that Text. When Christ said All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth it may be understood either as he is Mediator or as he is the second person in the blessed Trinity the eternall Sonne of God So when the Ubiquitaries would prove from that place the reall communication of Divine omnipotency to the humane nature of Christ our Divines answer the Text may be understood either of Christs person God-man or as he is the natural Son of God See Gomarus upon the place Now take the Text either way it proves not what Mr. Hussey would Let it be understood of Christ as God-man and as Mediator which is the most promising sence for him yet it cannot prove that all power without exception and all government as well without as within the Church as well secular as Ecclesiastical is put in Christs hand as he is Mediator and that the civil Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ but the sence must be All power which belongs to the Mediator and all authority which belongs to the gathering and governing of the Church is given to me for we must needs expound his meaning as himself hath taught us Iohn 18. 36. Luke 12. 14. We must not say that any such power is given to him as himself denieth to be given to him namely civil power and Magistracy Wherefore Martin Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 273. doth rightly referre these words All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth to the head de Ecclesiae oeconomia and makes this Text paralel to Iohn 20. 21 22 23. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you c. Whose soever sins ye remit c. and to Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority or power in heaven and in earth which is meant Matth. 28. 18. Which is further confirmed by the Syriack which readeth thus verse 18. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth but as my Father hath sent me even so send I you Vers. 19. Goe therefore teach all Nations So restricting the sence to be in reference to the Church onely and excluding civil government and Magistracy from which Christ had before excluded his Apostles Medina in tertiam Partem quaest 59. art 4. holds the same thing that the context and cohesion of vers 18. and vers 19. proves the Kingdom of Christ to be meerly spirituall But 2. The Text will suffer yet a further restriction namely that all power in heaven and in earth is said to given unto Jesus Christ as he is the eternal Sonne of God and that both in respect of the eternal generation by which the God-head and so all Divine properties of which omnipotency is one was from all eternity communicated from the Father to the Son and in respect of the declaration or manifestation of him to be the Son of God with power when God raised him from the dead Mr. Hussey saith he is astonished to hear that any thing should be given to Christ as God Where first of all I observe how miserably he mangleth and maimeth my words as in other places so here He citeth these words as mine That Christ as he is eternal God doth with the Father and the holy Ghost reigne over the Kingdoms of the earth c. and this power was given c. It is not fair nor just dealing to change a mans words in a citation especially when the change is materiall Now here are divers changes in this passage This one onely I take notice of I said not as he is eternal God but as he is the eternal Sonne of God and all along in that Question I spake of the Son of God not essentially but personally as he is the Sonne of God or second person in the Trinity and so the God head and all the attributes and properties thereof are communicated to him from the Father by the eternal Generation and as the Nicene Creed said he is Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine God of God Light of Light I ask therefore Mr. Hussey What do you mutter here Speak it out Doe you hold that Jesus Christ is not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely essentially but personally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he is not onely ex seipso Deus but ex seipso filius If this be the thing you hold then you oppose me indeed but so as you fall into a blasphemous heresie that Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God hath not all power in in Heaven and in Earth but onely as he is Mediator because that power is given to him and nothing can be given to Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God but onely as he is Mediator by your principles But if your meaning be no more then this that Christ considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the very nature and essence of the God-head is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not God of God but God of himself and that so nothing can be said to be given to him then why have you dealt so uncharitably as to suppose me to be herein opposite unto you when I plainly spake of the eternal Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the personality or relation of filiation or as he is the eternall Son of God in which sence I yet averre confidently that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Jesus Christ as he is the eternal Son of God by eternal generation I added that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of God in another respect namely in respect of the declaration thereof at his resurrection To this Mr. Hussey replieth that to hold any thing should be given him that should concern his God-head at the time of his resurrection is more monstrous Then hath Gomarus and others given a monstrous answer to the Ubiquitaries yet they clear it by Augustines rule aliquid dicitur fieri quando incipit patesieri Is it any more strange then to say that Christ was begotten that day when he was raised from the dead Act. 13. 33. The Son of God had in obedience to his Fathers will laid aside and relinquished his divine dominion and power when he took upon him the forme of a servant which I said before but it seems was not considered by Mr. Hussey now at his resurrection the Father restoreth with advantage that formerly relinquished Soveraignty But he addeth that if Matt. 28. 18. be not understood of Christ as Mediator then he had no authority as Mediator to send his Apostles for it followeth Go ye therefore and preach from this authority here
was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or it was a white stone by which they did loose remit and absolve and that stone was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the thing that Tully calleth Solvere crimine So where it is said her iniquity is pardoned Isa. 40. 2. the 70 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her iniquity is loosed And because there is usually some kind of expiation before a loosing and remitting of sinnes which expiation being performed the loosing follows therefore the Graecians called such necessary and râ—quisit expiation by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is loosing and they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they expiatory Gods who did chiefly take care of those expiations That in Scripture the power of binding is judiciall and authoritative is cleared by my Reverend and Learned Colleague Maâ—er Rutherford in The Divine right of Church Government pag. 234. 235 I adde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto which Grotius sends â—s is â—sed for that binding or incarceration which is an act of 〈◊〉 authority as Gen. 40. 3. Gen. 42. 16. 19. 24. Num. 15. 34 Levit. 24. 12. 2 Kings 17. 4. Isa. 42. 7. Jer. 40. 1. Ezek. 3. 25. It is also used for an authoritative prohibition Num. 11. 28. my Lord Moses forbid them Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interdictum a decree forbidding somewhat Dan. 6 7 8 9. As binding and loosing are Acts of authority and power such as doth not belong to any single person or brother offended so the binding and loosing mentioned Matth. 18. 18. are Acts of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall authority belonging to the Kingdom and Government of Christ in his Church but not belonging to the civill Magistrate And as the authority is Ecclesiasticall and spirituall so it is more than Doctrinall it is a power of inflicting or taking off Church Censures These two things I will endeavour to prove 1. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers 2. That this power is juridicall or forensicall and not Doctrinall onely that is that Church-Officers are here authorised to bind with censures or to loose from censures as there shall be cause In both which we have Antiquity for us Which I doe the rather observe because Erastus and Grotius alledge some of the Antients for their exposition of Math. 18. 18. that this binding or loosing is by the offended brother That which Augustine Origen and Theophylact say of one brother his binding or loosing is but spoken tropologically and not as the literall sence of the Text yea Theophylact in that passage cited by Erastus and Grotius doth distinguish between the Ministeriall or Ecclesiasticall binding and loosing and the party offended his binding and loosing Non enim solùm quae solvunt sacerdotes sunt soluta sed quaecunque nos c. Theophylact doth also find excommunication in that Text Illam autem Ecclesiam si non audierit tunc abjiciatar ne suae malitiâ—… participes faciat alios I further appeal to Augustine himself Epist. 75. where speaking of Excommunication and Anathema he distinguisheth it from corporall punishment and after he hath spoken of the temporall sword he addeth Spiritualis autem paena qua fit quod scriptum est Quae ligaveris in terra erunt ligata in caelo animas obligat But the spirituall punishment by which that thing is done which is written What thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven doth bind soulâ—… Againe in his sixth Tome lib. 1. contra adversarium legis prophetarum â—…ap 17. he doth most plainly interpret Math. 18. 18. of Church discipline and binding by Censure Hierome both in his Commentary upon Matth. 18. and in his Epistle to Heliodorus speaketh of this power of binding as a judiciall forensicall power belonging to the Ministers or Officers of the Church by which they judge and censure offenders But to save my self the labour of more citations I take help from Bishop Bilson of the perpetuall Government of Christs Church cap. 4. where though he expound the binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. to be Acts of the Magistrate yet he acknowledgeth hat the Antient writers leane vere much another way and understand that Text of the ministeriall and spirituall power of Excommunication for which he citeth Chrysost. de sacerdotio lib. 3. Ambros. de paenitent lib. 1. c. 2. Hierom. in Matth. cap. 18. Hilar. in Mat. can 18. Vnto these I also adde Isidorus Polusiota in the third Book of his Epistles Epist. 260. where he applieth this Text Matth. 18 19. to this sence that impenitent finners are to be bound and penitent sinners loosed and thence argueth against the absolving of a perjured person who had not declared himself penitent but had purchased his absolution by a gift Nor can I passe Chrysostome upon this very Text where he tells that Christ will have such a one to be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both with a present Chastisement and with a future punishment or both in earth and in heaven and would have the offender to fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 casting out of the Church He addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cuts not off immediately but after admonitions I will now proceed to a further confirmation of the two propositions afore mentioned Touching the first That this binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. belongeth nei her to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers I clear it thus There are two things by which as Schoolemen observe mens soules and consciences are bound 1. They are bound by their sinnes Prov. 5. 22. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself he shall be holden with the cords of his sins Act. 8. 23. thou art in the bond of iniquity 2. Men are bound by precepts Matth. 23. 4. They bind heavy burthens and grievous to be born and lay them on mens shoulders This binding by precept or law some take to be meant Ezech. 3. 25. O Sonne of man behold they shal put bands upon thee shall bind thee with them that is thou shalt in vision see thy self bound with bands upon thee to signifie that I have forbidden thee to be a reprover to the rebellius house So the Chaldee paraphrase But thou a Sonne of man behold I have put my word upon thee as a band of cords with which they bind and thou shalt not goe forth into the midst of them Now in both these respects the Scripture elsewhere doth ascribe to Church-Officers a power of binding and loosing 1 In respect of sinne Io. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sin s ye retaine they are retained It is spoken to the Apostles and their successors in the Ministery of the Gospell Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalâ—… bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Where the power of binding and loosing is given to the Apostles Grotius upon the place cleareth it from 2. Cor. 5. 19. 20. God hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ. So that we find in Scripture Church Officers inabled and authorised ex officio as the Heraulds and Ambassadours of the King of Zion to loose from the bands of sinne all repenting and beleiving sinners and to bind over to eternall justice and wrath the impenitent and unbeleevers 2 They are also authorised dogmatically and authoritatively to declare and impose the will of Christ and to bind his precepts upon the shoulders of his peeple Matth. 28. 20. as likewise to loose them and pronounce them free from such burthens as men would impose upon them contrary or beside the word of God 1 Cor. 7. 23. An example of both we have Act. 15. 28. The Synod of the Apostles and Elders bindeth upon the Churches such Burthens as were necessary by the Law of love for the avoiding of scandall but did pronounce the Churches to be free and loosed from other burthens which the Judaizing Teachers would have bound upon them Now therefore if we will expound Matth. 18. 18. by other Scriptures it being the onely surest way to expound Scripture by Scripture it is manifest and undeniable that Church-Officers are by other Scriptures inabled and authorised to bind loose in both those respects afore-mentioned But we no where find in Scripture that Christ hath given either to all private Christians or to the civill Magistrate a Commission and Authority to bind or loose sinners I know a private Christian may and ought to convince an impenitent brother and to comfort a repenting brother ex charitate Christiana But the Scripture doth not say that God hath committed to every private Christian the word of reconciliation and that all Christians are Ambassadours for Christ nor is there a promise to ratifie in heaven the convictions or comforts given by a private Christian No more then a King doth ingage himself in verbo principis to pardon such as any of his good Subjects shall pardon or to condemne such as any of his good Subjects shall condemne but a King ingageth himself to ratifie what his Ambassadours Commissioners or Ministers shall doe in his name and according to the Commission which he hath given them to pardon or condemne Besides all this if Christ had meant here of the brother to whom the injury was don his private binding or loosing not condemning or forgiving then he had kept the phrase in the singular number which Erastus observeth diligently all along the Text vers 15 16 17. But he might have also observed that vers 18. carries the power of binding and loosing to a plurality VVhatsoever ye bind c. As for the Magistrate it belongeth to him to bind with the cords of corporall or civill punishments or to loose and liberat from the same as he shall see cause according to law and justice But this doth n t belong to the spirituall Kingdome of Jesus Christ for his Kingdome is not of this world neither are the weapons thereof carnall but spirituall And beside the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth bind on punishment when the soule is loosed in Heaven and the sinne remitted Again the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth loose and absolve from punishment when a mans soule is impenitent and sinne is still bound upon his conscience There is no such promise that God will forgive whom the Magistrate forgiveth or condemne whom the Magistrate condemneth Neither hath God any where in Scripture committed to the Magistrate the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven or the word of reconciliation as to the Ambassadours of Christ. Binding and loosing in the other sence by a dogmaticall authoritative declaration of the will of Christ is not so principally or directy intended Matth. 18. 18. as that other binding and loosing in respect of sinne Howbeit it is not to be excluded because the words preceding Vers. 17. mention not onely the execution of Excommunication Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican but also the Churches judgement and determination of the case if he neglect to heare the Church which words implie that the Church hath declared the will of Christ in such a case and required the offender to doe accordingly but he shewing himselfe unwilling and contumacious as it were saying in his heart I will breake their bands asunder and cast away their cords from me thereupon the promise reacheth to this also that what the Church hath determined or imposed according to the will of Christ shall be ratified and approved in Heaven Now Christ hath no where given a Commission either to every particular Christian or to the Magistrate to teach his people to observe all things which he hath commanded them and authoritatively to determine controversies of faith or cases of conscience As in the old Testament the Priests lips did preserve knowledge and they were to seeke the law at his mouth Mal. 2. 7. so in the new Testament the Ministers of Christ have the Commission to make known the counsell of God My second proposition that the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. is juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall Censures this I will make good in the next place against M r Prynne who to elude the argument for Excommunication from Matth. 18. answereth two things concerning the binding and loosing there spoken of 1. That these words have no coherence with or dependence upon the former 2. That this binding and loosing is meant onely of preaching the Gospell Touching the first of these I confesse if by the Church vers 17. be meant a civill Court of Justice and by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen c. be meant no more but keepe no civill fellowship with him which is his sence of the Text I cannot marvell that he could finde no coherence between vers 17. and vers 18. yet if there be no coherence between these verses the generality of Interpreters have gone upon a great mistake of the Text conceiving that Christ doth here anticipate a great objection and adde a great encouragement in point of Church discipline for when the offender is excommunicated that is all the Church can doe to humble and reduce him put the case he or others despise the censures of the Church What will your censure doe saith M r Hussey To that very thing Christ answereth It shall be ratified in Heaven and it shall doe more then the binding of the offenders in fetters of Iron could doe But let us heare what M r Prynne saith against the coherence of Text because saith he that of binding and loosing is spoken onely to and of Christs disciples as is evident by the parallel Text
it How had the false Apostles insulted at this Is this the great Apostle of the Gentiles who hath not power from God to work a miracle when himself professeth he would gladly have it wrought Fourteenthly that passage 2 Cor. 10. 6. is by some brought not without very considerable Reasons for the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical censures And have in readinâ—…sse saith the Apostle or as the Syriack we are ready to revenge all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled Novarinus in 2 Cor. 10. 6. plerique de excommunicandi potestate haec verba interpretantur In this sence was the Text understood a thousand yeers ago by Gegroâ—…y Epist. lib. 2. cap. 37. The Dutch Annotations upon the place say that the Apostles meaning is of declaring the vengeance of God against the obstinate and of exercising the Ecclesiastical Banne or Discipline against those who professing themselves members of the Congregation do yet teach or lead unchristian lives or doctrine Others also among whom is Master David Dickson understand Church-censures to be here meant The Apostle is in that Chapter confuting the calumny of such as said of him His Epistles were weighty and powerful and did speak of great things but when he himself is bodily present he doth but little he assumes no great authority he is weak and almost contemptible In answer hereunto he tells them The weapons of our warfare speaking not onely in his own name but in the name of all the Ministers of Christ though they be not carnal yet they are mighty through God to conquer and captivate souls to the obedience of Christ. And as for the stubborn and unruly we are armed with a power of corrective government which shall be more fully executed in due time There is but one of two Interpretations which can with any probability seem to agree to this Text namely that it is meant either of the extraordinary Apostolical power by which they did miraculously punish some offenders as Peter did Ananias and Sapphira and as Paul did Eâ—…ymas or of a corrective Church-government and Excommunication The Reasons which induce me to believe that the Apostle meaneth here of Church-censures especially Excommunication and not of that extraordinary miraculous power are these 1. The reason added When your obedience is fulfilled cannot suit to the power of working miracles for it had been the more seasonable to work such miracles while the obedience of the Corinthians was not yet fulfilled Miracles are not for them that believe but for them that believe not saith the same Apostle But it suits very well to the power of Church-censures for as Esthius and Novarinus explain the Apostles reason it is in vain to excommunicate all such as are worthy of Excommunication when there is a general reâ—itency and unwillingnesse in the Church or to cut off a member when the same evil hath infected either the whole or the greatest part of the body which Augustine also tells us in divers places And this by the way confirms the reason which I gave why the Apostle onely wisheth those that troubled the Galatians to be cut off but doth not command it in regard of the present unwillingnesse and disaffection of those Churches 2. We may have a great deal of light to this place by comparing it with Chaâ—… 12. verse 20 21. and Chap. 13. verse 2. Many among the Corinthians had sinned foul and â—eandalous sins whereof they had not repented and for which they were not censured or cast out of the Church The Apostle certifieth them that if he come he will not spare What was it his meaning to work a miracle upon every fornicator and each other scandalous person in the Church of Corinth No sure mark his words Now I write to them which heretofore have sinned and to ALL OTHER that if I come again I will not spare Who can imagine his meaning to be that he would work a miracle upon them and all other So â—ere when it is said having in readinessâ—… to 〈◊〉 ALL 〈◊〉 let it be remembred that the Apostolical power of miracles was never appointed to be executed against ALL disobedience Thirdly that which the Apostle saith of the Spiritual weapons mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds c. was not proper or peculiar to the Apostles but is rightly applied to all the Ministers of the Gospel the more hardly can it be supposed that what is immediately added and as it were with one breath uttered And having in readinesse to 〈◊〉 all disobedience is meant of the extraordinary Apostolical power Fourthly such as the weapons are for conquering and subduing souls to the obedience of Christ such is the corrective or punitive part there spoken of But the weapons for conquering are meerly Spiritual not corporal Therefore the corrective or punitive part there spoken of is also Spiritual and so doth not concern the inflicting of corporal punishment such as the Erastians understand by delivering to Satan Fifteenthly an Ecclesiastical ruling power may be proved from 2 Cor. 2. 8. I beseech you that you would confirm your love towards him Here is a Juridical power of loosing and consequently of binding for it belongeth to the same power to binde and loose to excommunicate and to absolve An authoritative juridical loosing I prove from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifieth the making a thing sure or firm by a decisive suffrage authoritative judgement or ratificatory and obligatory sentence past upon it Hen. Stephanus in Thes. linguae Gr. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that this Text 2 Cor. 2. 8. is more rightly read Ut ratam faciatis in illum charitatem then as the vulgar Latin hath it Ut confirmetis The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he expoundeth thus Auctoritatem do auctoritate mea comprobo vel ratum habeo ratum facio Pasor renders the same Verb sancio ratum facio and citeth for that sence 2 Cor. 2. 6. So Erasmus likewise upon the place So Cartwright upon the same place against the Rhemists So Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trident. part 4. de Indulg pag. 53. The force of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was urged against the opinion of Erastus in a publike Dispute at Heydelberg the narration whereof is left by Ursinus in his Catechetical explications That the word signifieth an authoritative act and supposeth a ruling power may be thus further confirmed First who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No doubt the Apostle borroweth the word from the language and customs of the Heathen Greeks Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a fixed or set lawful Assembly which met with a judicial ruling power and ratified a thing by decisive suffrages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stephanus and Scapula in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus in 2 Cor. 2. 8. Arias Montanus in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us that to the
an Heathen man and a Publican 6. This interpretation as it is fathered upon Grotius so it may be confuted out of Grotius upon the very place He expounds Tell it unto the Church by the same words which Drusius citeth è libro Musar declare it coram multis before many But is this any other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many spoken of 2 Cor 2. 6 a place cited by Grotius himselfe together with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. Now these were acts of Ecclesiasticall power and authority not simply the acts of a greater number He tels us also it was the manner among the Jewes to referre the businesse ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the assembly of those who were of the same way or followed the same rites the judgements of which multitude saith he seniores tanquam praesides moderabantur the Elders as Presidents did moderate He further cleares it out of Tertullian apol cap. 39. where speaking of the Churches or assemblies of Christians he saith ibidem etiam exhortationes castigationes censura divina c. praesident probati quique seniores Where there are also exhortations corrections and Divine censure c. all the approved Elders doe preside And is not this the very thing we contend for I hope I may now conclude that Tell the Church is neither meant of the civill Magistrate nor simply of a greater number but of the Elders or as others expresse it better of the Eldership or Assembly of Elders So Stephanus Scapula and Pasor in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin Bucerus Illyricus Beza Hunnius Tossanus Pareus Cartwright Camero Diodati the Dutch annotations all upon the place Marlorat in Thesauro in the word Ecclesia Zanchius in 4. Praec pag. 741. Iunius Animad in Bell. Contr. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6. Gerhard loc theol Tom. 6. pag. 137. Meisuerus Disput. de regim Eccles. quaest 1. Trelcatius Instit. Theol. lib. 1. pag. 291. Polanus Syntag. lib. 7. cap. 1. Bullinger in 1 Cor. 5. 4. Whittaker de Ecclesia quaest 1. cap. 2. Danaeus in 1 Tim. pag. 246. 394. These and many more understand that neither the Magistrate nor the multitude of the Church nor simply a great number is meant by the Church Matth. 18. but the Elders or Ecclesiasticall senate who have the name of the Church partly by a Synâ—cdoche because they are a chief part of the Church as otherwhere the people or flock distinct from the Elders is called the Church Act. 20. 28. partly because of their eminent station and principall function in the Church as we say we have seen such a mans Picture when haply t is but from the shoulders upward partly because the Elders act in all matters of importance so as they carry along with them the knowledge and consent of the Church And therefore according to Salmeron his observation Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 9. Christ would not say Tell the officers or Rulers of the Church but Tell the Church because an obstinate offender is not to be excommunicate secretly or in a corner but with the knowledge and consent of the whole Church so that for striking of the sinner with the greater fear and shame in regard of that knowledge and consent of the Church the telling of the officers is called the telling of the Church partly also because of the ordinary manner of speaking in the like cases that which is done by the Parliament is done by the Kingdom and that which is done by the common Councell is done by the City Among the Jewes with whom Christ and his Apostles were conversant this manner of speaking was usuall Danaeus where before cited citeth R. David Kimchi upon Ose. 5. noting that the name of the house of Israel is often put for the Sanhedrin in Scripture T is certaine the Sanhedrin hath divers times the name Kabal in the Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek of the old Testament Which is acknowledged even by those who have contended for a kind of popular Government in the Church See Guide unto Zion pag. 5. Ainsworth in his Counterpoison pag. 113. CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. THey that doe not understand Matth. 18. 17. of Excommunication are extreamely difficulted and scarce know what to make of that binding and loosing which is mentioned in the words immediately following v. 18. verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Erastus and Grotius understand it of a private brother or the party offended his binding or loosing of the offender Bishop Bilson understands it of a civill binding or loosing by the Magistrate whom he conceives to be meant by the Church vers 17. These doe acknowledge a coherence and dependance between vers 17. and 18. M r Prynne differing from them doth not acknowledge this coherence and expounds the binding and loosing to be ministeriall indeed but onely Doctrinall Some others dissenting from all these doe referre this binding and loosing not to a person but to a thing or Doctrine whatsoever ye shall bind that is whatsoever ye shall declare to be false erroneous impious c. Sutlivius though he differ much from us in the Interpretation of vers 15 16 17. yet he differeth as much if not more from the Erastians in the Interpretation of vers 18. for he will have the binding and loosing to be Ecclesiasticall and spirituall not civill to be Juridicall not Doctrinall onely to be Acts of Government committed to Apostles Bishops and Pastors he alloweth no share to ruling Elders yet he alloweth as little of the power of binding and loosing either to the Magistrate or to the party offended See him de Presbyteriâ—… Cap. 9. 10. So that they can neither satisfie themselves nor others concerning the meaning and the context For the confutation of all those Glosses and for the vindication of the true scope and sence of the Text I shall first of all observe whence this phrase of binding and loosing appeareth to have been borrowed namely both from the Hebrewes and from the Graecians The Hebrews did ascribe to the Interpreters of the Law Power authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to loose So Grotius tells us on Mat. 16. 19. The Hebrews had their loosing of an Excommunicated person which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Buxtorf Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 1410. The Grecians also had a binding and loosing which was judiciall Budaeus and Stephanus on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cite out of Aeschines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quum primo suffragio non absolutus fuerit reus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the stone by which the Senators did give their suffrage in judgement It was either a blacke stone by which they did bind the sinner and retaine his sinne and that stone
not to be made use of till all other meanes have been essayed ante tentanda omnia saith Munsterus first a private admonition then before witnesses then the matter is brought to the Church the Church declareth and judgeth the offender neglecteth to heare the Church then after all this commeth the binding which must needs be a binding with censures for that binding which Master Prynne speakes of the denouncing of the wrath of God against the impenitent by the preaching of the Gospell is not neither ought to be suspended or delayed upon such degrees of proceeding Sixthly this binding and loosing is not without two or three witnesses vers 16. But that of two or three witnesses relateth to a forensicall or judiciall proceeding as M r Prynne himselfe tels us These witnesses may be brought before the Ecclesiasticall court either to prove the offenders contumacy being admonished or to prove the scandalous fact it selfe which was from the beginning knowne to two or three witnesses according to the sence of Schoolmen expressed in the precedent Chapter Seventhly this phrase of binding and loosing is taken both from the Hebrews and from the Grecians But both the Hebrews and the Grecians used these words in a juridicall sence as I observed in the beginning Eighthly that the binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. is juridicall not doctrinall belonging to the power of jurisdiction not of order is the sence of the ancients above cited as likewise of Scotus lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Quaest. 1. art 5. Tostatus in Matth. 18. Quest. 113. yea the current both of Schoolmen and of Interpreters as well Protestant as Popish runneth that way It were too long to cite all Yea further Salmasius in appar ad lib. de primatu pâ—…p 296. understands the binding and loosing Matth. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 23. of Discipline So Walaeus Tom. 1. pag. 92. So divers others From the same places Aretius Theol. probl loc 133. de excom draws Excommunication as an Ordinance of Christ. From the same two Texts Ioh. 20. 23. and Matth. 16. 19. Dionysius Areop agita de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 7. sect 7. doth prove that Christ hath committed unto the Ministers of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His ancient Scholiast Maximus upon that place tels us that he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of excommunications and separations or as he there further explaineth the judging and separating between the righteous and the wicked Salmeron upon Matth. 16. 19. thinks that the latter part of that verse And whatsoever thou shalt binde on Earth c. doth belong to the power of jurisdiction and censure Hugo de S. Victore de Sacramentis lib. 1. cap. 26. doth also expound Matth. 16. 19. of the forensicall power of Excommunication Now if in these places binding and loosing remitting and retaining sinnes comprehend a juridicall power of laying on or taking off Church censures how much more must this Juridicall power be comprehended Matth. 18. 18. where the context and circumstances will much more enforce this sence then in the other two places this binding and loosing being also in the plurall number Whatsoever ye bind c. not in the singular as the phrase is Matth. 16. 19. Whatsoever thou shalt bind c. One Minister may bind doctrinally but one alone can not bind juridically Ninthly the very doctrinall or concionall binding which is yeelded by M r Prynne is voyded and contradicted by the admission of known scandalous impenitent sinners to the Sacrament for he that is admitted to the Sacrament is loosed not bound remission not condemnation is supposed to be sealed up to him as is manifest by the words of the Institution Matth. 26. 27 28. Drinke ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes So that without a power of binding by censures and namely by suspension from the Sacrament one and the same scandalous impenitent person shall be bound by the word and loosed by the Sacrament Surely he that is to be bound by the word ought also to be bound by suspension from the Sacrament unlesse we make one publique Ordinance to contradict another Tenthly doth M r Prynne believe that Jesus Christ hath any where given to Church-officers a forensicall or juridicall power of binding by Excommunication and loosing by Absolution or receiving againe into the communion of the Church If he doth believe it then I aske where hath Christ committed that power unto them if not Matth. 18 If he doth not believe that Christ hath given any such power then why doth he hold Excommunication to be lawfull and warrantable by the Word of God Most certaine it is that neither King nor Parliament nor Eldership nor Synod nor any power on earth may or ought to prohibite or keepe backe from the Sacrament such as Christ hath not commanded to be kept backe or to bind sinners by Excommunication if Christ hath given no such commission to bind in that kind Eleventhly it may give us some light in this present Question to compare the phrase of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 19. with Psalm 149. 6 7 8 9. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth and a two-edged Sword in their hand to execute vengeance upon the Heathen and pnnishments upon the people To bind their Kings with chaines and their Nobles with fetters of Iron To execute upon them the judgement written This honour have all his Saints Which both Jewish and Christian Interpreters referre to the Kingdome of Christ out of whose mouth proceedeth a two-edged Sword Revel 1. 16. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the phrase used in the Greeke version of Psalm 149. If it should be understood of temporall or externall victories and conquests of the Nations and their Kings so it was not fulfilled to the Jews in the old Testament and the Jewes doe now but in vaine flatter themselves with the expectation of such a thing to come There are but two expositions which are most received and confirmed The first is that the Saints shall judge the world together with Christ 1 Cor. 6. 2. and then vengeance shall be executed on the wicked and all they who would not have Christ to reigne over them shall be bound hand and foot and cast into utter darknesse This is the sence of Arnobius upon the place and the Jesuits of Doway Emmanuel Sa Jansenius Lorinus Menochius goe that way The other Exposition holds an accomplishment of the thing in this same world and this in a Spirituall sence concerning the Kingdome of Christ in this world is holden by Calvin Bucer VVestmeherus Heshusius Gesuerus Fabritius and others So the Dutch Annotations Augustine and Hierome both of them upon the place take the sword and the chaine and fetters to be meant of the word of God conquering and overcomming aliens and Hereticks and the mightiest enemies which others cleare from Isa. 45. 14. Men of stature shall come over unto thee
and they shall be thine they shall come after thee in chaines they shall come over But because the Psalmist maketh mention of a corrective or punitive judiciary power therefore others adde for making the sence more full the power of excommunication for which Lorinus citeth Bruno and Hugo Victorinus Of the Protestant Interpreters upon the place Gesnerus applieth it to the power of the Keyes to be made use of according to that which is written Math. 18. Fabritius conceiveth the Text to comprehend castigationes spirituales and he citeth Math. 16. 19. Math. 18. 18. Io. 20. 23. Heshusius cleareth it by the Instance of Theodosius excommunicated by Ambrose Master Cotton in his Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven pag. 53. applyeth it to the Ecclesiasticall power of the Keyes Bartholomaeus Coppen understands it of the spirituall rule and Kingdom of Christ and makes it paralell to 2 Cor. 10. 4. the weapons of our warrefare are not carnall but mighty through God to the pulling downe of strong holds vers 6. and having in readinesse to revenge all disobedience This judiciary Ecclesiasticall power is to be executed upon all such of the nations as fall under the Government of the Church according to the rule of Christ. And this honour have all his Saints that their Ministers are armed with a power They that follow this latter exposition will be easily induced to beleive that the binding and loosing Mat. 18. 19. is also judiciall or juridicall They that follow the former exposition will also observe that the phrase of binding in Scripture even where it is ascribed to the Church or Saints is used in a judiciary sence and therefore it is most sutable to the Scripture phrase to understand Mat. 18 19. in that sence As touching that other Exposition of the binding and loosing that the object it is exercised about is not a person but a thing or Doctrine for it is not said Whomsoever but whatsoever ye bind It is sufficiently confuted by much of that which hath been said already proving a forensicall binding and loosing even of persons Onely I shall adde these further considerations First the binding and loosing are Acts of the power of the Keyes and are exercised about the same object about which the power of the Keyes is exercised Math. 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes is exercised about persons for the Kingdom of heaven is opened or shut to persons not to Doctrines If it be said that the Keyes are for opening and shutting not for binding and loosing to this I answer with Alexr Alensis part 4. Quaest. 20. Membr 5. that these Keyes are as well for binding and loosing as for shutting and opening but the Act of binding and loosing doth agree to the Keyes immediately and in respect of the subject but the act of opening in reference to the last end Ibid. Membr 2. He had given this reason why the power of the Keyes is called the power of binding and loosing because although to open and shut be the more proper Acts of the Keyes themselves yet neverthelesse to loose and bind are the more proper Acts in reference to those who are to enter into the Kingdome or to be excluded from the same for the persons themselves which doe repent are the subject of loosing and they that repent not of binding Which is not so of opening and shutting for although the opening be to those that are loosed and the shutting to those that are bound yet those that are loosed are not the subject of opening as to the manner of speaking nor those that are bound the Subject of shutting So then antecedently binding and loosing are Acts of the power of the Keyes because a man is bound before he be shut up and loosed before the door be opened to him Secondly that Glosse which now I despute against doth suppose one of these two things either that binding and loosing cannot be exercised upon the same object at different times and that the binding is such as can never be loosed againe or otherwise that one and the same doctrine may be condemned at one time and approved at another time Both which are absurd and contrary to the generality of Divines Thirdly seeing the Scripture speaketh of binding and loosing in reference to persons as corporally so spiritually which I have before proved Why then shall persons be excepted from being the object of binding and loosing Matth. 18 Fourthly that of binding and loosing Mat. 18. 18. doth cohere with and is added by occasion of that which went before as is also before proved If this concerning the context be acknowledged it will carry it to persons for it was an offending brother not a false Doctrine which was spoken of in the verses preceding Fifthly binding and loosing here doth at least reach as farre as retaining or remitting of sinnes Io. 20. 23. but there it is Whosoever sinnes ye remit c. They whose sinnes are retained are bound Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever Mat. 18. 18. is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whomsoever by an Hypallage generis many examples whereof may be given in Scripture so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io. 1. 11. is expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all things that offend Mat. 13. 41. expounded by them that doe iniquity Vnlesse you please to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever sinnes ye bind upon men or loose from off them they shall be bound upon them or loosed from off them in heaven CHAP. VII That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication and by a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation Suspension from the Sacrament of a person unexcommunicated MAster Prynne in his first Quaere did aske whether that phrase 1 Cor. 5. To deliver such a one to Sathan be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament onely This he saith I did in my Sermon wave with a rhetoricall preterition I answer for the latter part of the Quaere I know not the least ground for who did ever expound it of suspension from the Sacrament onely for the former part of it it s not necessary to be debated therefore for husbanding time and not to multiply Questions unnecessarily I said in my Sermon that the Question ought to be whether that Chapter not whether that phrase prove excommunication and that we have a shorter way to prove excommunication from the last words of that Chapter as Doctor Moulin doth in his Vates lib. 2. cap. 11. And if I should grant that delivering such a one to Sathan signifieth either of those things which Master Prynne conceiveth that is a bodily possession torture or vexation by Sathan inflicted either by the apostolicall power of miracles or by Gods immediate permission yet that will not prove that it signifieth no more Therefore Peter Martyr upon the place thinks that the Apostles delivering of the man to Sathan by a miraculous act and the Churches delivering of him to Sathan by Excommunication doe very
bondage Grotius his Interpretation of the word Church not inconsistent with ours Divers Authors of the best note for our Interpretation that is that by the Church here is meant the Elders of the Church assembled The name of the Church given to the Elders for four considerations CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. OUr Opposites extreamly difficulted and divided in this point Binding and loosing both among Hebrews Grecians authoritative forensicall words Antiquity for us which is proved out of Augustine Hierome Ambrose Chrysostome Isidorus Pelusiota Hilary Theophylact. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private persons nor to civill Magistrates but to Church officers and that in reference 1. to the bonds of sinne and iniquity 2. To the dogmaticall decision of controversies concerning the will of Christ. That this power of binding and loosing is not meerely doctrinall but juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall censure This cleared by the coherence and dependency between verse 17. and 18 which is asserted against M. Prynne and further confirmed by eleven reasons In which the agreement of two on earth verse 19. the restriction of the rule to a brother or Church-member also Matth 16. 19. John 20. 23. Psalm 149. 6 7 8 9. are explained Another Interpretation of the binding and loosing that it is not exercised about persons but about things or Doctrines confuted by â—ive reasons How binding and loosing are acts of the power of the Keys as well as shutting and opening CHAP. VII That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication and bâ— a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation Suspension from the Sacrament of a person un excommunicated THe weight of our proofs not laid upon the phrase of delivering to Sathan Which phrase being set aside that Chapter will prove Excommunication verse 8. Let us keepe the Passeover c. applied to the Lords Supper even by M. Prynne himselfe Master Prynnes first exception from 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 20 21. concerning the admission of all the visible members of the Church of Corinth even drunken persons to the Sacrament answered His second a reflection upon the persons of men His third concerning these words No not to eate confuted Hence Suspension by necessary consequence His fourth exception taken off His three conditions which he requireth in Arguments from the lesser to the greater are false and doe not hold Our Argument from this Text doth not touch upon the rock of separation Eight considerations to prove an Ecclesiasticall censure and namely excommunication from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2 Cor. 2. More of that phrase to deliver such a one to Sathan CHAP. VIII Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper THe Question between M. Prynne me concerning Iudas much like unto that between Papists and Protestants concerning Peter Two things premised 1. That Matthew and Marke mentioning Christs discourse at Table concerning the Traytor before the Institution and distribution of the Lords Supper place it in its proper order and that Luke placeth it after the Sacrament by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or recapitulation which is proved by â—ive reasons 2. That the story Iohn 13. concerning Iudas and the sop was neither acted in Bethany two daies before the Passeover nor yet after the Institution of the Lords Supper The first Argument to prove that Iudas received not the Lords Supper from Ioh. 13. 30. he went out immediately after the sop Mr Prynnes foure answers confuted His opinion that Christ gave the Sacrament before the common supper is against both Scripture and Antiquity Of the word immediately The second Argument from Christs words at the Sacrament That which M. Prynne holds viz. that at that time when Christ infallibly knew Iudas to be lost he meant conditionally that his body was broken and his blood shed for Iudas confuted by three reasons The third Argument from the different expressions of Love to the Apostles with an exception while Iudas was present without an exception at the Sacrament M. Prynnes Arguments from Scripture to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament answered That Iudas received the Sacrament is no indubitable verity as Mr. Prynne cals it but hath been much controverted both among Fathers Papists and Protestants That the Lutherans who are much of M. Prynnes opinion in the point of Iudas his receiving of the Lords Supper that they may the better uphold their Doctrine of the wicked their eating of the true body of Christ yet are much against his opinion in the point of admitting scandalous persons not Excommunicated to the Sacrament M. Prynnes bold assertion that all the Ancients except Hilary onely doe unanimously accord that Iudas received the Lords Supper without one dissenting voyce disproved as most false and confuted by the testimonies of Clemens Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachymeres Ammonius Alexandrinus Tacianus Innocentius 3. Rupertus Tuitiensis yea by those very passages of Theophylact and Victor Antiochenus cited by himselfe Many moderne writters also against his opinion as of the Papists Salmeron Turrianus Barradius of Protestants Danaeus Kleinwitzius Piscator Beza Tossanus Musculus Zanchius Gomarus Diodati Grotius The testimonies cited by M. Prynne for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament examined some of them found false others prove not his point others who thinke that Iudas did receive the Sacrament are cleare against the admission of known prophane persons The confession of Bohemia and Belgia not against us but against Master Prynne CHAP. IX Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed THat Christ and his Apostles did eate the Passeover not before but after that Supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet and give the sop to Iudas These words before the Feast of the Passeover Joh. 13. 1. scanned The Jewes did eate the Passeover after meale but they had no meale after the Paschall supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 13. 2. needeth not be turned supper being ended but may suffer two other readings Christs sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Paschall supper and if it were it proves not that Iudas did eate of that Passeover more than 1 Cor. 15. 5. proves that Iudas did see Christ after his resurrection A pious observation of Cartwright Another of Chrysostome CHAP. X. That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lords Supper it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wicked persons from the Sacrament CHrists admitting of Iudas to the Sacrament when he knew him to be a divell could no more be a president to us then his choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle when he knew also that he was a divell Iudas his sinne was not scandalous but secret at that time when it is supposed that he did receive the Sacrament The same thing which M. Prynne makes to have been after the Sacrament to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament
by the Word of God and by the Confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches doth belong to the Christian Magistrate in matters of Religion Which I do but now touch by the way so far as is necessary to wipe off the aspersion cast upon Presbyterial Government The particulars I refer to Chapter 8. Our sixth Concession is That in extraordinary cases when Church-government doth degenerate into tyranny ambition and avarice and they who have the managing of the Ecclesiastical power make defection and fall into manifest Heresy Impiety or Injustice as under Popery and Prelacy it was for the most part then and in such cases which we pray and hope we shall never see again the Christian Magistrate may and ought to do diverse things in and for Religion and interpose his Authority diverse wayes so as doth not properly belong to his cognizance decision and administration ordinarily and in a Reformed and well constituted Church For extraordinary diseases must have extraordinary remedies More of this before A seventh Concession is this The Civil Sanction added to Church-government and Discipline is a free and voluntary Act of the Magistrate That is Church-government doth not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessitate the Magistrate to aid assist or corroborate the same by adding the strength of a Law But the Magistrate is free in this to do or not to do to do more or to do lesse as he will answer to God and his conscience it is a cumulative Act of favour done by the Magistrate My meaning is not that it is free to the Magistrate in genere moris but in genere entis The Magistrate ought to adde the Civil Sanction hic nunc or he ought not to do it It is either a duty or a sin it is not indifferent But my meaning is The Magistrate is free herein from all coaction yea from all necessity and obligation other then ariseth from the Word of God binding his conscience There is no power on Earth Civil or Spiritual to constrain him The Magistrate himself is his own Judge on Earth how far he is to do any cumulative Act of favour to the Church Which takes off that calumny that Presbyterial Government doth force or compel the conscience of the Magistrate I pray God we may never have cause to state the Question otherwise I mean concerning the Magistrate his forbidding what Christ hath commanded or commanding what Christ hath forbidden in which case we must serve Christ and our consciences rather then obey Laws contrary to the Word of God and our Covenant whereas in the other case of the Magistrate his not adding of the Civil Sanction we may both serve Christ and do it without the least appearance of disobedience to the Magistrate Eighthly We grant that Pastors and Elders whether they be considered distributively or collectively in Presbyteries and Synods being Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth ought to be subject and obedient in the Lord to the Magistrate and to the Law of the Land and as in all other duties so in Civil subjection and obedience they ought to be ensamples to the Flock and their trespasses against Law are punishable as much yea more then the trespasses of other Subjects Of this also before Ninthly If the Magistrate be offended at the sentence given or censure inflicted by a Presbytery or a Synod they ought to be ready in all humility and respect to give him an account and reason of such their proceedings and by all means to endeavour the satisfaction of the Magistrate his conscience or otherwise to be warned and rectified if themselves have erred CHAP. IV. Of the agreements and differences between the nature of the Civil and of the Ecclesiastical Powers or Governments HAving now observed what our opposites yeeld to us or we to them I shall for further unfolding of what I plead for or against adde here the chief agreements and differences between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers so far as I apprehend them They both agree in these things 1. They are both from God both the Magistrate and the Minister is authorized from God both are the Ministers of God and shall give account of their administrations to God 2. Both are tyed to observe the Law and Commandments of God and both have certain directions from the Word of God to guide them in their administration 3. Both Civil Magistrates and Church Officers are Fathers and ought to be honoured and obeyed according to the fifth Commandment Utrumque scilicet dominium saith Luther Tom. 1. fol. 139. both Governments the Civil and the Ecclesiastical do pertain to that Commandment 4 Both Magistracy and Ministery are appointed for the glory of God as Supreme and for the good of men as the subordinate end 5. They are both of them mutually aiding and auxiliary each to other Magistracy strengthens the Ministery and the Ministery strengthens Magistracy 6. They agree in their general kinde they are both Powers and Governments 7. Both of them require singular qualifications eminent gifts and endowments and of both it holds true Quis ad haec idoneus 8. Both of them have degrees of censures and correction according to the degrees of offences 9. Neither the one nor the other may give out sentence against one who is not convict or whose offence is not proved 10. Both of them have a certain kind of Jurisdiction in foro exteriori For though the Ecclesiastical power be spiritual and exercised about such things as belong to the inward man onely yet as Dr. Rivet upon the Decalogue pag. 260. 261. saith truly there is a two-fold power of external jurisdiction which is exercised in foro exteriori one by Church-Censures Excommunication lesser and greater which is not committed to the Magistrate but to Church-Officers Another which is Civil and coercive and that is the Magistrates But Mr. Coleman told us he was perswaded it will trouble the whole World to bound Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction the one from the other Maledicis pag. 7. Well I have given ten agreements I will now give ten differences The difference between them is great they differ in their causes effects objects adjuncts correlations executions and ultimate terminations 1. In the efficient cause The King of Nations hath instituted the Civil power The King of Saints hath instituted the Ecclesiastical power I mean the most high God possessor of Heaven and Earth who exerciseth Soverainty over the workmanship of his own hands and so over all mankind hath instituted Magistrates to be in his stead as gods upon Earth But Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church whom his Father hath set upon his holy Hill of Zion Psal. 2. 6. to reigne over the House of Jacob for ever Luke 1. 33. who hath the key of the House of David laid upon his shoulder Isa. 22. 22. hath instituted an Ecclesiastical power and goverment in the hands of Church-Officers whom in his name he sendeth forth 2. In the matter Magistracy or Civil
consolatoria promissione nanâ—… dieitur Sunt quidam de hinc 〈◊〉 qui non gustabuâ—…t mortem donec videant regâ—…um Dei The very same words hath Bedâ—… on Mark. 9. 1. following it seemes Gregory Grotius on Matth. 16. 28. doth likewise understand the promulgation of the Gospel and the Scâ—pter of Christ that is his law going out of Zion to be here meant I conclude as the Church is not onely a mystical but a political body So Christ is not onely a mystical but a political Head But peradventure some men will be bold to give another answer that the Lord Jesus indeed reigneth over the Church even in a political respect but that the administration and influence of this his Kingly office is in by and through the Magistrate who is supreme Judge Governour and Head of the Church under Christ. To this I answer Hence it would follow 1. That Christs Kingdom is of this World and commeth with observation as the Kingdoms of this World do which himself denieth Luke 17 20 Iohn 18 36. Next It would follow that Christ doth not reigne nor exercise his Kingly office in the Government of his Church under Pagan Turkish or persecuting Princes but onely under the Christian Magistrate which no man dare say 3. The Civil Magistrate is Gods Vicegerent but not Christs that is the Magistrates power hath its rise origâ—nation institution and deputation not from that speciall dominion which Christ exerciseth over the Church as Mediator and Head thereof But from that Universal Lordship and Soveraignity which God exerciseth over all men by right of Creation In so much that there had been for orders sake Magistrates or superior Powers though man had not fallen but continued in his innocency and now by the Law of Nature and Nations there are Magistrates among those who know nothing of Christ and among whom Christ reigneth not as Mediator though God reigneth over them by the Kingdom of power 4. If the Magistrate be supreme Head and Governour of the Church under Christ then the Ministers of the Church are the Magistrates Ministers as well as Christs and must act in the Magistrates name and as subordinate to him and the Magistrate shall be Christs Minister and act in Christs Name The seventeeth Argument I draw from the institution of Excommunication by Christ Matth. 18. 17. Tell it unto the Church But if he neglect to hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a Publican In which Text 1. All is restricted to a brother or a Church-member and agreeth not to him who is no Church-member 2. His treâ—pasle is here lookt upon under the notion of scandal and of that which is also like to destroy his owne soule 3. The scope is not civil but spiritual to gain or save his soul. 4. The proceedings are not without witnesses 5. There is a publick complaint made to the Church 6. And that because he appeares impenitent after admonitions given privatly and before two or three 7. The Church speaks and gives a Judgement concerning him which he is bound to obey 8. If he obey not then he is to be esteemed and held as a heathen man and a Publican 9. And that for his not hearing the Church which is a publike scandal concerning the whole Church 10. Being as as an Heathen and Publican he is kept back from some ordinances 11. He is bound on earth by Church-Officers Whatsoever ye bind c. 12. He is also bound in Heaven More of this place else-where These hints will now serve The Erastians deny that either the case or the court or the censure there mentioned is Ecclesiastical or Spiritual But I prove all the three First Christ speaketh of the case of scandals not of personal or civil injuries whereof he would be no Judge Luk. 12. 14. and for which he would not permit Christians to go to Law before the Roman Emperor or his deputies 1 Cor. 6. 1. 6. 7. But if their interpretation stand they must grant that Christ giveth laws concerning civil injuries and that he permitteth one of his disciples to accuse another for a civil injury before an unbeleeving Judge Beside Christ saith not If he shall hear thee thou hast from him a voluntary reparation of the wrong or satisfaction for it which is the end why we deal with one who hath done us a civil injury But he saith If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother intimating that the offending brother is told and admonished of his fault onely for a spiritual end for the good of his soul and for gaining him to repentance All which proveth that our Saviour meaneth not there of private or civil injuries as the Erastians suppose but of scandals of which also he had spoken much before as appeareth by the preceding part of that chapter A civil injury done by one brother to another is a scandal but every scandal is not a civil injury The Jewes to whose custome Christ doth here allude did excommunicate for diverse scandals which were not civil injuries And Paul saith of a scandal which was not a civil injury when ye sin so against the brethren c. 1 Cor. 8. 12. 2. The court is Ecclesiastical not civil for when it is said Tell it unto the Church must we not expound Scripture by Scripture and not understand the Word Church to be meant of a civil Court for though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Act. 19. reoitative of a heathenish civil assembly called by that name among those heathens yet the pen-men of the holy Ghost have not made choice of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any place of the new Testament to expresse a civil court either of Jewes or Christians So that we cannot suppose that the holy Ghost speaking so as men may understand him would have put the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place to signifie such a thing as no where else in the new Testament it is found to signifie Nay this very place expoundeth it self for Christ directeth his speech to the Apostles and in them to their Successors in the government of the Church Whatsoever ye shall bind c. And if two of you shall agree c. So that the church which here bindeth or judgeth is an Assembly of the Apostles Ministers or Elders of the church 3. The censure is spirituall as appeareth both by these words Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican which relate to the Excommunication from the church of the Jewes and comprehendeth not onely an exclusion from private fellowship and company which was the condition of the Publicans with whom the Jewes would not eat but also an exclusion from the Temple Sacrifices and communion in the holy things which was the condition of heathens yea of prophane Publicans too of which elsewhere And further it appeareth by these words Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth c. The Apostles had no power to inflict any
civil punishment but they had power to bind the soul and to retain the sin Ioh. 20. 23. And this power of binding is not in all the Scripture ascribed to the civil Magistrate The eighteenth Argument shall be drawn from the example of excommunication 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. The Apostle writeth to the church of Corinth to deliver to Sathan for the delivery to Sathan was an act of the church of Corinth as the Syriack explaineth it the incestuous man which is called a censure inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. that is by the whole Presbytery of the Church of Corinth And whereas some understand by delivering to Sathan the putting forth of the extraordinary Apostolicall power to the working of a miracle upon the offender by giving him over into the hands of Sathan so as to be bodily tormented by him or to be killed and destroyed as Erastus takes it I answer 1. It cannot be meant of death for it is said that Hymeneus and Alexander were delivered to Sathan and to what end that they might learne not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20 which had been too late to learn after death 2. Nor is it at all meant of any miraculous tormenting of the body by the divel for beside that it is not likely this miracle could have been wrought Paul himself not being present to work it it is utterly incredible that the Apostle would have so sharply rebuked the Church of Corinth for that a miracle was not wrought upon the incestuous man it not being in their power to do or that he would seek the consent of that Church to the working of a miracle and as a joynt act proceeding from him and the Church by common counsell and deliberation for where read wee of any miracle wrought that way Therefore it is much more safe to understand by delivering to Sathan as Gualther himself doth Excommunication which is a shutting out of a Church-member from the Church whereby Sathan commeth to get dominion and power over him for he is the God of this World who reigneth at his pleasure in and over those who are not the Church and people of God 2 Cor. 4. 4. Eoh. 2. 2. And if any shall be so far unsatisfied as not to admit this sence which we put upon that phrase of delivering to Sathan Yet our Argument for Excommunication drawn from 1 Cor. 5. standeth strong the weight of it not being laid upon tradere Satanae onely but upon vers 6. 7. 11 12. compared with 2 Cor. 2. 6. which undeniably prove Excommunication from Church fellowship The nineteenth Argument shall be drawn from Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compared with 1 Pet. 5. 2. 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Texts as they hold forth a Bishop and a Presbyter to be one and the same Iure divino so they hold forth the ruling power of Presbyters or Elders First Because otherwise the simile so much made use of in these Scriptures of overseeing the flock mentioned and joyned together with the feeding thereof will fall short in a main and most materiall point for the overseers of flocks do not onely make them to lye down in green pastures and lead them beside the still waters but they have also rodds and staves for ruling the flocks and for correcting and reducing the wandring sheep which will not be brought home by the voice of the shepheard Psal. 23. 2. 4. The Pastorall rod there mentioned by David is corrective as Clemens Alexandrinus paedag lib. 1. cap. 7. who doth also paralel it with that 1 Cor. 4. Shall I comâ— unto you with a rod Secondly Paul requireth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to take heed unto and to oversee the whole flock which did consist of more then did or could then meet together ordinarily into one place for the worship of God as appeareth by the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla which was one but not the onely one Church assembly at Ephesus by the great and wonderfull increase of the Gospel at Ephesus and such other Arguments which I do but point at the full debate of them not being my present work Peter also writing to the Churches of the strangers in severall provinces calls them the flock not flocks and commends unto the Elders the feeding and oversight of that flock Now what is it that can denominate many particular visible Churches or Congregations to be one visible ministeriall flock or Church unlesse it be their union and association under one Ecclesiasticall Government No doubt they had the administration of the Word and Sacraments partitive or severally Nor do I deny but they had a partitive several Government but there was also an union or association of them under one common Government which did denominate them to be one visible Ecclesiastical flock Thirdly The very name given to the Elders of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name of authority rule and government especially in the Christian and Ecclesiasticall use of the Word H. Stephanus in Thes. ling. Gr. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that the Elders of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit saith he those qui verbo gubernationi praeeraâ—…t Where he tells us also that the Magistrate or Praetor who was sent with a Judiciall power into those Townes which were undâ—r the power of the Athenians was called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Septuagints use the word Nehem. 11. 9. Ioel the son of Ziâ—…hri was their overfeer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Judah the son of Senuah was second over the City He that had but the second place was a Ruler how much more he that was in the first place Loe here the head and chief Ruler of the Benjamites called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Numb 31. 14. 2 Kings 11. 15. the chief officers of the Host the Captains over thousands and captains over hundreds are called by the Septuâ—gints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Hebrew words which they render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praefectus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praepositus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princeps Yea the name of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render by this word Iob. 20. 29. This is the portion of a wicked man from God and the heritage appointed to him by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek by the overseer even as the same name of Bishop is given to Christ 1 Pet. 2. 25. Conradus Kirchâ—…rus in the word Pakad tells us also that Gen. 41. 34. Lâ—…t Pharaoh do this and let him appoint Officers over the Land where the 70. read
have suffered in his person or estate all the punishment which he ought to suffer so that he hath now made a civil atonement as I may call it for his offence and the Christian Magistrate hath no further to charge him with Suppose also that he is by such corporal or civil punishments as by a bit and bridle over-awed and restrained from committing again the like extâ—rnal acts Notwithstanding he hath not the least signe of true repentance and godly sorrow for his former foul and scandalous sins and he is known to be not an accuser but an excuser of himself for those faults and scandals Such a one comes and desires to receive the Sacrament Must his poenal satisfaction to the Christian Magistrate be a sufficient poenitential satisfaction to the Church Here is a rock which the Erâ—…stians dash upon unlesse they admit of a distinct Ecclesiastical Judgement concerning the signes of repentance in a scandalous sinner according to which as these signes shall appear or not appear he is to be admitted or not admitted to the Sacrament Twelfthly the power of binding and loosing is not a temporary but a perpetual power that is appointed by Christ to continue in his Church alwaies unto the end Now this power is given onely to Church-officers and Christ hath not given the keyes of discipline and the power of binding and loosing of which else-where to the Magistrate nay not to the Christian Magistrate more then to the Infidel Magistrate Let the least hint be found in Scripture where Christ hath given any such power to the Christian Magistrate and I yeeld the cause Thirteenthly The new Testament holdeth out as little of the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments under a ChriÌ„stian Magistrate as it doth of a Church-government under a Christian Magistrate Shall this therefore strengthen the Socinian Tenent That Baptisme is not a perpetual Ordinance in the Church and that we are not obliged by that commission which the Apostles had to baptize God forbid Fourteenthly The German Anabaptists required an expresse warrant or example in the New Testament of a Christian Magistrate or of the sword and wars in a Christian State yet this hath been thought no good Argument against Magistracy and wars among Christians I cannot pretermit a passage of Gualther who may seem to be opposite to me in this present Question Even he in his Homily upon Iohn 9. 22. after he hath spoken of Excommunication in the Jewish Church and in the Apostolick Churches he addeth And this day also there is need of Ecclesiastical discipline which being instituted in the Reformed Churches ought to be diligently kept lest the indulgence of Magistrates which reignes almost every where should render the Doctrine of the Gospel suspected among those that are without and that themselves also may be contained in their office and may not think that any thing they will is lawful to them in the Church But after all this let me put Mr. Hussey and other Erastians in mind that if they do acknowledge that Jesus Christ hath instituted or commanded that there be a Church Government and power of censures distinct from the Civil Government when the Magistrate is Heathenish or Idolatrous let them speak it out and let us agree so far Otherwise if they do not agree in this it is but a blind for them to make use of this distinction that where the Magistrate is Christian there is no necessity of a distinct Church-Government I conclude with a passage of Mr. Prynne in his twelve considerable serious Questions touching Church-Government The ninth of those Questions runs thus Whether the Independents challenge of the Presbyterians to shew them any National Church professing Christ in our Saviours or the Apostles daies before any one Nation totally converted to the Christian Faith or any general open profession made of it by the Princes Magistrates and major part of any Nation Kingdom Republick who were then all generally Pagans and Persecutors of the Gospel not then universally imbraced be not a most irrational unjust demand Sure if this hold against the Independents it will hold as strongly yea more strongly against the Erastians to prove their demand to be most irrational and unjust while they challenge us to shew them in the New-Testament a distinct Church-Government under a Christian Magistrate or where the State was Christian though themselves know Magistrates and States were then generally Pagan and not Christian Yea there was in those daies much more of a national Church then of a Christian Magistrate An Appendix to the second Book containing a Collection of some Testimonies not cited before And first a Testimony of King Iames in a Declaration of his penned with his own hand signed and delivered to the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland at Linlithgow December 7. Anno 1585. I For my part shall never neither my posterity ought ever cite summon or apprehend any Pastor or preacher for matters of Doctrine in Religion Salvation Heresies or true Interpretation of the Scripture but according to my first act which confirmeth the liberty of preaching the Word ministration of the Sacraments I avouch the same to be a matter meer Ecclesiastical and altogether impertinent to my calling Therefore never shall I nor ever ought they I mean my posterity acclaim any power or Iurisdiction in the foresaids His Majesties meaning was that he ought not to do this in prima instantiâ that is before the person be accused convict or judged in any Ecclesiastical Court. which was the Question at that time occasioned by Mr. Andrew Melvill his Case Afterward in the same Declaration it followeth thus Christ saying Dic Ecclesiae and one onely man stealing that dint in a quiet hole the Act of Parliament reduceth the sentence for informality and nullity of processe not as Iudges whether the Excommunication was grounded on good and just causes or not but as witnesses that it was unformally proceeded against the warrant of Gods Word example of all Reformed Kiâ—ks and your owne particular custome in this Countrey A little after I mind not to cut off any liberty granted by God to his Kirk I acclaim not to my self to be judge of Doctrine in Religion salvation heresies or true Interpretation of Scripture And after My Intention is not to meddle with Excommunication neither acclaim I to my self or my Heires power in any thing that is meer Ecclesiastical and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor with any thing that Gods Word hath simply devolved in the hands of his Kirk And to conclude I confesse and acknowledge Christ Iesus to be Head and Law-giver to the same And what soever persons do attribute to themselves as Head of the Kirk and not as Member to suspend or alter any thing that the Word of God hath onely remitted to them that man I say committeth manifest Idolatry and sinneth against the Father in not trusting the Words of his Son against the Son in not obeying him and taking
of Joh. 20. 23. not of the Jewish Church It maketh the more against him I am sure that it s spoken to and of Christs Disciples for this proveth that the Church vers 17. is not the Jewish Sanhedrin but the Christian Presbytery then instituted and afterwards erected and that the thing which makes one as an Heathen and a Publican is binding of his sinnes upon him And for the context immediatly after Christ had said If he neglect to heare the Church let him be unto thee c. he addeth Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on earth c. The dependency is very cleare A Christian having first admonished his brother in private then having taken two or three witnesses after this having brought it to the publique cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Consistory and after all that the offender being for his obstinacy excommunicate here is the last step no further progresse Now might one thinke what of all this what shall follow upon it Nay saith Christ it shall not be in vaine it shall be ratisied in Heaven And as the purpose cohereth so that forme of words Verily I say unto you is ordinarily used by Christ to signifie his continuing and pressing home the same purpose which he had last mentioned as Matth. 5. 26. Matth. 6. 2. Matth. 8. 10. Matth. 10. 15. Matth. 11. 11. Matth. 18. 3. Matth. 19. 23 28. Matth. 21. 31. Matth. 23. 36. Matth. 26. 13. Matth. 24. 34 47. Marke 10. 15. 12. 43. 13. 30. Luke 12. 37. and many the like passages To my best observation I have found no place where Christs Verily I say unto you begins a new purpose which hath no coherence with nor dependency upon the former This coherence of the Text and the dependency of vers 18. upon that which went before which dependency is acknowledged by Erastus who perceiving that he could not deny the dependency fancieth that the binding and loosing is meant of the offended brothers pardoning or not pardoning of the offender Confirm Thes. pag. 157. doth also quite overthrow Master Prynnes other answer that this binding and loosing is onely meant of preaching the Gospell and of denouncing remission of sinnes to the penitent and wrath to the impenitent Nay That potestas clavium conoionalis is instituted in other places but here its potestas clâ—…vium disciplinalis as is evident First by the coherence of the Text and by the taking of two or three more and then telling of the thing to the Church all which intimateth a rising as from one or two or three more so from them to the Church which cannot be meant of one man as hath been argued against both Pope and Prelate for no one man can be called a Church neither hath one man the power of jurisdiction but one man hath the power of preaching Secondly the Apostles and those who succeed them in the worke of the Ministery have the same power of the Keys committed from Christ to them ministerially which Christ hath committed from the father to him as Mediator authoritatively For in the parallel place Ioh. 20. v. 21 23. where he gives them power of remitting or retaining sinnes he saith As my Father hath sent me even so send I you But the Father gave Christ such a power of the Keyes as comprehends a power of Government and not meerely doctrinall Isa. 22. 21 22. I will commit the government into his hand c. And the Keyes of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder Thirdly It may be proved also by that which immediately followeth vers 19. Againe I say unto you that if two of you shall agree on earth c. which cannot be meant of the power of preaching for neither the efficacy of preaching nor the ratification of it in Heaven nor the fruit of it on Earth doth depend upon this that two preachers must needs agree in the same thing But it agreeth well to the power of Discipline concerning which it answereth these two objections First it might be said the Apostles and other Church-governours may fall to be very few in this or that Church where the offence riseth shall we in that case execute any Church-discipline Yes saith Christ if there were but two Church-officers in a Church where no more can be had they are to exercise Discipline and it shall not be in vaine Againe it might be objected be they two or three or more what if they doe not agree among themselves To that he answereth there must be an agreement of two Church-officers at least otherwise the sentence shall be null we can not say the like of the doctrinall power of binding or loosing that it is of no force nor validity unlesse two at least agree in the same doctrine as hath been said two must agree in that sentence or censure which is desired to be ratified in Heaven and then they binding on Earth and unanimously calling upon God to ratifie it in Heaven it shall be done Fourthly this binding and loosing can not goe without the Church it is applicable to none but a Church member or a Brother So the threed of the Text goes along from vers 15. If thy Brother trespasse against thee and vers 16. thou hast gained thy Brother And when it is said Tell the Church it is supposed that the offender is a member of the Church over whom the Church hath authority and of whom there is hope that he will heare the Church And when it is said Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican it is supposed that formerly he was not unto us as an Heathen man and a Publican For these and the like reasons Tostatus in Matth. 18. quaest 91. and divers others hold that this rule of Christ is not applicable to those who are without the Church But if the binding and loosing be meant onely of preaching the Gospell as Master Prynne would have it then it were applicable to those that are not yet baptised nor made Church members for unto such the Gospell hath been and may be preached The binding and loosing which is proper to a Brother or to a Church member must be a juridicall power of censures of which the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge them also that are without Doe not ye judge them that are within Therefore Chrysostome Hom. 61. in Matth. according to the Greeke Hom. 60. doth parallel Matth. 18. with 1 Cor. 5. proving that this rule of Christ is not applicable to one that is without but onely to a brother Which Paul also saith in these words What have I to doe to judge them also that are without But he commandeth us to convince and reduce brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to cut off the disobedient this he Christ doth also in this place Theophylact also on Matth. 18. noteth the same restriction of this rule of Christ to a Christian Brother Fifthly this binding power is