother and Brother and that upon the Testimony of two or three witnesses then is the Church a Court that is to rebuke an offender and so to convene him before her and that is some other censure then by way of Preaching but the former is true Matth. 18. 16 17. 3. If the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch convened in a Synod do give forth an Ecclesiasticall rebuke on false Teachers as those that troubled the Churches and perverted their Souls with false Doctrine then is there rebuking of offenders by a Church or Churches beside a Pastorall rebuking by one single Brother or Pastor But the former is true Act. 15. ver 24 25. The Proposition is clear in that a select company of Apostles Elders and Brethren doth not only Doctrinally conclude against their errour who did hold the necessity of Circumcision but also against the Persons and their Schismaticall way of troubling the Church by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in making a side and Faction in the Church ver 2. 24. And this not any one single man could do in an ordinary way except we say that it was an idle and unnecessary remedy which the Apostles used to quench the sire as if any one man might have done all this or as if they had rebuked these men publikely not having heard and convinced them by the Word of God or as if an offence touching conversation and against the second Table had risen betweene Church and Church no lesse then in the present case of an offence in matter of doctrine that the Apostles would not have taken the same course all which are not to be imagined And in very deed this was not a point of meer doctrine but also of peace and charity violated by a Faction ver 2. And a scandall in eating things strangled was raised in the Churches Acts 15. 24. 1 Cor. 10. 28 29. Rom. 14. 14 15 16 17. 4. If Timothy be to rebuke publikely those that sin publikely and that judicially upon the Testimony of Witnesses Then is there a publike Church-rebuking by way of censure beside the pastorall rebuking But the former is expresly said 1 Tim. 5. 19 20. This must be a rebuking in a Church-court except we say Timothy his alone was the Church and a Monarch of the Church who hath power to lead witnesses against Elders 2. Conclusion There is such a censure as excommunication in the hands of the Church by
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
15. And to wait on them with all patience if God peradventure may give them repentance 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spirits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former reasons by delivering to Satan cannot be meant a miraculous tormenting of the body by Sathan with the saving of the life Such as we read was the case of Iob for the delivering to Sathan is to cast out of the Church and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world of which Sathan is Prince Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert as the essentials of excommunication are 1. Here is a member of the Church one vvho is within 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall and had his fathers wife ver 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ v. 4. was delivered to Sathan that his soule may be saved for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication and to be purged out of the Church lest he should infect the Sheepe ver 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him nor to eate with him ver 9. 10 and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican ver 12. 13. and that by a convened court having the name and authority of him who is King of the Church ver 4. and more wee doe not crave Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan is no mean of salvation Answ A morall delivering to the efficacy of error and a reprobate minde is not a mean of salvation nor is excommunication such a mean nor in the power of the Church but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable communion of the Saints and of the prayers of the Church and meanes of grace such is a means and mighty through God to humble CAP. V. Quest 1. Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments beside the Pastorall rebukes inflicted by one VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel to debar the unclean from the society of Gods people and from communion with them in the holy things of God Numb 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast or the carcase of unclean cattell or the carcase of unclean creeping things and if it be hidden from him he also shall be unclean and guilty 6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord having his uncleannesse upon him even that soul shall be cut off from the people 21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing as the uncleannesse of man or any unclean beast or any abominable unclean thing and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which pertain unto the Lord even that soul shall be cut off from his people In the which observe that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excommunication not by death also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make a Covenant to cut off either by death or any other way as by banishment by which a thing leaveth off to be in use though it be not destroyed as when a branch is cut off a tree 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea we have Isa 50. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is that Bill of cutting off or divorce Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced but putting her from her husband as our Saviour saith It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage yet the word is Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrews have another more ordinary word to signifie death as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath in dying he shall die And it is expounded he shall be cut off from the midst of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Lev. 7. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is four times used without any such expression ver 20 21 25 27. To which may be added that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared According to the purification of the Sanctuary though they had celebrated the Passeover the King did not only not kil them but prayed God might be mercifull to them and the Lord killed them not saith the spirit of God but healed them Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread that soul shall be cut off from Israel but it is expounded ver 19. That soul shall be cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church of Israel Certainly he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church and from the company of all mortall men on earth Isa 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel as the holy Ghost expoundeth it Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance and so if he touch any unclean thing or eat unleavened bread forbidden of God he is excluded from the holy things of God while the Priest offer for him according to the Law Now if he was presently to be killed either by the Magistrate or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand as Aarons sons were there was not a journey to be made to the place the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there which might have been three dayes journey from his house who was unclean yea when the man that gathered sticks was stoned and the false Prophet stoned Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed and I hope there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead Hence learn we 1. That to cut off from the Congregation was not to kill but it was the Iewish Excommunication greater or lesse 2. That Moral sins under the Old Testament debarred men from the holy things of God while the Priests sacrificed for them and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy
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
the Sacraments to a Turk and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also conclude we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments being both uncapable of them as also because they can but trample on these pearls no lesse then the Turk should do the Argument then is just nothing We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven whom we do not excommunicate on earth But he should say we Excommunicate many whom we do not exclude out of Heaven Erastus These two are not one to declare a person hatefull in Heaven to God and to be cast out of the visible Church for if they be both one then one private Pastor may Excommunicate for he may declare from Gods word that an offender is excluded out of Heaven hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude also why should this be as good a consequence God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God Ergo he is to be cast out of the visible Church as this God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall Ergo God will not have him to live in this temporall life Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not worthy of life eternall to whom he hath given power to cast out devils in his name Matth. 7. Ans All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication So Iudas might have Excommunicated himself and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church he is cast out of the invisible Church But that is not Excommunication except it be done for a publick scandall that offendeth the Church 2. Except it be done by the visible Church 3. According to the rule of Christ Matth. 18. 4. That he may be ashamed and repent and be saved Gods binding of the offender in Heaven is a part of Excommunication but not all nor the very same with Excommunication 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor and yet the Conscional casting out by one insuo genere is as valid as the other subordinata non pugnant 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule God thinketh those who walketh inordinately and causeth divisions not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints and must binde them in heaven to that censure in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word Rom. 16 17. 18. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these he may deny salvation to the wicked and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath Ergo he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish This consequence dependeth on the meer dispensation of God nor is this our Consequence God judgeth such unworthy of heaven Ergo they must be cast out of the visible Church we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommunicated and only these which is false for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ and yet they are to be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the Church as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy and many whom God judges unworthy of life eternall may so belie a Profession as they deserve not to be excommunicated and both these may fall out and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ Erastus 4. objecteth Excommunication must exclude men from only the externall society of the Church for he only can joyne us to Christ or separate us from internall and spirituall society of Christ who can beget lively faith in us and extinguish lively faith when it is begotten for by faith only we are made living members of Christs body and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie But no Church no creatures can either beget lively faith in us or extinguish it in us or thus men can neither give to us nor take from us salvation therefore Excommunication should not be defined by cutting men off from salvation Ans This is the only Argument of Erastus that seemeth to bear weight But it is false and groundlesse it supposeth the false principle that Erastus goeth on that Excommunication is a reall separation of a member from Christs Invisible and Mysticall body and that the Excommunicated person who may be an Invisible member of Christ and regenerated may be an Apostate and fall from Christ and leave off to be a member The contrary of which all our Protestant Divines teach against Papists whereas Excommunication is only a Declarative but withall an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church and no reall cutting off of a believer from Christ But you will say It presupposeth a cutting off in heaven from Christ and therefore the Excommunicated person is declared to be cut off Let me Answer I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation Regeneration or non-Regeneration for its object or terminus but only it cutteth a contumacious person off from the Visible Church on earth and from the head Christ in heaven not in regard of his state of Regeneration as if Christ ratifying the Sentence in heaven did cut him off so much as conditionally from being a member of his body No but in regard of the second Acts of the life of God and the sweet efficacy and operation of the spirit by which the Ordinances are lesse lively lesse operative and lesse vigorous the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton saith As a palsie Member in which life remaineth but a little withered and blunted and he in Satans power to ve◠his spirit and therefore I grant all to wit that Excommunication is not a reall separating of a member from Christs body only unbelief doth that but it followeth not Ergo it is a separation only from the externall society of the Church For 1. This externall cutting off is ratified in heaven And 2. Christ hath ratified it by a real internal suspension of the influence of his spirit in heaven But I deny that this universall doth follow from Christs binding in heaven That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven all these are to be cast out of the Church he cannot prove this consequence from our grounds Erastus Argueth thus If God dam any as
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
Paul for fear of the iniquity of this Church or Sanedrim dealt with them as Heathen and appealed to Cesar Ans But by what Law of God did they this It is not denyed but the Iews Synedrim being two courts did inflict punishment But that Christ establisheth a civill Sanedrim as a mean Matth. 18. To gain the soul of a brother is now the question we utterly deny this and gave reasons before thereof to which I adde if any obeyed not the Church that is the Sanedrim as Erastus saith they might be stoned to death as Steven was Was this Christs milde way to cite them onely before the Romane Senate Were dead men capable of answering to any further Iudicatures 2. The last step of conveening Heathens and Publicans before the Romane Senate according to Christs order is not to be observed with them for even Heathens and Publicans are so far forth our brethren that 1. We are not when they offend us to suffer sin in them but to rebuke them as Christians Lev. 19. 18. For this is the Law of nature The Law of nature will teach us not to hate an Heathen in our heart 2. We are to labour to gain all even those that are without the Church 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. 1 Pet. 3. 1. And this is Christs way of gaining all to rebuke and admonish them Ergo it was never Christs meaning to deal with Heathens and Publicans so as at the first we are to drag them before the Heathen Magistrate that by his sword he may gain them or take away their life yea and Erastus granteth in Ecclesiasticall crimes that the Iews had power of life and death in the matter of Steven and of Paul if he had not appealed to Cesar to save his head Josephus de bel Judaic Lib. 5. Cap. 26. Antiquit. Lib. 14. Cap. 12. But in things politick Cesar took all power of life and death from them Hence only is Christs time the footsteps of the two distinct courts remained and the Priests not the civill Magistrate had the power of Church-discipline But all was now corrupt CHAP. IX Quest 5. The place 1 Cor. 5. for Excommunication vindicated from the Objections of Erastus Erastus Paul did nothing contrary to the Command of Christ But Christ excluded no man from the Passeover not Iudas Ergo Neither minded â—e to exclude the incestuous man he saith not 1 Cor. 5. Why debarred you him not from the Sacrament But why did you not obtain by your tears and prayers as Augustine expoundeth it that the man might be cut off by death Ans Christ would not take the part of a visible Church on him to teachus that none should be cast out of the Church for secret and latent crimes 2. Paul did nothing without the Command of Christ But Christ neither in the Old or New Testament commanded his Church to pray for the miraculous cutting off of a scandalous person give an instance in all Scripture except you make this one which is contraverted your instance Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth the man from all punishment and nameth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuking Ergo He was not excluded from the Sacrament Ans Exclusion from the Sacrament is but one of the fruits of Excommunication not formally Excommunication yet he harpeth on this alway that to be excommunicated or to be delivered to Satan is but to be debarred from the Sacrament 2. The answer presupposeth he was Excommunicated we urge the place for a precept only of Excommunication if he repented to the satisfying of the Church there was no need of Excommunication 3. If the man 2 Cor. 2. was delivered from rebuke onely and if that was all his punishment Ergo he was not miraculously cut off for then he must have been miraculously cut off and raised from death to life againe unlesse miraculous cutting off had been no punishment But if he was not miraculously cut off because he prevented it then with what faith could the whole Church pray for the miraculous killing of a brother and not rather that he might repent and live 4. In all the Word of God the intrinsecall end of putting to death a Malefactor is to avenge Gods quarrell Rom. 13. 4. That all Israel may hear and feare and doe no more any such wickednes Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sinne off the Land Numb 34. 33 34. that the Lords anger may be turned away and a common plague on the Church stayed when justice is executed on the ill doer Psal 106. 28 29 30 31. And it concerneth the Church and Common-wealth more then the soule of the Malefactor and there is nothing of such an end here But the intrinsecall end here is that the mans Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus and this delivering to Satan is in the Name and authority and by the power of the Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the Sonne of man came to save soules not to destroy bodies and burne cities and though by the power of Christ Peter miraculously killed Ananias and Saphira and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blinde yet these being Miracles we heare not that this was done by any interveening act of the Church conveened or by their prayers to bring vengeance by a miracle on the ill doâ—r Peter and Paul doe both these not asking any consent or intervention of the peoples prayers but by immediate power in themselves from the Lord Jesus 2. If any such power were given to the Church by their Prayers to obtain from God a miraculous killing of all scandalous persons who infecteth the Church in case the civill Magistrate were an Heathen and an enemy to Christian Religion and refused to purge the Church Christ who provideth standing remedies for standing diseases must have left this miraculous power to all the christian Churches in the earth that are under Heathen Magistrates or some power by way of Analogie like to this to remove the scandalous person but we finde not any such power in the Churches under Heathen Magistrates except power of refusing to the offender the Communion and rejecting him as an Heathen and Publican that he may be ashamed and repent 3. The whole faithfull at Corinth men women and children and all the Saints for to those all iâ— this power given as Erastus saith must have had a word of promise if they ought to have prayed in faith as the Prophets and Apostles prayed in faith that they might work miracles that Paul was miraculously to kill the incestuous man But that all and every one who were puffed up and mourned not at this mans fall had any such word of promise I conceive not imaginable by the Scriptures for the Proposition I take it as undeniable if Paul rebuked the Corinthians all and every one because they prayed not and mourned not to God that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man they behoved to have
ground of other Scriptures is a thing I can hardly beleeve But since Excommunication is an ordinary censure the Church might well as they see the man penitent or contumacious cast him out or not pardon or not pardon Erastus Paul delivered to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander that they might learne not to blaspheme not that the dead are capable to learne or to be blasphemed but this be saith as a Magistrate when he saith he will give an ill doer to the hangman that he may learn to steale no more and to rob no more Ans 1 Tim. 1. 20. I delivered them to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is like to edifying discipline and agreeable to Pauls use of the rod of discipline 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our authoritie which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction Now it were safer to give a sense congruous to the intrinsecall end of discipline which was not for destruction of the body but for the edifying of souls 2. Yea so Paul had no lesse the Sword then the rod of the Word Nero had not so heavy a sword as miraculous killing Should not Paul speake rather as a Pastor of Christ then as a bloody Magistrate Erastus If to deliver to Satan be all one with debarring from the Supper onely yet it is not all one with being cast out of the Church without which there is no salvation but the Supper is not absolutely necessary to Salvation Ans Nor doe we put that necessity on the Sacraments but where the man is excluded from the Sacraments for such a sinne as if he repent not he is excluded from Salvation it concerneth him much to thinke it a weighty judgement to be excluded from the Seales Erastus These two are inconsistent which you teach to wit that he is not debarred from the Sacraments who desireth them and that his desire whether it be a right or a wrong and unlawfull desire shall depend on the judgement of others to wit the Presbytery Ans Erastus should have made others see how these two fights together I see no inconsistencie no more then to say a childe that desireth food is not debarred from food and yet his desire of food may be subject to wise Stewards whether every desire of food be right or no as whether he should be answered by the Stewards when he desireth poyson or bread not to eaâ—e but to cast to dogs and this will fight against preaching of the Word the Professor that longeth for the comforts of the promises of the Gospel is not debarred from them yet are preachers to try whether threatnings be not fitter for him in his security then the comforts of the promises Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 12. and 13. threatneth not exclusion from the Lords Supper to those who had not repented of their schisme drunkennesse denying of the resurrection but he saith he would severely punish them according to the authority and power given him of God and he did this frequently but we read not exclusion from the sacraments Answ 1. It is true he threatneth those who had not repented of their uncleannesse and fornication and lascivionsnesse 2. Cor. 12. 20 21. and c. 13. v. 2. threatneth that he will not spare but use his authority but doth Erastus read that he either threatneth or doth actually miraculously kill any of the beleevers at Corinth and let him answer why the Apostle did not write to the Church that they would conveene and take course with them as he did with the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. 2. when he saith He will not spare when he comes he must be expounded according to Erastus to come as a miraculous Magistrate to kill them 3. He saith not they were impenitent but he feareth it should be so 4. We hold if any should be contumacious he would not onely deny pearls to such Swine as his Master commanded Mat. 7. But also follow that rule Mat. 18. 4. Erastus himselfe granteth if there shall be found a man that tramples upon the Pearles and holy things of God as there must be some one or other which is such as deserveth to be miraculously killed By this Argument he granteth I say that such a one should not be admitted Hunc ego minimè admittendum censeo but how shall he be not admitted by this Argument Erastus There were many amongst the Ancients who deferred their Baptisme to the end of their life when therefore it is not written that these are damned who are excluded from the Supper against their will and not those who willingly exclude themselves from Baptisme why should the one more then the other be delivered to Satan for he is in a better condition who is excluded by the Presbyters against his will from the Supper then he who doth of his owne free will exclude him selfe from Baptisme Ans That the Ancients in the Apostolique Church which is our rule did deferre baptisme till they died Erastus cannot prove the Ancients after them is not our rule 2. That these were admitted to the Supper a Sacrament of the nourishment of these in whom Christ liveth before they were baptized which is the Sacrament of Regeneration and our first birth cannot be defended by Erastus and so he argues from an unlawfull practise 3. We reach not that any is damned because he is excluded from the Supper that Exclusion is a punishment men are damned for sins not for meer punishments but his sin is bound in heaven because of a great scandall such as incest and that if he repent not is the cause of damnation and therefore Erastus should have compared sinne with sinne the scandall with sinfull refusing of Baptisme and not have made a halting and lame comparilon an argument that concludeth nothing 4. Though those who deferred baptisme till death should not have been delivered to Satan yet will Erastus say they should not have been otherwise censured for these behooved with Socinians to hold Baptisme but an indifferent rite and by this many lived in the contempt of a necessary ordinance though not simply necessary and so died with the sinfull want of Baptisme many times Erastus The exclusion of men from the Sacraments did creep into the Church when men did ascribe salvation to the Sacraments therefore the Supper was given to dying men though excommunicate as the deniall of the Supper damneth Ergo the receiving of it saveth And so of Baptisme they reasoned Answ Erastus nameth this his own probable conjecture But it is to beg the question he may know how singular Augustine was for the necessity of Baptisme and how many of the Ancients were against him in it 2. He may know this consequence to be a conjecture and that it is not stronger because it is his owne 3. He granteth that exclusion of the unworthy from the Sacraments is ancient so much gain we by his conjectures Erastus When the Church wanted a Magistrate
out a corrupting and leavening incestuous man and this is all we seeke for Excommunication Erastus I never finde the name of the Passeover in the New Testament put for the Supper of the Lord. Ans We are not in such need of that interpretation as to put the name of the one for the other But let Erastus shew where he readeth that the thing to wit that the one Sacrament succeeded to the other and Beza may thence inferre his point if God would have no man to eat the Passeover with leavened bread and if eating of leavened bread and bread it selfe was to be put out of all the houses of Israel thereby signifying that incestuous and scandalous persons are to be cast out of the Church and so from the Sacraments let Erastus see what Beza hath said amisse here Erastus God would have the Iewes to eate the Passeover without leavened bread that they might remember of their wonderfull deliverance out of the hard bondage of Egypt and of the deliverance of their first borne Ans Reverend Beza saith thesetwo were by-past benefits remembred in that Sacrament But we have the Holy Ghost expounding that â—he putting away of leavened bread did typifie the purging out of the incestuous men and other scandalous persons out of the Church which is our point otherwise let Erastus shew us what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Masse and lumpe for it signifieth either one single man Or 2. The Masse and body of the visible Church of which the incestuous man was a Member or some third thing which Erastus and his followers must teach us Now the whole lumpe can neither signifie the incestuous man nor any other single member of the Church Not the incestuous man 1. He was not the whole lumpe in danger to be leavened for he was the leven then he was not the lump in danger to be leavened for the one is the agent infecting the other the patient infected The whole lumpe was the thing out of which the leaven was to be removed the terminus à quo the incestuous man was to be purged out therefore the leaven cannot signifie wickednesse in abstracto as Erastus saith but the wicked man in concreto for the leaven must signifie that which is cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them v. 2. Now this was not incest but the man that had his fathers wife and had done that deed 2. Again the leaven was the person to be delivered to Satan that had a soul to be saved in the day of the Lord Iesus But wickednesse in abstracto is not delivered to Satan nor hath it a Spirit to be saved in the day of the Lord. 3. The leaven is such a one as is to be judged as is within the Church v. 12. and is called a brother with whom we are not to eat v. 11. now this cannot be said of wickednesse in abstracto But neither can the whole lumpe be one single man 1. One single man needed not the solemn conveening of the Church in the Name and power of the Lord Jesus for his personall purging for his personall purging is not a Church-act but an act of a mans daily conversation and Christian walking 2. The purging out and the casting out is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 out of the midst of them then there was a society to be purged Ergo not a single man onely Much more I said before which cannot but mist Erastus or any his followers except they expound this whole lump to be the body of the visible Church of Corinth 2. So Gal. 5. 9. he addeth v. 10. he that troubleth you the lump in danger to be leavened shall bear his judgement v. 12. I would they were cut off that trouble you Then the whole Churches of Galatia were the troubled lumpe so it must be here if this truth be so convincing out of the Text let any Erastian extricate himself if he can deny but here is a Church-lump a Church of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the Name and power of the Lord Iesus that purgeth out of it selfe leaven not wickednesse in abstracto as I have demonstrated but a wicked man named a brother lest he leaven the whole Church to the end his Spirit may be saved Iudge reader if this be not name nature and thing of that which Erastians deny to wit of Excommunication I humbly provoke them to make good sense of the 1 Cor. 5. and shew me what is the wicked man 2. The casting out of the midst of you 3. The saving of his Spirit 4. The convened together court instructed with the Name and authority and power of Christ and if this be not a Church power efficacion and authoritative being steeled with the power of the Head of the Church 5. What is the leaven 6. What is the act of leavening 7. What is the whole lumpe 8. What is the purging out putting out and judging of the man 3. We know Erastus denieth any Church Government at all but some acts of punitive justice in the Magistrate But the Churches praying consenting that a scandalous person shall be delivered to Satan or some other waies punished by the Christian Magistrate are acts of Church government so proper to the Church as the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot exercise such Acts. Erastus Paul-delivered Hymeneus and Alexander the same way to Satan by miraculous killing of him and whereas it is said that they may learne not to blaspheme Judges speake so when they kill Murtherers and Theeves that he shall teach them to doe so no more by taking the head from them Ans That word of a judge killing a man for Murther Sirra I le teach you other manners then to kill can no waies be ascribed to Paul who doth not scoffe so at taking away mens lives Paul who wished to be separated from Christ for the contumacious Iewes and would not kill any by Satan since his rod and power was for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. and that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. he speaketh more gravely and lesse imperiously and without boasting and jeering in a matter of Salvation 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may be instructed or disciplined not to blaspheme cannot be simply that they may blaspheme no more because killed by the Devill For 1. let Erastus in the Old or New Testament produce a parallel place for that Exposition where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed is ascribed to the dead but this is a common fault in all Erastus his expositions of Scripture that they want all ground in Scripture as let me put upon all the followers of Erastus to give a parallel to this Exposition of Mat. 18. Let him bee to thee that is to thee onely when Christ speaketh of a generall Rule of all that scandalizeth 2. Let him be as a
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
cleane and uncleane 2. A Presbytery of arbitrators in matters civill to keep Christians from going to law one with another before heathen judges Is not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. one wise man might do that and he is no Presbytery 2. There is no judicatures of Officers there they were but gifted men arbitrarily chosen for a certaine businesse and were not judges habitu 3. A Presbytery for Doctrine only is further to seek in the word I hope then our Presbytery Erastus should teach us where it is 4. He denieth a Presbytery for manners then all scandals must come before the civill Magistrate Who made him a Church officer to judge of the affairs of the Church Who is to be admitted to the seals who not For two supream Courts I shall speak God-willing Erastus There is no Colledge of Presbyters at Corinth but every man was to judge himselfe Ans There is a company gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus with the spirit of Paul and the power of our Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. who did judge those that are within and put out from amongst them an incestuous man v. 12 13. least he should leaven the whole Church v. 6. this is a Colledge of judges 2. There is a number of builders and labourers with God 1 Cor. 3. 9 10 11 12. Ministers of God dispensers of the misteries of Word and Sacraments of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. such as Paul Apollos Cephas and others 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 4. 6. A number that had power to punish to forgive 2 Cor. 1. 2 6 7 8 9 10. 3. A number of Prophets who judged of the Doctrine of the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. 30 31 32. these be very like a Colledge of Presbyters O but Paul writeth not to those but to those who were puffed up and mourned not 1 Cor. 5. 2. These were the people and Church Ans Yea these were the eyes eares and principall parts of the Church 1 Cor. 12. 14 15 16 17 18. now he writeth to the Church 1 Cor. 1. 1 2. Erastus Before this time Paul must have instituted this Presbytery who seeth not that this is false for so he would have accused the Presbytery not the whole Church but he accuseth not the Elders because they admitted the man to the Lords supper and there is no word of excommunication here There is no mention of one judgement of one election of one office but he chideth the whole Church because they mourned not it was not the Elders office to remove this they dream who say there is a Presbytery instituted here and there was none instituted before this Epistle was written he biddeth them not ask suffrages whether he should be excommunicated or no. Ans All that Erastus saith against a Presbytery is to improve excommunication But there may be excommunication by the people as many hold where there be no Elders at all 2. Let Erastus point out the time when a number of preaching Prophets were instituted at Corinth whether in this Chapter which to me is a dream or before 3. He had cause to rebuke all All were secure the Elders who cast him not out the people who said not to their Elders as the Colossians are bidden say Col. 4. 17. to Archippus and will Erastus say that preaching Elders who by office are the eyes of the Church 1 Cor. 12. 17 28. were not to be chiefe in mourning to God and praying that the man might be miraculously killed and yet he reproveth all equally 4. He reproveth them all that the man was not cast out of the Church and this includeth a reproofe that he injoyed all the Church priviledges especially the Sacraments 5. It is false that there is no mention of judgement v. 12. Do not ye judge those that are within for election there is none in the Chapter nor any Presbytery instituted in this Chapter it was before Erastus hath the like reason to say that there was no instituted Church at Corinth because in the 1. or 2. Epistle to the Corinthians we reade not where he instituted any such Church if we finde the thing instituted we know it had an institution and let Erastus shew us when Paul received the institution of the Lords supper from the Lord shall we deny he received any such thing contrary to 1 Cor. 11. 23. because we finde not where and how he received from the Lord 6. There is no asking of suffrages mentioned Act. 1. at the choosing of Mathias nor Act. 6. at the choosing of the Deacons that we reade of Ergo there were no suffrages there it followeth not 7. And ought not farre rather suffrages to have been asked before the people should take on their heads the mans blood by consenting thereunto and praying for it as Erastus saith Erastus If these words v. 3. I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have decreed c. signifie choose out of your company Presbyters who are to censure the manners of the people who shall debarre the unworthy from the Sacraments I am willing to suffer any thing Ans I know no man but Erastus that dreameth of any such sense there is no institution of a Presbytery in this Chapter no calling of Ministers but it presupposeth a ministery before sâ—â—led But if thâ—se words I have decreed c. have the Erastian sense I have given sâ—â—â—eâ—câ— as a Magistrate that the man be killed by the ministery of the Devill and that you shall be my Heralds to proclaime this sentence it is a wonder the Text give not any hint of such a sense Erastus v. 12. he speaketh not of the judgement of Presbyters but of all the people Ans 1. This Erastus on his word asserteth without probation We deny it it is but parâ—llel with Gods judging 2. It is an act of the keys 3. It is relative to casting out by those that are conveened in the name of the Lord Iesus with the spirit of Paul and the power of our Lord Iesus Was every Girle and beleeving servant capable of this spirit and power Erastus I grant before any come to age be baptized he is to be examined whether he understand the Doctrine of saith and assent to it with his heart I grant it is profitable that young ones be examined before they be admitted to the supper but I deny God hath for either of those instituted a Presbytery But there is no ground that a Presbytery must try wicked men ere they be admitted to the Lords supper Ans 1. We owe Erastus thanks for granting this but what if the aged be sound grosly ignorant and uncapable of the seals and some wicked men will trample the seals as swine and yet they desire the seals Erastus said before such should not be admitted who should debarre them either the Church of beleevers or those that are over them in the Lord or the Magistrate must debarre them if the first and second be
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
and subjects are Christians but where the Magistrate is of a false Religion two different Governments are tollerable Ans 1. This argument destroâ—eth all Aristocracy Parliaments and Senates where many good men have equall power and so the Common-wealth may not have 70. Heads and Rulers of equall power which is against the Scripture which commandeth subjection to every Civill ordinance of man as lawfull Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Deut. 1. 16. It maketh no Government lawfull but Popedome and Monarchy in both Church and state 2. It is to beg the question that there cannot be two supream powers both supream in their owne kinde for they are both supream in their owne sphere as Pastors dispense Sacraments and Word without subjection to the Magistrate as they are Pastors and Magistrates use the Sword without dependence on Pastors and yet is there mutuall and reciprocall subjection of each to other in divers considerations Pastors as subjects in a Civill relation are subject to the Magistrate as every soul on earth is and Magistrates as they have souls and stand in need to be led to heaven are under Pastors and Elders For if they hear not the Church and if they commit incest they are to be cast out of the Church Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Thes 3. 14. 15. If they walk inordinately we are to eschew their company if they despise the Ministers of Christ they despise him who sent them Math. 10. 40. Luk. 10. 16. God respecteth not the persons of Kings and we finding them not excepted if the preachers of the Gospel be to all beleevers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over them in the Lord 1 Thess 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. call it authority or no Authority they have some oversight over the Christian Magistrate and here be two supreams two highest powers one Ecclesiasticall another Civill nor should any deny Moses to be above Aaron as the supream judge Aaron not having the power of the sword as Moses had and Aaron must be above Moses in sacrificing in burning incensâ— in judging between the clean and the unclean which Moses could not do 2. The excellency of the Civill power in regard of earthly honour and eminency in the fifth Commandment above the servants of God in the Ministry of Christs spirituall Kingdom which is not of this world we heartily acknowledge 3. That the King Preacheth and dispenseth the Sacraments by Pastors as by his servants is wilde Divinty Pastors then must have Magistraticall Authority and power of the sword committed to them as the Deputies and inferior judges of the Lords of the Gentiles which Christ forbade his Disciples Luk. 22. 25 26 27. For the servant must have some power committed to him from the principall cause in that wherein he is a servant 4. What reason is there that where the Magistrate is a Heathen two Governments and so two heads in one body should be for then there is and must be a Church-Government where the Magistrate is a Heathen and that in the hands of the Church if then the Magistrate turn Christian must he spoile the Church of what was her due before Erastus The Lord Jesus changed nothing in the New Testament of that most wise Government in the Iewish Church now there all Government was in the hands of Moses I say not that the Magistrate might sacrifice or do what was proper to the Priests but he did dispose and order what was to be done by the Priests Ans Yea but Erastus saith the Magistrate may dispense word and Sacraments in the New Testament if he had leisure Why might he not sacrifice in the Old Testament also 2. Pastors do by their Doctrine and Discipline order and regulate all callings in their Moralls of right and wrong of just and unjust yet is not the Pastor the only Governour in all externals 3. If Christ changed nothing of the Iewish Government we have all their exclusion of men out of the Campe their separating of the unclean and their politick and Ceremoniall Lawes which is unsound Divinity Erastus Moses Ruled all before there was a Priesthood instituted God Exod. 4. Numb 12. calleth Aaron to his office and maugurateth him by Moses nor doth he command him to exercise a peculiar judgement when he declareth his office to him and when Aaron dieth Moses substituteth Eleazar in his place Ioshua c. 3 4 teacheth the Priests what they should doe and commanded them to circumcise Israel so did Samuel David Solomon and in the time of the Maccabees it was so Ans Moses was once a Prophet and Iudge both Ergo so it may be now it followeth not except Moses as a Magistrate did reveale what was the Priesthood What Aaron and Eleazer his sonnes might doe by as good reason Moses David Solomon Ioshua as Magistrates wrote Canonick Scripture and prophecied Then may Magistrates as Magistrates build new Temples typicall to God give new Laws write Canonick Scripture as these men did by the Spirit of prophecy no doubt not as Magistrates for why but they might sacrifice as Magistrates and why should Moses rather have committed the Priesthood and the service of the Tabernacle due to him as a Magistrate so to Aaron and his sonnes as it should be unlawfull to him as a King and unlawfull to Vzziah to burn incense and to sacrifice and to doe the office of the Priest If the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe all that the Priests are to doe as Priests and that by a supream principle and radicall power in him he ought not to cast off that which is proper to him as a Magistrate to take that which is lesse proper he casteth the care and ruling of souls on the Priests and reserveth the lesser part to himself to rule the bodies of men with the Sword all these are sufficiently answered before Erastus The King of Persia Ezra 7. appointed Iudges to judge the people and teach them but there is no word of Excommunication or any Ecclesiastick punishment but of death imprisonment fines nor did Nehemiah punish the false Prophets with any other punishment Iosephus speaketh nothing of it nor Antiochus Ans I shew before that there is forâ—eiting and separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall be separated from the Church 2. If the King of Persia appointed men to judge and teach the people why should he deny any judicature at all 3. Where ever Iosephus speaketh of the judging of the Priests as he doth antiq l. 11. c. 7. ant l. 11. c. 8. l. 12. c. 9. he hinteth at this Erastus Christ dischargeth his Disciples to exercise dominion Christ would not condemne the adulterous woman nor judge between the brethren Luke 12. Paul calleth Ministers dispensators stewards Peter forbiddeth a dominion Ans Let Erastus be mindfull of this himselfe who yet saith that the Magistrate may both judge also if he have time dispence the
any Law-power except usurped when the Iews were now riper for destruction and had taken on them the blood of the Lord of glory and so growing more daring and insolent against the Roman povver to their own just desolation that came on them under Vespasian That they used witnesses will not prove they had Law to stone Steven for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders one brother hath no power of life and death over another as Erastus will grant yet with both there is use of witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly any lawfull civill power so all this is from a naked practise of those that alvvayes resisted the holy Ghost And the like I say of Paul who saith Act. 26. 10. of himself Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison having received authority from the high Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Priests to imprison the Saints and to murther the Saints no high Priest can make over a law-Law-power to another which he hath not himself now certain this Law-power of the Pharisees and High Priests by Gods Law is the question Let us see Law or institution where the High Priests for of these only the Text speaketh did imprison and put to death either blasphemer or false Prophet or if by Moses his Law which must be a rule to all the High Priests in the time of persecuting Saul it was either Law or practise that the High Priest had power to imprison or scourge or put to death any man and this was most proper to the King and the Civill judge and the Elders and Iudges in every City 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. 2. 6 7. Isa 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1 c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. 7. 5. 19. 12. 13. ver 18 19 20 21. 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hos 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King the Civill Iudge had power of all bodily punishments as of scourging death stoning strangling crucifying hanging But shew meany Vestigium or the least consequence where the Priests or High Priests had such power or did execute such power in any one man it is true Deut. 17. the Priests might determine in Law what was blasphemy and so what deserved the punishment of blasphemy which is death But so the written Law of God the very letter of it could in many cases clearly resolve the Civill judge even though there had been no controversie about the fact whether it was condemned in the Law of God or not we know Samuel not being judge but Saul being King supream Magistrate not executing judgement on the Amalekites he killed Agag certainly all Divines even Popish not excepted say Saul the Civil Magistrate ought to have killed Agag that Samuel not by vertue of his place as a prophet or as a Priest or a Member of the Sanedrim as Erastus would say but excited by an extraordinary motion of Gods spirit killed him as Phineas the son of Aaron slew Num. 25. Zimri and Cosbi 7 8. And Elijah slew Baals Priests 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office and Elias by office killed those ill doers as Erastus would dream The Prophets and Priests by their office were Civill Iudges and had power to put to death evil doers Now Erastus denyeth and with good reason that the Lords disciples should bear civill dominion over men as the Lords of the Gentiles Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and that Christ though both a Prophet and a Priest could not take on him to be a Iudge and a Ruler Luk. 12. yet here Erastus will have the High Priest by a Law-power to imprison and put to death 2. Erastus may with as good reason say that the high Priests had a Law-power by Gods institution to punish and to compell Christians to blaspheme God and to persecute them to strange Cities and to murther the Saints that believed in the Lord Iesus for he went to Damascus for this effect Act. 26. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with povver and Commission from the chief Priests This was not a Law-power in generall to punish such as the Law of Moses discerned to be blasphemers but a limited particular Commission to murther the Saints who should hear and obey the Prophet like unto Moses whom the Lord should raise up Deut. 18. What Law had the High Priests for this Had they not a Law on the contrary Deut. 18. Erastus Paul confesseth ingenuously before the Roman Judges that he persecuted the Saints and that he had authority and power from the Priests and Elders so to do Act. 22. 26. and we read not that the Priests or Paul were censured for these things as having done any thing against the Laws or will of the Romans Act. 5. They send their Officer the Captain of the Temple they imprison the Apostles they convene a Councell give out a sentence and agitate the killing of the Apostles amongst them while Gamaliel impede them Ans It is true the Romans heard that the Sanedrim exercised Civill jurisdiction and inflicted bodily punishment But for false Doctrine the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of Gods matters and whether the Sanedrim kept the rule of the Lords first institution Deut. 17. yea they looked not much whether the Priests might put to death false Prophets or if the Civill judges only might do it and Erastus said before that the Romans gave the Iews liberty of all their own laws and customes in matters of Religion 2. What care would the Romans take whether the Iews killed and oppressed Iews for questions of their owne Religion so they remained loyall and true to Cesar 3. We know Herod Felix Festus Agrippa being willing to pleasure the Iews did oversee many breaches of Law in them especially in matters of the Gospel Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36 37 38 39 40. Ioh. 19. 15 16 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Lawes Because they accuse not the Sanedrim for this surely it followeth not We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifest breach of Law when they scourged and cast in prison Paul and Silas who were Romans and had not condemned them Act. 16. 38 39. 5. We deny not a lawfull judicature of the Sanedrim Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God to scourge and imprison and put to death the Apostles is the question we say they neither had Gods law nor durst be answerable to the Romans Laws for that fact and so this is a fact brought to prove a Law Erastus If this was insolencie in the Jevvs which rose from the confusion of the two jurisdictions hovv say some of yours none can be
should chuse the Elders at least at the first even though the Church doe not consent But how can they sit in place of the Church and judge who were against the will and minde of the Church chosen to be Judges for though the Magistrate be a chiefe Member of the Church yet to Tell the Church is not to Tell the Magistrate as you say but to Tell the whole Church and it is no â—xcuse that the Magistrate doth but once chuse the Elders for if hee have no right nor Law from God to doe it he can never doe it and if he have Law from God to doe it he ought alwayes to doe it Ans Here Erastus reasoneth against some Auâ—hor that inclineth to the way of Morellius If there bee no formed Church endued with knowledge and discretion to chuse their owne Elders if there be godly men fit to be chosen they are to convene and chuse from amongst them Elders the godly Magistrate is to joyne his Vote and Power because there is a Church not yet constitute it is now Perturbatus aut corruptus Ecclesiae status and I ever judged it a golden saying of that great Divine Fran. Iunius that when the Magistrate will not concurre the Church in that extraordinary case may doe somewhat which ordinarily they cannot doe and againe when the Church doth not their duty the Magistrate in that case may doe something more then ordinary to cause the Church doe their dutie for its a common Laâ— to ills out of order remedies out of the road way may be applyed So if the Priests and Levites be corrupt Iehoshapaht and Hezekiah and Iosiah may reforme And therefore though the godly Magistrate jure communi by the common Law of Nature imploy his power to appoint Elders all Errors and confusions in the Church are in some measure out of order yet it followeth that jure proprio and ordinarily he should alwayes doe this 2. Elders are not properly Representators of the Church to me while I be better informed for power of feeding and ruling is immediately given by Iesus Christ to the Elders and not by the interveening mediation of the Church but onely by their designation to the office thâ—s power is given by the people 3. The Magistrate as the Magistrate and by vertue of his place is neither a Member farre lesse a chiefe Member of the Church for then all Magistrates should be Members of the Church even Heathen Kings and Rulers which no man can say The Christian Magistrate as a Christian is a Member of the Church But that is nothing to helpe Erastus Erastus Because the multitude can doe nothing in order therefore say they they have power to choose Elders to whom belongeth the power of Excommunication But how prove they this Though a company vvanting a Magistrate have this power shall it follovv that a company to vvhom God hath given a godly Magistrate should have this povver But because confusion vvould follovv therefore Elders are to be chosen Ergo Such Elders as make up your Presbyterie à genere ad speciem affirmativè nulla est consequutio Ans 1. Not only from necessity of eschewing confusion but from the positive Ordinance of God we infer Presbyters we do not own any such consequence Prelaâ—es and Papists argue for a Monarchy in the Church from order we know no creatures of the like frame Erastus is for a Bishop he may so argue not we We finde Christ hath placed such organs in his body as Eph. 4. 11. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 c Act. 6. 1 2 c. and 14. 23. Ergo they ought to be for we think the Church cannot govern it self 2. If the Church wanting a Magistrate as the Apostolick Church did have power to chuse Presbyters and by a Divine Law how dare Erastus say That it followeth not when the Church hath a godly Magistrate she should keep the same power Can the godly Magistrate when he cometh into the Church take any Divine power from the Church Is the Magistrate given to the Church as a Nurse-father to preserve that power that Christ hath given to his Spouse or is he given as a spoiler at noon day to take to himself the power and make the Ambassadors of Christ his Ambassadors and Servants to preach in his Name whereas before when they had no Magistrate Pastors did preach only in the Name of Iesus Christ Erastus Sure the Lord hath concredited to the Magistrate the Command and all power of externall Government so as he hath subjected not only Civill but also Sacred things to his power that he may manage the one according to the Word of God the other according to Iustice and equity which since it is Commanded in the Old Testament and practised by all holy Iudges and Kings and we finde it not changed in the New Testament We justly say that the Church that hath a godly Magistrate cannot by Gods will chuse a new Senate or Presbytery to exercise publikely Iudgement for God hath not armed subjects against their Magistrates Nor hath he Commanded them to take any part of their power from them and give it to others and to subject them to externall Dominion Ans Sure the Lord concredited to the Priest not to King Vzziah to burn incense and to the Priests to rebuke Vzziah and command him to desist and this is no lesse externall Governing of the house of God quoad hoc in this particular then Excommunication for to Excommunication on the Churches part as Excommunication is no more required but that the scandalous and murthering Magistrate should not come to the Table of the Lord or remain in the society and Church-fellowship of the Saints as a Member of the Church Now if the Magistrate obey not the Church as the Church can use no bodily coaction or restraint to hinder the Magistrate to obtrude himself upon the holy things of God though other either fellow-Magistrates or the inferior Magistrates if the party â—xcommunicated be the supream Magistrate or the Parliament may and ought to use their power as Magistrates by the sword to hinder the holy things of God to be prophaned for I think it easie to prove if this were a fit place that inferior Magistrates are essentially Magâ—strates and immediatly subject to the King of Kings for the due use of the sword as the supream Magistrate or King And therefore there is no more externall dominion used in Excommunicating a bloody and scandalous Magistrate then in rebuking and threatning him Now Erastus granteth That Pastors may rebuke and threaten according to the Word of the Lord even Magistrates and Kings 2. If because Iudges in the Old Testament as Eli and Samuel Sacrificed and we finde this not changed in the New and nothing extraordinary in this Ministers in the New Testâ—ment may do the same Then the Iustice of Peace and Mayors of Cities and every constable may by vertue of
and God inviteth them to repentance and the staying in the Church And the Sacraments are to Erastus means of repentance and this casting out must be to save them for no power is given of God to the Magistrate or Church for destruction but for edification Now to put them out of the Church that they may be saved is as Erastus conceiteth to cast a lascivious Virgin out of the company of chaste Matrâ—ns to the end she may preserve her chastity I speak here all in the language of Erastus who useth all those against casting any out of the Church by Presbyters but they stand with equall strength against his casting out of idolaters and apostates out of the Church and so do the rest of his Arguments Therefore this conclusion of Erastus is a granting us the whole cause after in six books he hath pleaded none should be Excommunicated he falleth on Bellarmines Tutissimum igitur c. when he had written six books against justification by faith Lastly why should idolaters apostates and obstinately wicked men be excluded from the dispute of Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments for he knoweth that Beza and Protestant Divines do make these the speciall though not the whole subject of the dispute Now Erastus concluding his six books doth hereby professe he hath never faithfully stated the question when he excludes those from the subjectum questionis who especially heareth not the Church and ought to be Excommunicated Thus have I given an account as I could of the wit of Erastus against the freedome of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus CHAP. XXIII Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall Discipline QUEST XIX Whether or no the Christian Magistrate be so above the Church in matters of Religion Doctrine and Discipline that the Church and her Guides Pastors and Teachers do all they do in these as subordinate to the Magistrate as his servants and by his Authority Or is the spirituall power of the Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ only VVEE know that Erastus who is Refuted by Beza Vtenbogard whom Ant Walens Learnedly Refuteth Maccovius opposed by the Universities and Divines of Holland Vedelius Answered by Gu. Apolonius and others and the Belgick Arminians in their Petition to the States and Hu. Grotins against Sibrandus Lubert Divers Episcopall Writers in England do hold That the Guides of the Church do all in their Ministery by the Authority of the Christian Magistrate I believe the contrary And 1. We exclude not the Magistrate who is a keeper of both Tables of the Law from a care of matters of Religion 2. We deny not to him a power to examine Heresies and false Doctrine 1. In order to bodily punishment with the sword 2. With a judgement not Antecedent but Subsequent to the judgement of the Church where the Church is constituted 3. With such a judgement as concerneth his practise lest he should in a blinde way and upon trust execute his office in punishing Hereticks whether they be sentenced by the Church according unto or contrary to the word of God as Papists dream 3. We deny not but the Prince may command the Pastor to Preach and the Synod and Presbytery to use the keys of Christs Kingdom according to the Rules of the Word But this is but a Civill subjection though the object be spirituall But the Question is not 1. Whether the Christian Magistrate have a care of both Tables of the Law 2. Whether he as a blinde servant is to execute the will of the Church in punishing such as they discern to be Hereticks we pray the Lord to give him eyes and wisdom in his Administration 3. Nor thirdly Whether he may use his coercive power against false Teachers that belongs to the controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience 4. The Question is not Whether the Magistrate have any power of jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience they grant that belongeth to the Preaching of the Word But the Question is touching the power in the externall Court of Censures 5. The Question is not Whether the power of exercising Discipline be from the Magistrate I mean in a free and peacable manner with freedome from violence of men we grant that power and by proportion also that exercise of Discipline is from him But whether the intrinsecall power be not immediately from Christ given to the Church this we teach as the power of saying peacably from danger of Pirats and Robbers is from the King but the Art of Navigation is not from the King But the Question is whether the Magistrate by vertue of his office as a Magistrate hath Supream power to Govern the Church and immediatly as a little Monarch under Christ above Pastors Teachers and the Church of God to Iudge and determine what is true Doctrine what Heresie to censure and remove from Church-Communion the Seals and Church-offices all scandalous persons and that if Pastors or Doctors or the Church Teach or dispense censures they do it not with any immediate subjection to Christ but in the Name and Authority of the Magistrate having power from the Magistrate as his servants and delegates To this we answer negatively denying any such power to the Magistrate and doe hold that the Church and Christs courts and Assemblies of Pastors Doctors and Elders hath this power onely and immediately from Iesus Christ without subordination in their office to King Parliament or any Magistrate on earth by these Arguments 1. Because in the Old Testament the Lord distinguished two courts Deut. 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement 10. Thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and inquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee c. There be here two Courts clearly one court of Priests and Levites that were Iudges another of the Iudge Now the King by vertue of his Kingly office might not usurpe the Priests office 1. Vzziah was smitten with Leprosie for so doing 2. It is evident in Moses his writing that Aaron and his sonnes the Priests and Levites were separated for the service of the Tabernacle to teach the people to carry the Arke to sacrifice to judge the Leper and to judge between the clean and the unclean to put out of the campe out of the congregation the unclean and to admit the clean Lev. 1. 7 9 12 c. and 5. 8. and 7. 7. and 13. 3 4 c. 23. Numb 5. 8. c. and 18. 4 5. 2 Chron. 29. 11. You hath the Lord chosen to stand before him 1 Sam. 21. 1 2. Lev. 21. 1. Iosh 3. 8. 1 Kin. 8. 3. 1 Chron. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 5. 7. and 7. 6. and 8. 14. Zeph. 3. 4. Hag. 2. 11 12. Mal. 2. 7 Deut. 10 9. and 21. 5. Num. 1.
as the Magistrate doth is an act of the Magistrate performed by power of the sword Whether the Magistrate do rule in his owne person or by his deputies and servants Ergo the Apostles governing the Church medled with the sword which Christ forbade Luk. 22. 25 26. Rom. 13. 4. Luk. 12. 13 14. and all the Pastors and teachers now in the exercise of discipline do usurpe the sword Yea if they be the deputies of the Magistrate in dispensing word and Sacraments they must use the Magistrates sword as Ministers of the Gospel for what servants do in the name of the supream swordbearer that the swordbearer must principally do by the servants so Ministers by this use both swords 5. That the Magistrate cannot be the chief officer of the Church is thus proved he who is subject himself to heare the Church and to submit to those that watcheth for his soul and to be put out from amongst the midst of the Church if he be scandalous is not the principall Governour and head of the Church to command all But all Christians and so the Christian Magistrate is such for if God accept not the persons of men those places Matth. 18. If he hear not the Church c. Heb. 13. 17. and 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 4 12 13. must tye the Christian Magistrate except God have excepted him but God hath no where excepted the Magistrate But as David had Gad Nathan and other Seeâ—s so the Magistrates now have some to watch for their souls The proposition is proved because if the Magistrate be supream to command Elders as Elders both in Doctrine and discipline and in all Ecclesiasticall censures then the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot be under the Elders and Ministers as such for that involveth a contradiction that Pastors as Pastors should watch over the souls of Magistrates that they erre not and oppresse not in judgement and that the Magistrate as Magistrate should be over the souls of Pastors to watch for them in the same kind if any object that the Pastors as Pastors have souls and therefore they must have some to watch for their souls and therefore can neither be supream nor excepted in those places Mat. 18. Heb. 13. 1 Cor. 5. It is answered by granting all of this or this single Pastor but not of the whole company for when they erre we know not a whole communitie over them but those of the Catholick visible Church and if they erre the Kings of the earth here may command them to do their duty under paine of bodily censure and punish them But none are above them to watch for their souls that we know but they by office watch both for their owne souls and for the souls of others even as the King governeth himselfe and the people both politically 6. Whatever power in matters of Christs Kingdome or the Government thereof the Magistrate hath that must be given of Christ who only can appoint Elders and officers over his owne house but no where in Scripture find we any such power given to the Magistrate Ergo we are to beleeve he hath not any such power The proposition is true because Christ being a perfect Lawgiver and King doth give Lawes for his owne house as particularly as Moses did for every severall pinne in the Lords Tabernacle and David and Solomon for the Temple the assumption I prove because the Government of Christs house is spirituall as the weapons of their warfare are not carnall 2 Cor. 8. 5. and it is in binding and loosing forgiving and retaining sinnes by the power of the keys of the Kingdome of God given to the Church and to such as are sent as the Father sent his Son Christ Matth. 18. 18. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21 22 c. But Magistrates as Magistrates do punish sinnes with the sword Rom. 13. 4. but not forgive sins nor binde and loose in earth or heaven nor exercise any spirituall power nor deal with the consciences of men no more then they cure the diseases of the body though indirectly and externally they take care that there be Physicians who can cure diseases The power of governing the Church is the supream power under Christ which can say to the Magistrates power We must obey God rather then men But no such supream power agreeth to the Magistrate as Magistrate For Ministers as Ambassadors of Christ can and may preach binde and loose Rebuke Excommunicate against the will of the Magistrate though he command the contrary as Prophets have rebuked Kings Jer. 1. 18. 22. 1 2. 2 Sam. 12. 7 8 9. 1 King 21. 18 19. Mark 6. 17 18. The Magistrate as the Magistrate can do none of these nor hath he power to command the Ministers of Christ by way of privation but only by way of accumulation he may command them to do their dury and to preach the Gospel soundly and forbid and punish the preaching of false Doctrine the same way Whatever power Christ hath given to his Church that the Christian Magistrate when he becomes Christian cannot take from the Church But Christ gave to the Churches of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth to the seven Churches of Asia c. a full power to dispense the word and Sacraments to govern the Churches to censure Wolves and false Teachers who draw Disciples after them in Synods to condemne perverters of Soules and refute their Doctrine to put out incestuous persons to Excommunicate such as will not hear the Church and a power to reject a Heretick after twice admonition and to rule well the Church as they should rule their own house and to rule well and to labour in the Word and Doctrine c. when they had no Magistrates at all to rule and govern them as a Church Now if the Church be a perfect visible body society house city and Kingdom of Jesus Christ in esse operari in being and all Church-operations then the Magistrate when he cometh to be Christian to help and nourish the Church as a father he cannot take away and pull the keys out of the hands of the stewards and throw the rod authority power to rule govern binde loose convene in Christs courts and Assemblies from the Church and inthrall the Church This evidenceth how falsely some say That the Church as the Church is without a Magistrate as an Army without a Commander or Leader a Ship without a Pilot a body without a head When the Church in the Apostles times wanting a Magistrate was a perfect spirituall body gathered edified attaining to the unity of faith Eph. 4. 11 12 c. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 4 5 c. Builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. Feed by their own Pastors Act. 20. 28. Sufficiently secured by Jesus Christ from Wolves 29. 30. Golden Candlesticks perfect and intire Christ walking in the midst of them and praised and commended of Christ Rev. 1. 20. 2.
not subordinate to the Ministers of the Gospel as Ministers far lesse to the Magistrate as the Magistrate because it dependeth upon none on earth Minister or Magistrate but the only good pleasure of him who when he ascended to heaven gave gifts unto men that there is such an office as Minister Pastor or teacher And the Church cannot create a new office of a Prelate because of its nature it tendeth to a supernaturall end the governing of Christs body in a way to life eternall purchased by Christ Now the question in this sense whether the power of the Ministery be subordinate to the Magistrate in its constitution it is alike in its subordination to Magistrate and Minister certain it is subordinate to neither Other lawfull and profitable offices and Arts are from God mediately possibly by the intervening acts of rationall nature though Magistracy be from God Rom. 13. 1. yet it would seeme God by the naturall reason of men might devise and constitute the very office of Magistracy in abstracto and the Art of sayling painting c. yet is there no subjection of power to power here by way of dominion Hence the question must be of the subordination of the power quoad exercitium whether Ministers in the exercising of their Ministeriall calling be subordinate to the Magistrate as the Magistrate 5. Dist A judge is one thing and a just judge another thing so here are we to distinguish between a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate As 1. a husband is one thing and a Christian husband another thing a Captaine is one thing and a Christian and a beleeving Centurion or Captain such as Cornelius Acts 10. is another a Physitian is one thing and a gracious Physitian is another thing sure a heathen Husband hath the same jus Maritale the same Husband power in regard of Marriage union that a Christian and beleeving Husband hath 2. A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate may be one and the same Magistrate with one and the same Magistraticall power as being first heathen Magistrate as Sergius Paulus Act. 13. 7 12. and there after converted to the faith Paulus was no lesse a civill Deputie when Heathen then when Christian and not more a Deputy as touching the essence of a Magistrate when a Christian beleever then he was before when a Heathen yet to be a Magistrate and to be a beleeving Magistrate are two different things even as Christianity is a noble ornament and a gracious accident and to be a Magistrate is as it were the Subject even as a man and the accidents of the man are two different things 6. There be two things here considerable in the Magistrates office 1. There is his jus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistraticall power or the authority officiall the power of office to beare the sword 2. There is aptitudo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speciall heavenly grace of well governing this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift or grace of God to use that power for Christ These two make one Christian husband one Christian captain Physitian Master in relation to to the wife souldiers sick servants Now the Magistrate heathen as Magistrate even Nero when the Church of God is in his court and dominions hath the same jus the same Authority and Officiall power to be a keeper of both Tables of the Law and to defend the Gospell and to command the Preachers and Synods to fulfill their charge and to see that the officers doe their dutie and to punish dumbe dogs Idolaters excommunicated persons to drive away with the sword false Teachers from the flock he hath I say the same Magistraticall power while he is a Heatheâ— and when he is converted to the Christian faith and he is equally head of men that professe Christ when Heathenish as when Christian but in neither States is he the Head of the body the Church and you give not to Cesar the things that are Cesars if you make converted Nero because a Magistrate now the head of the Church and deny non-converted and heathenish Nero to be the Head of the Church for he is a Magistrate with compleat power of the Sword in the one case as in the other that he neither doth nor can use the sword for the Church it is from Nero his state of infidelity that he is in as a man and not the fault of his office for when Paul saith the Husband is the head of the Wife doth hee meane a Christian husband onely and exclude all heathen Husbands No for then the wife were not to be subject to the Husband if a Heathen and an unbeleever which is against Pauls mind 1 Cor. 7. and the Law of Nature But the converted Magistrate who was before a heathen Magistrate hath a new aptitude faculâ—y and grace to keep both Tables of the Law and to govern in a civill way and indirectly the affaires of Christs Kingdome Hence the adversaries clearly contradict themselves by confounding those two a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate one while they give supream power over the Church to the Magistrate as the Magistrate sometime to the Magistrate as Christian So Vtenbogard in his book De officio authoritate supremi Magistratus Christiani in rebus Ecclesiasticis p. 7. and p. 8. hoc addo ut intelligatur Magistratum cum religioneÌ„ Christianam amplectitur non acquirere novam authoritatem sed quod eam authoritatem quam ante etiam in rebus religiâ—nis â—ultus divini habebat authoritateÌ„ rectè utitur If the Magistrate when he becommeth a Christian acquireth no new authority as a Magistrate but onely useth well his old Authority in matters of Religion and of Gods worship which he had before while he was Heathen as he saith then the Heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate hath a supreame power in Church matters and yet in the same place he draweth the state of the question to a Christian Magistrate De solo Christiano Magistratu acturus The Arminians in their Apologie fol. 297. as saith their Declaration speake onely of the Christian Magistrate and yet page 298. potestati enim supremae sive Architectonicae qua potestas suprema est jus hoc ut competat ratio ordinis sive boni Regiminis natura sua postulat si Magistratui qua tali jus hoo competit â—rgo multo magis competit Magistratui Christiano Sure if the Magistrate in generall and as the Magistrate have a supream Authority in the Government of the Church such as the Adversaries contend for then the Christian Magistrate farre more must be Head of the Church and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be supreame Governour and judge in all Ecclesiasticall causes and in these same causes he must not be Iudge as a Magistrate but as a Christian Nor can they make a Christian Magistrate à medium per participationem utriusque extremi a middle betweene a Magistrate and a Christian 1. For where is there such an
Devil God save the Magistrate datur tertium he is for Christ as a Christian and as a Christian but as a Magistrate he is not for Christ as mediator that is as having his office of Christ as mediator and being from Christ a Magistrate that is as M. Coleman expoundeth it an officer having power of both the Swords for Mr. Coleman saith p. 20. Christian Magistracy is an Ecclesiasticall administration Ergo he hath the power of the Spirituall Sword and Paul Rom. 13. saith he hath from God the power of the other Sword Yea we cannot say that a Magistrate as a Magistrate or a Minister as a Minister are either redeemed and saved in Christ nor no redeemed or no saved in Christ but in another reduplication The Magistrate as a Magistrate is not redeemed but as an elected man nor is he damned or not redeemed as a Magistrate but as a reprobate and an unbeleeving man and the like I say of a Minister he that is not with Christ as his immediate and supream swordbearer is not against Christ for so all the world except the Prince should be against him Obj. 5. The Magistrate as he defendeth the body and goods so also the the fame of men hence what is a matter of good or ill report is judged by the Magistrate who may put ill doers to shame Iudg. c. 187. But Church scandals blasphemy heresie apostacy are matters of ill report and of shame Ergo they are to be judged by the Magistrate Ans Non concluditur negatum We deny not but the Magistrate may judge and put to shame offenders but it is civill shame by which the Magistrate judgeth any offender to be an evill Citizen and hurtfull member of the common-wealth Iudg. 18. 17. The Church hath no power thus to judge or thus to put to shame But there is an Ecclesiasticall shame in which the Church judgeth whether such a man be a sound and faithfull subject of the Kingdome of Christ or a hurtfull Member of the Church and of this shame speaketh Paul 2 Thess 3. 14. keep no company with him that he may be ashamed and the same way we are to distinguish a good name for it is an honour that it be said of any man as Psal 87. This man was borne in Zion Obj. 6. What the Magistrate as a Magistrate punisheth that as a Magistrate he judgeth but as a Magistrate he punisheth Idolatry and heresie Ergo as a magistrate he judgeth it Ans What the Magistrate punisheth that he judgeth distinguo What he punisheth that he judgeth the way that he punisheth for as he punisheth civilly and with the sword so he judgeth in a civill way not as a Church scandal but as a civill disturbance 2. In a constitute Church by a subsequent judging after those whose lips should preserve knowledge have judged it to be Idolatry and heresie he is to judge it and in order to corporall punishment its true and thus the Major is granted But the assumption is false for the Magistrate judgeth nothing as scandalous no Idolatry or heresie with an antecedent judgement and with order to Ecclesiasticall punishment to gain the soul Obj. But there is no other judging or punishing required but such as the magistrate inflicteth Ans This is a false principle and everteth all Church Government Obj. 7. But so you make two supream magistrates the King and the Church two collaterall supremacies yet so as the magistrates conscience lyeth under the feet of the Church Ans The Church hath a Ministery no dominion of Magistracy 2. There is a collaterality without equality The Magistrate is highest and worthiest the other hath no dignity no supereminency but to be authoritative declarers of the mind of Christ 3. The Magistrate is no more tyed to the judgement of a Synod or Church then any private man is tyed in his practice the tye in Discipline and in all Synodicall acts and determinations is here as it is in preaching the Word the tye is secondary conditionall with limitation in so farre as it agreeth with the Word not absolutely obliging not Papal qua or because commanded or because determined by the Church and such as Magistrates and all Christians may reject when contrary to or not warranted by the Word of God Obj. 8. But Pastors have authority equally immediate and independent under God as the magistrate hath and what more can they have except the Crowne and Scepter is not this an emulous and odious equality beside a collaterality hence they cry the liberty the liberty of the Kingdome of Christ the right the power of the Church is taken away so often as the magistrate punisheth scandals Ans Non-subordination can never inferre equality who denieth that the Magistrate may command the Husband and Wife to do a duty to each other the father not to provoke the son the sonne not to disobey the Father the Pastor and People the Master and Servant the Captaine and Souldier to do a duty each one to another And there is a proper right and liberty and power immediately given by God without the King or Magistrates interposing of their authority to all these the Kings authority maketh not the man a Father nor the Sonne subject to the Father nor the Servant to the Master nor the Souldier to the Commander God immediately made those powers and God in the Law of nature hath given a power to the Father over the sonne without the Magistrate yea though there had never been a Magistrate in the world so the Pastors and Elders by divine institution have a power and liberty to feed and governe the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers and set them over as those who must give an account to the great Shepherd Acts 20. 28 29. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Tim. 5. 17. now it no more followeth that all Fathers are equall to the Magistrate all Masters all Captains to the King then that the Church or Pastors are equall to the King for Fathers Masters Captaines Husbands have immediately from God in the Law of Nature a supream a high and independent Authority as the Church hath without any intervention of the will or authority of King or any earthly Magistrate and without any subordination as they are such to the Prince 2. The emulation between the Magistrate and Pastors is no more in point of government then in point of preaching exhorting rebuking even of Kings and all that are in Authority now we have both demonstrated from the Word and have the grant of Adversaries that in point of preaching and rebuking the Pastors have an immediate supremacy and independency under Iesus Christ and all emulation here is from men who will noâ— submit to the yoke of Christ 3. If the Magistrate should usurpe over Husbands and Masters and Fathers their jus maritale herile Paterum and spoil them of Husband-power and masterly and fatherly power as our Adversaries counsell the Magistrate to take
the spirituall right and power of the keyes of the Kingdome of God from the Church and Pastors the former should complaine as do the latter Object 8. But if the Kingdome be heathenish and the heart of the King be first supernaturally affected then Religion beginneth at him as a Magistrate and he may appoint gifted men after they are converted to preach the Gospell Ergo The first rise of Religion is from the Magistrate as the Magistrate Ans If the King be converted first as a Christian not as a Magistrate he may spread the Gospell to others and preach himselfe but not as a Magistrate as Iehoshaphat commanded the Levites to do their dutie so might he command those of the house of Aaron who had deserted the Priests office to take the office on them to which God had called them so here gifts and faithfulnes appearing to the new converted Prince he is to command those so gifted for their gifts and faithfulnes is as evident a call as to be borne the sonnes of Aaron to take on them the calling of preaching and of dispensing the Seals But 1. he ordaineth them not Pastors as a Prince but commandeth them to follow the calling which now the Church not constitute cannot give 2. He can preach himselfe as a gifted beleever in an extraordinary exigence but he cannot doe this as a Magistrate yea Moses did never prophecy as a Magistrate nor David as a King 2. All the rise that Religion hath from the Prince as the Prince in this case is civill that men gifted may be commanded by civill Authority to dispence Word and Sacraments but nothing Ecclesiasticall is here done by the Prince as the Prince 3. The highest power in the Church as the Church and the highest amongst men as men are much different The Magistrates power in commanding that this Religion that is true and consonant to the Word of God be set up and others that are false be not set up in his Kingdome is a civill power and due to him as a Magistrate but a highest Church power to dispense Word and Sacraments agreeth to no Magistrate as a Magistrate but it followeth not that when the true Religion is erected by his power as a Magistrate that he may as a Magistrate dispence Word Sacraments and Synodicall acts and censures except God have called him to preach the Word and to use the sword of the other Kingdome as a Member of the Church joyned with the Church Object 9. But the Magistrate is unproperly subject to the Pastor who is but a meer Herald servant and Minister who hath all his authority from the word of another and so it is but imperium alienum a borrowed power he is subject properly to Christ speaking in his Word Titius is subject to the King properly but unproperly to the Kings Herald Ans 1. Let the subjection be unproper there can no conclusion from thence be drawn against us If 1. The Pastors as Pastors have their commissions from Christ and be his immediate Servants and have no Commission Pastorall from the Magistrate as the power of the Herald floweth immediately from the royall power of the King and he is the Kings immediate servant then to obey him in those acts which he performeth in the Kings name is to obey the King and in those acts subjects doe properly obey the Herald and so here Heb. 13. Obey those that are over you in the Lord according to that He that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me 2. It is enough for our purpose that Magistrates are so to obey Pastors in the Lord and Pastors are so supreame under Christ as the Magistrate is not above them and they have their Ambassage calling and commission immediately from Iesus Christ without the intervention of the Magistrates Authority Obj. But the obedience of the Magistrate to the Pastors is not absolute but conditionall if they command in the Lord Ergo It is no kindly obedience and subjection Ans It followeth not for so we should give no kindly obedience to Kings to Parents to Masters for we obey them onely conditionally in the Lord as they warrant their Commandement from the Word Yet Vedelius will not say it is unproper subjection we owe to the King nor can he say that the Royall power is imperium alienum a begged power all obedience to men this way is begged and if we come to Logick if I should say the nature and definition of obedience agreeth not univocally to obedience to God and to obedience to the creature Vedelius should hardly refute me It is enough Ministers of the Gospell discharge an Ambassage in the roome and place of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. God commandeth in his Ministers a limited obedience is kindly obedience Obj. 10. The keeping of the booke of the Law is given to the King Deut. 17. and 2 Kin. 11. v. 12. Iehoiada the Priest gave the booke of the Testimony to King Iehoash when they made him King the Priests indeed kept the booke of the Law in the side of the Arke but as servants of the King and custodes Templi Ans You may see solid answers to this in Walens Cabel Iavius and Iac. Triglandius 1. The booke of the Law was given to the King for his practise that he might feare the Lord his God and his heart not be lifted up above his brethren Deut. 17. 18 19 20. and this was common to him with the Priests and all the people of God but to the King in an exemplary and speciall manner that 1. The people might follow his Example and therefore these same words which concerne the practice of the King Deut. 17. 19. are also given to the people Deut. 6. 2. and 10. 13. and 111 2 13 22. and 12. 1 2 28. and 13. 4. and 27. 1. and 28. 1. with a little change sure no change that by any consequent will make the book of the Law to be delivered to the King to this end that his lips by his Royall office should preserve knowledge and that the people should require the Law at the Kings mouth which was the speciall office of the Priest Mal. 2. 7. as proper and peculiar to the Priest as the Covenant of Levi ver 8. and that they should not be partiall in the Law but should teach the people the difference between the cleane and the unclean the precious and the vile in Iudgement not accepting the persons of father and mother Ezek. 44. 23 24. and 22 26. Lev. 10. 10 11 Ieremiah 15. 19. Deut. 33. 9. Yea it was no lesse peculiar to the Priests then to offer Sacrifice to the Lord Leviticuâ— 10. 10 11 12 13. Mal. 2. 7 8. compared with v. 2. and with c. 1. v. 6 7 8. Now the King as King was not a confederate in the Covenant of Levi to burne incense and teach the people but in a farre other Covenant â— Kin. 11. 17 18. 2. In which the
to the Iewes if it were a matter of wrong and wicked lewdnes O yee Iewes reason were that I should bear with you 15. But if it be a question of words and names and of your Law looke yee to it for I will be no judge of such matters Ergo to the Romans all the blasphemies of the Iewish law was not a matter of wicked lewdnesse nor of death Now the story is clear they were seeking Pauls life and for names and words the Iewes should not reach Paul nor move the Romans to put to death a Roman except they could prove sedition or treason against him and Acts 25. Festus saith to Agrippa That the Priests and Elders desired to have judgement against Paul 18. But against him they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed 19. But had certain questions against him of their owne Superstition and of one Iesus who was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive Here it is clear all are but words nothing worthy of death which the Iewes chiefly intended therefore they accuse him of treason as we may collect from Pauls Apologie Acts 25. 8. Neither against the Law of the Iewes neither against the Temple nor yet against Cesar have I offended any thing at all Therefore Act. 24. Tertullus a witty man burdeneth Paul with that which might cost him his head v. 5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition amongst all the Iewes throughout all the world see Acts 21. 38. of all which though blasphemy according to the Iewish Law was something yet sedition to the Romans who only now had power of Pauls life was all and some and when the Deputies counted so little of Religion the Iews knew sedition and treason against Cesar behooved to do the turn and Paul seeing they pursued him for his life appealed to Cesar to be judged in that Now except the adversaries prove that Paul referred the resurrection of Iesus and of the dead and his preaching Christ and the abolishing of sacrifices the Temple the Ceremoniall Law to be judicially determined by Nero as by the head of the Church they prove nothing against us Hence their chiefe argument is soone answered in what cause Paul was accused of the Iews in that he appealed to Cesar But he was accused not for his sedition but for his Doctrine Act. 26. 18. Ergo Paul appealed to Cesar in the cause of Doctrine not of sedition For 1. The Major is dubious for in what cause he was accused of his head which was the intent of the Iews in that he appealed true but in what cause he was accused in all and every Article of the points of his accusation and challenge I deny that for as touching doctrinals and his being judged by a lawfull Church and rightly constituted he appealed neither from the Sanedrim nor from Festus but declined Festus nor in these did he appeal to Cesar he only appealed in all cases which might concern his head and blood 2. The assumption is false for he was accused of sedition as is evident from Act. 25. 8. and 24. 5. 3. Though the Priests and Elders were most corrupt men yet that they believed that Cesar or bloody Nero his lips should preserve knowledge and that the Law should be sought from the mouth of Nero as the head of the Church can never be proved which must be proved to justifie Pauls appeal in the tearms of the adversary Obj. But may not Nero accuse Paul that he dare preach his Iesus Christ in the Emperours dominions Ans If his dominions be the Christian Churches conquered by his sword he may accuse as he conquered that is he may oppresse the consciences of men in accusing as he oppressed them in their bodies and liberties in the conquering of them But he may not as a conquerour accuse them for their conscience he may if he conquer those that worship Sathan cause instruct them in all meeknesse and lenity But this he doth by the sword as a Christian ruler to inlarge the dominions of Christ for when â—â— conquereth their bodies it is not to be thought that he conquereth their souls or acquireth any new dominion over their consâ—iâ—nces But though he do as a Magistrate command them to be instructed I doubt if he have a negative voice in imposing any Religion that he will though they be heathens though some learned Divines say be have a definitive voice in setting up what Religion he will or tollerating it I conceive though he have a definitive voyce in erecting the only true Religion in his heathenish dominions when there be no Ministers of the Gospel there yet not for any false Religions that being of perpetuall truth God never gave authority or power of the sword to do ill ad malum non est potestas what other things Videlius and Vtenbogard have on the contrary are answered Hence we ask 1. If the intrinsecall end of judging and censuring Ecclesiastically be not the inlightning of the mind the gaining of souls and if Nero or Christian or Heathen Magistrates be appointed for that spirituall end 2. If Paul aymed to refer the judging of the Gospel to Nero 3. If Paul knowing the Sanedrim sought his blood not the gaining of his soul might not appeal to the Magistrate to save his life 4. If it was not the Law of natures dictate in Paul so to do and not any positive constitution of the Magistrates Headship over the Church and Gospel 5. If the Ecclesiasticall judicature will swell without its sphere of activity to dispose of the life and blood of the Saints if then the state of the question be not changed and if then it be not lawfull to appeal and decline and provoke to the civill Magistrate 4. Moreover Paul appealed not to Cesar in ordine ad censuram auâ— penâ—m Ecclesiasticam in order to a Church censure as if he thought Cesar should principally excommunicate and cast him out of the â—ynagogue or judge him in an Ecclesiasticall way whether he had done or preached against the Temple and Law of Moses or not which must be proved if the adversaries will prove a proper appeal from the Church to the Prince which is now our question All this which is our mind is well explained by our Countryman Ioh. Camero prelectio in Mat. 18. 15. p. 151. Christiani principes sunt precipui in Ecclesia in sensu diviso sunt precipui et sunt in Ecclesia non in sensu conjuncto non sunt precâ—pui Ecclesiastici Non enim obtinent principes directe authoritatem Ecclesiasticam sed indirectè non quod velimus ulla in causa ullum eximi jurisdictione principis sed quia ejus jurisdictio non nisi per media Ecclesiastica pertinet ad conscientiam nempe princeps non predicat Evangelium non ligat et solvit peceatores at de officio principis est dare operam ut sint qui predicent Evangelium ut sint qui ligent
by Gods Word Ergo They are unlawful and so not indifferent If then nothing be good because Rulers command it but by the contrary they do lawfully command it because it is good The Churches power is one and the same in things indifferent and necessary in matters of Doctrine Discipline and Order for in both the Church doth not create goodnesse but doth by the Light of the Word or which is a part of the Word by natures Light finde pre-existent goodnesse in Doctrine Discipline and matters of Order Therefore Will of Authority as Will hath no power to dispose of the least Circumstance of time place or person but the Churches power is Ministerial and determined to what is good expedient and convenient Object Humane Actions according to their specifice nature may be indifferent in Gods Worship For example to pray to God in the morning in your Bed or out of it in the House or in the Fields to Preach the Word in thiâ— or that habit in a Gown or in a Cloak these are actions in their kinde indifferent because they are neither commanded nor forbidden for that is according to the kinde of action good which is so commanded of God that it is unlawful to neglect it or to do any thing repugnant to it as to love God and our Neighbour and that is evil according to its kinde which is so forbidden by Gods Law as it is not lawful to do it or command it in any sort so it is evil to blaspheme God to commit adultery So Forbs Ans In the Field or in the Bed Cloathed with Gown or Cloak when we Pray or Preach are meer Accidents and Circumstances of praying and preaching and we grant them to be variable and indifferent howbeit they admit of Regulation Moral and so are not simply indifferent for to pray in the Fields and Streets to be seen of men is vain glory But I hope they are not indifferent in your meaning as are Surplice Holydays c. For you will not say the Church may make Laws that no Prayers be but in the Fields no Preaching except the Preacher be cloathed with a Cloak 2. It is not good Logick to say ` To pray in House or Field is an action according to its kinde neither good nor evil when as it is an individual action contracted to such a place House or Field because Field or House are indifferent in Prayer To pray is not indifferent according to its kinde because Accidents of Actions are indifferent it followeth not that the action is indifferent for then the Doctors Opinion maketh an Act of loving God and beleeving in Christ indifferent in its kinde for it is as indifferent to love God in the Field as in the House and to love him while you are cloathed with a Gown as with a Cloak As it is indifferent to pray in House or Field cloathed with Gown or Cloak so to love God and the most necessary actions in the world hic nunc in this time or in this place shall be actions according to their nature neither good nor evil but indifferent which is against the Doctors own Distinction 3. Place or habit doth not constitute Praying and Preaching in their specifice nature that were a wonder for their Objects do constitute their nature and their Objects are God and Gods Word and if they be indifferent according to their nature it shall be indifferent to pray to God or to some other thing possibly an Idol Nay if Actions good of their own nature such as to Pray or Preach be made indifferent according to their kinde because cloathed with indifferent Circumstances of time and place and habit then by that same reason Actions of their own nature evil as to murther commit adultery should also become indifferent from these Circumstances then should it be indifferent to kill in House or Field and indifferent according to its kinde which is most absurd Object Howbeit it be objected that every voluntary action is either honest or not honest yet there are some things honest that are indifferent and free For there are two kindes of honest things 1. Some honest and necessary things as all the duties commanded in Gods Law the contrary of these polluteth a man before God and they are formally positively and inclusively laudable and commendeth men before God and are rewarded This way every voluntary action is not either honest or unhonest for there is a middle betwixt these two to wit something honest and lawful but not necessary but morally free as Marriage which commendeth not a man to God so that he is therefore rewarded neither doth the contrary to wit non-marriage pollute a man before God or is blame-worthy because marriage is onely negatively honest Honestum irreprchensibile honestum exclusive honestum per compossibilitatem cum honesto formali positivo So marriage is neither positively honest nor unhonest but free morally Neither is marriage necessary by absolute necessity or necessity that toucheth the action for men may marry and not to marry is no sin onely marrying is necessary by a conditional necessity 1 Cor. 7. 39. A Widow is free to marry whom she will but with this condition That she marry in the Lord the necessity toucheth not the action but the manner of the action And this necessity of the manner or goodnesse of the action of marriage doth not make the action necessary but leaveth it as free to men to marry or not to marry and so there are some actions according to the spece or nature that are indifferent and not unhonest yet lawful So Doctor Forbs Answ 1. Marriage hath something in it natural even before the Fall It was naturally good that man should not be alone and this way before and after the Fall Marriage in the ground that maketh it necessary which is an aptitude and inclination to procreation is most necessary and so now after the Fall of man all that burneth and marrâ—eâ—h not despiseth Gods remedy of lust and sinneth and so by necessity of Gods command in the Law of nature and repeated by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 2 9. it is necessary in individuo And although that which is meerly natural in marriage as the Act of marriage according to the substance be not formally laudable and rewarded because of the naturality thereof yet it is not for that free or indifferent 2. And when the Doctor saith That marriage is indifferent in its nature and free so that there is no necessity of the action but onely of the goodnesse of the action he speaketh wonders For howbeit marriage be indifferent by a Metaphysical indifferency of contrahibility to such and such persons because marriage may be in some without sin and no marriage may also be in other some without sin and so praying is indifferent it is in some without sin and not praying is in some also without sin when the man is necessitated to some other
should be of Faith and referred to Gods glory But shall I beleeve I am doing in Faith and glorifying God when I am casting stones in the water and I have as good reason not to cast at all If one wilaction that may be done and may not be done may be of Faith and referred to Gods glory then may they all be of Faith and referred to Gods glory This is a laughter rather then Divinitie 3. I cannot beleeve that an action that hath as good reason to be omitted as to be done can be acceptable to God because I have no ground for my Faith for my Faith here leaneth neither on Scripture nor on Reason but there is no reason why the action should rather be nor not be because it is indifferent yea crossing and kneeling of themselves shall be of Faith because I beleeve them to be of Faith But it is a vain thing to say that Faith maketh its object 4. There are no actions in the World but they have all their Moral necessitie from their intrinsecal goodnesse For from whence is it necessary to love God but from the intrinsecal goodnesse that the love of God hath from Gods command For there is no necessitie an action to be at all yea it is idle and superfluous if there be no goodnesse in it at all If then crossing and kneeling laying aside the respect of Humane Laws commanding them have no necessitie Moral from any Commandment of God why they should be at all their necessitie must be all from mans will this is tyranny in Rulers for their sole pleasure to command under the heaviest pain things that have no necessitie at all but their will 5. Neither is it any yoak to mens conscience to square all their Moral Action by Gods Word and so to see according as it is Written before they vanture upon any Action Moral It is libertie to keep Gods way accuratel Object In general no particular action is necessary the goodnesse whereof that is commended and rewarded of God may â—s well be had by the omission of that action or by an other action as by the doing of it but such an action in the individual use is true and indifferent but iâ— the goodnesse necessary cannot be had at all without that particular action then the action in the individual use is necessary although according to its nature it be possibly indifferent So to us now to kneel at the Supper is necessary that we may obtain the necessary good of due Obedience and decent Vniformity and eschue the contempt of Anthority Schism and Confusion Forbâ— Answ 1. By goodnesse here the Doctor meaneth Concomitant and general goodnesse which maketh not the action necessary to be done and so it hath no goodnesse intrinsecal but is an idle action and yet it may be done or not done without sin and when it is done it is done upon no other motive but the meer will and pleasure of the doer We have hereby the Doctors learning Such an idle action done in Faith and done for Gods glory 2. All our Ceremonies in their use crossing kneeling wearing of Surplice have no intrinsecal goodnesse no internal moral equity of Order Decency and aptnesse to Edifie wherefore it is necessary they should be done the doing of them in Faith and for Gods glory may be obtained as well by noâ—â—-kneeling none-crossing none-Surplice This is no small dash to the credit of Pearth Assembly for they saw no goodnesse in the Articles but that which as well might have been obtained without them Hence except the goodnesse of pleasing King James they had no more reason for the Ceremonies then to make an Act that all Ministers shall go to the Foot-Ball the third day of May. 3. Then the meer pleasure of the King hath made kneeling necessary and good obedience to the fifth Commandment mens will as will so is the onely formal reason of obedience to the ten Commandments or disobedience 4. Then we may of Faith and for Gods glory refuse the Ceremonies if it be the Kings Will and in that point the fifth Commandment standeth or falleth at the nod of the Kings Will. Such Mercenary Divinitie becometh not the lovers of Reformation Object There is a twofold maline in actions One thar layeth a moral impediment on the act so that it cannot be performed without sin So to eschue the malice that is in adultery we must eschue the act of adultery this malice polluteth the act and should binder the act There is another malice that polluteth the act but doth not morally hinder the act As when one feedeth the poor for vain-glory vain glory polluteth the act but hindereth it not Vain-glory should be laid aside and the poor fed If one kneel at the Supper thinking it not lawful to kneel before Creatures his kneeling is evil but the evil in it doth onely pollute the act and make it finful but doth not morally hinder kneeling because contumacioâ—s ignorance pride and contempt of Authority should be laid aside Men should be docil and see the law fulnesse of it and obey the Church Forbs Answ In things indifferent the very malice adhering to the practice of them howbeit it adhere not inseparably to them maketh the practice damnable For eating Rom. 14. before a weak Brother whose weaknesse might have been removed if he would be docil and know that their is no creature now unclean is murther Rom. 14. 14. Therefore suppose all the Kings and General Assemblies on Earth should command one to eat in that case before the weak Brother they were to be disobeyed and so the Doctor freeth us that we cannot kneel at the Lords Supper 2. Rulers may not make laws of things having no necessitie of Goodnesse Decency and aptnesse to Edifie and onely good because they will when they see of necessitie these laws shall inevitably ruine many souls for that is to have more regard to their own will then to the salvation of peoples souls whereas even Christ pleased not himself 3. Many weak are uncapable of all Reasons or Arguments that can free our kneeling of Idolatry Ergo They should abstain and not kneel with a doubting conscience better not eat as eat with a doubting conscience Rom. 14 23. 4. Pride and contempt are onely seen to God Prelates have no place to punish heart-acts they are to prove by two Witnesses the Malice and Pride and Contempt of Authoritie but this is invisible to mens eies refusal of obedience to Canons touching indifferent things the necessitie whereof as the Doctor must say cometh onely from mans will cannot be contempt The neglect of a command of God is indeed a virtual contempt of the Majestie Authoritie Power and Justice of God because a command of God hath Essentially Equitie and Justice in it from Gods commanding Will But a command of a thing indifferent that may as well without sin be left undone as done as our Doctor saith of our Ceremonies can never
Peter was Gal. 2. in danger of a double scandall for saith he he was in danger to scandalize the Gentiles in refusing their companie as if they had been no brethren which was the greater scandall and in danger to scandalize the Jewes in eating with the Gentiles which was a lesse sinne and lesse scandall But I answer Paul did not then justly rebuke his Judaizing Galat. 2. which doth gratifie Barronius Bellarmine and Papists who will have Peter an Apostle who could not erre 2. It should follow that Paul rebuked Peter because that of two evills of sinne he choosed to commit the lesser sinne Whereas of two evills of sinne neither is to be chosen One might then lawfully commit fornication to be free of adulterie and so fornication should be lawfull which is absurd And Paul should call Gal. 2. 14. it upright walking according to the truth of the Gospell to choose a lesse sin 3. Peter by eating with the Gentiles should not have scandalized the Jewes but edified them in showing the Christian libertie they had in Christ as is cleare v. 5. To whom we gave no subjection no not for an houre by practising Jewish Ceremonies that the truth of the Gospell might continue with you Duplyers pag. 66. It is certaine we are freed from one of these precepts for Gods precepts are not repugnanâ— one to another Ye commonly say the precept of obedience to humane authoritie must give place to the precept of eschewing Scandall though it be causlesly taken because the command of a Superiour cannot make that fact to be free of scandall which otherwise would be scandalous But it is certaine that laying aside the case of scandall to denie obedience to the ordinance of our Superiours injoyning and peremptorily requiring of us things lawfull and expedient is really the sinne of disobedience Ye will say that the scandall of weake brethren may make that fact or omission not to be disobedience which otherwise would be disobedience because we ought not for the Commandement of man doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended and so the precept of obedience bindeth not when offence of a weake brother may be feared On the contrary we say that the lawfull commandement of Superiours may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be imputed unto us which otherwise would bee imputed unto us as a matter of our guiltinesse No scandall â—f weake brethren causlesly taken can make that fact not to be the sinne of disobedience which otherwayes that iâ— extra casum scandali if it were not in the case of scandall would bee the sinne of disobedience Answer 1. This is right downe worke But 1. I Answer Both the precepts are not obligatorie you say true We commonly say saith the Doctors that the precept of obedience to humane authoritie must give place to the precept of eschewing scandall although it be causlesly taken We say not that Commonly nor at all if by Scandall causlesly taken you mean scandall passive onely taken and not given for we are not to regard such scandalls But here the scandall is given in that we must practise base Ceremonies indifferent knots of straws for mens pleasure though from thence many soules for whom Christ died be destroyed 2. It is good reason that the precept of obedience to humane authoritie in things which you call indifferent and might well be sent away to Rome were it not the Lord Prelates pleasure to command them for their owne carnall ends should yeild and be gone and lose all obligatorie power because it is but a positive precept and 2. affirmative that obliedgeth not ad semper as Crossâ— kneele weare Surplice And 3. In a thing indifferent and that this Divine Commandement of God scandalize not kill not one redeemed by Christ should stand in force 1. Because it is a naturall precept 2. It is negative and obliedgeth eternally 3. It is of a necessarie matter because no man-slayer hath life eternall 1 Jh. 3. 15. But our Doctors will have the Commandements positive of men to stand and the Commandements of God which are expresly of the law of nature to fall before their Dagon and to lose all obligatorie power whereas Gods owne positive law yeildeth and loseth obligatorie power when Gods naturall Commandement of mercy commeth in competition with it as is cleare as the noon-day in David famishing who eat the Shew-bread which by a positive law was not lawfull to any save the Priests onely to eat yet must mans law stand and Gods law of nature fall at the pleasure of these Doctors 3. Wee say justly you erre in saying it is reall disobedience to deny obedience to the ordinance of Superiours when the matter of their law is indifferent and when it is scandalous and obedience cannot be given to it but by sâ—aying him for whom Christ died yea to give obedience to Superiours in that case is reall murthering of soules and reall disobedience to God Yea and if there be murthering of a weake brother in the fact it cannot come under the compasse of the matter of an humane law and the Scandall maketh it no obedience to men but disobedience to God 4. You retort bravely but Popishly the argument back upon us But we bring our argument from the law of Nature Thou shalt not murther nor scandalize and we bring it not so much against the obedience to the Commandement of Superiours as against the law and Commandement of Superiours and this Argument is against the Ceremonies as if they had not been commanded and as they were before the Assembly of Pearth and therefore the consideration of a lawfull Commandement to take away the scandall is not to any purpose And so 5. I may invite Papists Jesuites and all the Patrons of the Pope to thanke you and kisse your pen for these words we say that the lawfull Commandement of Superiours of Prelates commanding things indifferent may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be imputed unto us which otherwise would be imputed unto us as a matter of our guiltiness What ever my brethren may be imputed to you otherwise before the law of Pearth Assemblie was made as the matter of your guiltiness was your sinne for nothing can be imputed to Men or Angels as guiltiness but fin But if the Commandements of Prelates may make that not to be imputed to you which otherwise and before or without that law of Superiours would have been imputed as the matter of your guiltinesse then the law of Superiours and Prelates may make that which without that law would have been sinne to be no sinne at all I know no more said by Bellarmine of the Universall Prelate of the world but that he can make sin to be no sinne and no sinne to be sinne And that the Pope cannot command vertue as vice and vice as vertue for if he should doe so the Church should be obliged to believe vertue to be vice and vice
of death judged only De questione iuris of the question of Law Pag. 276 277. The Priests and Levites had no Law-power by Gods Law or from Cesar to put Christ to death pag. 279. The Sanedrim had no law-Law-power against Steven The like is true of Paul Pag. 280. Pag. 280. 281. How the Christian Magistrate is to be acquainted with excommunication Page 281. Erastus l. 4. c. 5. c. 6. Beza de presbyter p. 110. A colledge of church-rulers in the N. T. pa. 284. Page 285. Pag. 286. pa. 287. Beza de presbyt p. 112. 113. Page 288. Beza de Presbyt p. 112. 113. Page 289. page 290. 291. Due right of Presbyteries qu. 7. c. 7. sect 7. page 141 142 143. seque page 293. page 294. Erastus l. 4. c. 7. p. 295. 296. page 296. No miraculous killing 1 Cor. 5. or tormenting of the mans body Page 296. pa. 297. Lib. 5. c. 1. Erast 298. page 299. page 29â— Erastus yieldeth there is a Presbytery The Magistrate under Church discipline Annot. on the Bible An. 1645. in Zach. 3. 7. A judicature proper to the priests as priests Page 300. Page 301. Page 300. Erastus Quis unquam dubitavit an Ministris liceat improbe ageâ—tes Magistratus ex verbâ— Dei objurgare arguere reprehendere increpare adeoque solvere ligare Page 302. 303. How the Magistrates consent is requisite in Excommunication Page 302. The Magistrats sword no kindly mean to gain souls as Erastus dreameth Rom. 1. 16. L. 5. c. 1. p. 302. 303. Page 303. 304. page 305. The Morally unclean debarred out of the temple Page 305. No price of a whore to be offered to God what it meant Annot. an 1645. an ou Deut. 23. 18. Vata in loc que injustè parta sunt nullo modo offerri debent Deo Page 307. Our chiefe argument for excommunication not answered Page 308. 309. The place Matth 5. When thou bringest thy gift c. discussed Page 309. 310. How men doe judge of inward actions Page 310. Solus deus ut sine errore cogitationes judicat ita easdem quoque pu nit Ib. in rectione eâ—terna ecclesâ—e infinite falli omnes possumuâ— quamobrâ—n sâ—ccrâ— bio nihil debemus quam mandatum expresse nobiâ— lâ—gimus Page 309. Lib. 3. c. 3. A contradiction in Erastus frequent Page 311. Page 311. 312. 313. What it was to be cast out of the synagogue Page 313. 314. page 31â— The Apostles not cast out of thy Synagogue that we can read Navar. in Enchâ—rid c. 27. 11. n. 13. Greg. q. 3. c. 1. Page 315. Page 316. Annot. an 1645. on Ezra 10. 8. Annot. an 1645. on Deut. 23. 1. Erastus ib. 315. Non igitur noluit Deus hoscâ— circumcidi in Templum atque ad Sacramenta admitti sed noluit proveris Judaeis â—os haberi Erastus l. 6 c. 1. p. 317. Page 318. Ministers subject to the Magistrate P. 318. 319. Page 318. P. 319 320. Page 321. Page 321. Page 321. Page 322. Though there were no framed Christian Church yet Christ might say Tell the Church P. 323. 324 Pagninuâ— Merc. in Thesaur p. 994. Page 324. 325. Page 326. There was no more a right constituted Sanedrim in Christs time then a Christian Church Page 327. Page 328. page 329. Iunius â—nimâ—â— in Bellar dâ—â—oâ—ciâ— l. 1. c. 12. Not. 18. deâ—â—â—iente conjunctione Magistratus potest a liquid Ecclesia extra ordiâ—em â—aceâ—e quod ordinario non potest contra deficiente Ecclesià à suo officio potest Magistratus extra ordinem procurarâ— ut Ecclesia ad officium râ—deâ—â— id â—nim juris communis est extraordinariis maâ—is remedia etiam extra ordinem adhiberi posse Page 329 330. Page 330. Rebuking of Princes argue no lesse jurisdiction then all that the Presbytery doth Erastus l. 6. c. 2. p. 331. 332. Magistrates if scandalous are to be debarred from the Sacrament P. 331. 332 Page 332. Page 334. Page 335. Every profession maketh not men capable of the holy things of God Page 335. 336. Page 336. Page 336. 337. â—â— 340. Page 341. Erast l. 6. c. 2. p. 341. Page 341. Erastus 341 sequitur si faciâ—orosi sint arcendi â— Sacrament is eligendos esse qui malis interdieant oratione lectione Elcemosynarum distributione c. The Magistrate cannot admit to and debar from the Sacrament Page 346. The sword no intrinsecall mean of gaining souls Page 347. Page 348. 349. The Church as the Church not subordinate to the Magistrate Arg. 1. Ezek. 44 15. Governement peculiar to the Officers now as to the Priests and Levites of old The Epistles to Timothy and Titus must chiefly be written to the Emperour and Magistrate if Pastors be but Servants of the Magistrate Argum. 4. Trigland de civi Eceles potest disser Theolo c. 4. p. 80. Arg. 3. Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers immediatly from God The Magistrate not subordinate to Christ as Mediator Argum. 2. The patern Church of the Apostles not ruled by the Magistrate Erast and Mr. Pryn grant that there is such an ordinance as excommunication Confirm Thes l. 6. c. 2. p. 349. Sane ut â—dololatram apostatam negaâ—â—us membram esse Ecclesiae Christi sie etiam nequitâ—am sâ—am defendentem inter membra Ecclesiae censendum esse Et quemadmodum illes ex Christiano caetu judicamus exterminandos sic hos quoque putamus in eo catu non esse ferendos Erastus confirm Thes l. 3. c. 3. p. 207. Mr. Pryn in his vindication of four serious questions p. 30. 31. Vindication of four serious questions page 52. The Gospel preached to those to whom the Sacraments cannot be dispensed The Sacrament a confirming ordinance Vindication p. 35. We partake of the sins of many in dispensing to them the Sacrament and not in preaching to them the Word Viâ—d p. 36 Vindication p. 40. 41. We know no extraordinary conversion by Miracles without the Word Andrad defens fidei Trid. l. 2. p. 239. falsa sunt haec plerunque plerunque infirma etiam Ecâ—lcsiae verae judicia Maldonat in Mat. 7. v. 22. Greg. de Valâ—n tâ—m 3. dis 1. p. 4. sect 3. Bellarm. de lib. arb lib. 6. cap. 1. Durandus quest 1. in Prolegom Sent. Sect. 46. The Sacrament of the Supper not a first converting ordinance yeâ— a confirming one it is The Lordâ— Supper presupposeth faith and conversion in the worthy receiver in Church-profession Vindicat. pag 2. 3. Vindicat. page 41. Arg. 5. The Magistrate subject to the Church Argum. 6. Arg. â— The church a perfect society without the Magistrate Vtenbogard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius de vita constant l. 4. c. 24 Hyeronimuâ— in chron an 366. Genebrard in liberio Niceph. l. 4. c. 24. Socr l. 3. c. 21. Hyeronim chron an 367. Barron an 366. Arg. 9. Differences between the Magistrate and Ministers of the Gospel and Church The Magistrate cannot limit the pastor in the exercise of his calling See Henr. Salcobrig in Becano Bac. p. 140. Ait regem esse