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
whole Diocesse consisting it may be of some hundreds of Congregations holding that the Ministers of particular Congregations did preach the Word and minister the Sacraments in his name by vertue of authority and order from him and because he could not act by himself in every Congregation The Presbyteriall Government acknowledgeth no Pastorall charge of preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments to more Congregations then one and doth acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches being lawfully called to have power and authority for preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments in the name of Christ and not in the name of the Presbyterie 5. The Prelates as they denyed the power and authority of Pastors so they utterly denyed the very offices of ruling Elders and Deacons for taking more especiall care of the poor in particular Congregations 6. They did not acknowledge Congregationall Elderships nor any power of discipline in particular Congregations which the Presbyteriall Government doth 7. They intruded Pastors oft times against the consent of the Congregation and reclamante Ecclesiâ which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 8. They ordained Ministers without any particular charge which the Presbyterial Government doth not 9 In Synods they did not allow any but the Clergie alone as they kept up the name to have decisive suffrage The Presbyterial Government gives decisive voices to ruling Elders as well as to Pastors 10. The Prelates declined to be accountable to and censurable by either Chapters Diocesan or Nationall Synods In Presbyteriall Government all in whatsoever Ecclesiasticall administration are called to an account in Presbyteries Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies respectively and none are exempted from Synodicall censures in case of scandall and obstinacy 11. The Prelates power was not meerly Ecclesiasticall they were Lords of Parliament they held Civil places in the State which the Presbyterial Government condemneth 12. The Prelats were not chosen by the Church Presbyters are 13. The Prelates did presume to make Lawes binding the Conscience even in things indifferent and did persecute imprison fine depose excommunicate men for certain Rites and Ceremonies acknowledged by themselves to be indifferent setting aside the will and authority of the Law makers This the Presbyteriall Government abhorreth 14. They did excommunicate for money matters for trifles Which the Presbyteriall Government condemneth 15. The Prelates did not allow men to examine by the Judgement of Christian and private discretion their Decrees and Canons so as to search the Scriptures and look at the Warrants but would needs have men think it enough to know the things to be commanded by them that are in place and power Presbyteriall Government doth not lord it over mens consciences but admitteth yea commendeth the searching of the Scriptures whether these things which it holds forth be not so and doth not presse mens Consciences with Sic volo sic jubeo but desireth they may doe in faith what they do 16. The Prelates held up pluralities non-residencies c. Which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 17. As many of the Prelates did themselves neglect to preach the Gospel so they kept up in diverse places a reading non-preaching Ministery Which the Presbyteriall Goverment suffereth not 18. They opened the door of the Ministery to diverse scandalous Arminianized and popishly affected men and locked the door upon many worthy to be admitted The Presbyteriall Government herein is as contrary to theirs as theirs was to the right 19. Their Official Courts Commissaries c. did serve themselves Hâ—ires to the sons of Eli Nay but thou shalt give it me now and if not I will take it by force The Presbyterial Government 〈◊〉 such proceedings 20. The Prelates and their High-Commission Court did assume potâ—…statem utriusque gladij the power both of the Temporall and Civil Sword The Presbyteriall Government medleth with no Civil nor Temporall punishments I do not intend to enumerate all the differences between the Papal and Prelatical Government on the one side and the Presbyterial Government on the other side in this point of unlimitednesse or arbitrarynesse These differences which I have given may serve for a consciencious caution to intelligent and moderate men to beware of such odiouâ— and unjust comparisons as have been used by some and among others by Mr. Salâ—…marsh in his Parallel between the Prelacy and Presbyterie Which as it cannot strike against us nor any of the Reformed Churches who acknowledge no such Presbyterie as he describeth and in some particulars striketh at the Ordinance of Parliament as namely in point of the Directory so he that hath a mind to a Recrimination might with more truth lay diverse of those imputations upon those whom I beleeve he is most unwilling they should be laid upon In the third place The Presbyterian Government is more limited and lesse arbitrary than the Independent Government of single Congregations which exempting themselves from the Presbyterial subordination and from being accountable to and censurable by Classes or Synods must needs be supposed to exercise a much more unlimited or arbitrary power than the Presbyterial Churches do especially when this shall be compared and laid together with one of their three grand Principles which disclaimeth the binding of themselves for the future unto their present judgement and practice and avoucheth the keeping of this reserve to alter and retract See their Apologetical narration pag. 10 11. By which it appeareth that their way will not suffer them to be so far moulded into an Uniformity or bounded within certain particular rules I say not with others but even among themselves as the Presbyterian way will adâ—it of Finally The Presbyterial Government hath no such liberty nor arbitrarinesse as Civil or Military Government hath there being in all civil or temporal affairs a great deal of latitude 〈◊〉 to those who manage the same so that they command nor act nothing against the Word of God But Presbyterial Government is tyed up to the rules of Scripture in all such particulars as are properly spiritual and proper to the Church Though in other particular occasional circumstances of times places accommodations and the like the same light of nature and reason guideth both Church and State yet in things properly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical there is not near somuch latitude left to the Presbytery as there is in civil affairs to the Magistrate And thus I have made good what I said That Presbyterial Government is the most limited and least arbitrary Government of any other All which Vindication and clearing of the Presbyterial Government doth overthrow as to this Point Master Hussey's Observation pag. 9. of the irregularity and arbitrarinesse of Church-government And so much of my fourth Concâ—ssion The fifth shall be this 'T is far from our meaning that the Christian Magistrate should not meddle with matters of Religion or things and causes Ecclesiastical and that he is to take care of the Common-wealth but not of the Church Certainly there is much power and Authority which
be previous admonitions and the party admonished prove obstinate and impenitent The eighth difference stands in their correlations The Correlatum of Magistracy is people embodied in a Common-wealth or a Civil corporation The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a Church or Spiritual corporation The Common-wealth is not in the Church but the Church is in the Common-wealth that is One is not therefore in or of the Church because he is in or of the Common-wealth of which the Church is a part but yet every one that is a Member of the Church is also a Member of the Common-wealth of which that Church is a part The Apostle distinguisheth those that are without and those that are within in reference to the Church who were notwithstanding both sorts within in reference to the Common-wealth 1 Cor. 5. 12 13. The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power may be quite taken away by persecution or by defection when the Correlatum of the civil power may remain And therefore the Ecclesiastical and the civil power do not se mutuò ponere tollere Ninthly There is a great difference in the ultimate termination The Ecclesiastical power can go no further then Excommunication or in case of extraordinary warrants and when one is known to have blasphemed against the holy Ghost to Auathema Maranatha If one be not humbled and reduced by Excommunication the Church can do no more but leave him to the Judgement of God who hath promised to ratifie in Heaven what his Servants in his Name and according to his Will do upon Earth Salmasius spends a whole chapter in confuting the Point of the coactive and Magistratical Jurisdiction of Bishops See Walo Messal cap. 6. He acknowledgeth in that very place pag. 455 456 459 462 that the Elders of the Church have in common the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline to suspend from the Sacrament and to excommunicate and to receive the offender again upon the evidence of his repentance But the Point he asserteth is That Bishops or Elders have no such power as the Magistrate hath and that if he that is excommunicate do not care for it nor submit himself the Elders cannot compel him But the termination or Quo usque of the civil power is most different from this It is unto death or to banishment or to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment Ezra 7. 26. Tenthly They differ in a divided execution That is the Ecclesiastical power ought to censure sometime one whom the Magistrate thinks not fit to punish with temporal or civil punishments And again the Magistrate ought to punish with the temporal Sword one whom the Church ought not to cut off by the Spiritual Sword This difference Pareus gives Explic Catech. quaest 85. art 4. and it cannot be denied For those that plead most for Liberty of conscience and argue against all civil or temporal punishments of Hereticks do notwithstanding acknowledge that the Church whereof they are Members ought to censure and excommunicate them and doth not her duty except she do so The Church may have reason to esteem one as an Heathen and a Publican that is no Church-Member whom yet the Magistrate in prudence and policy doth permit to live in the Common-wealth Again the most notorious and scandalous sinners blasphemers murtherers adulterers incestuous persons robbers c. when God gives them repentance and the signes thereof do appear the Church doth not binde but loose them doth not retain but remit their sins I mean ministerially and declaratively Notwithstanding the Magistrate may and ought to do Justice according to Law even upon those penitent sinners CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdom of Iesus Christ a general Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God the Head of all Principalities and Powers raigning over all creatures and a particular Kingdom as he is Mediator raigning over the Church onely THe Controversie which hath been moved concerning the civil Magistrate his Vicegerentship and the holding of his Office of and under and for Jesus Christ as he is Mediator hath a necessary coherence with and dependance upon another Controversie concerning a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ one as he is the eternal Son of God raigning together with the Father and the holy Ghost over all things and so the Magistrate is his Vicegerent and holds his Office of and under him another as Mediator and Head of the Church and so the Magistrate doth not hold his Office of and under Christ as his Vicegerent Wherefore before I come to that Question concerning the origination and tenure of the Magistrate's Office I have thought good here to premise the enodation of the Question concerning the twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a distinction which Master Hussey cannot endure and no marvel for it overturneth the foundation of his opinion He looks upon it as an absurd assertion pag. 25. Shall he have one Kingdom as Mediator and another as God He quarrelleth all that I said of the twofold Kingdom of Christ and will not admit that Christ as Mediator is King of the Church onely pag. 25 26 27 35 36 37. The Controversie draweth deeper then he is aware of for Socinians and Photinians finding themselves puzzled with those arguments which to prove the eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ were drawn from such Scriptures as call him God Lord the Son of God also from such Scriptures as ascribe Worship and Adoration to him and from the Texts which ascribe to him a Supreme Lordship Dominion and Kingdom over all things For this hath been used as one Argument for the Godhead of Jesus Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father The Father raigns the Son raigns the holy Ghost raigns Vide lib. Isaaci Clari Hispani adversus Varimadum Arianum Thereupon they devised this answer That Jesus Christ in respect of his Kingly Office and as Mediator is called God and Lord and the Son of God of which see Fest. Honnij Specimen Controv. Belgic pag. 24. Ionas Schlichtingius contra Meisnerum pag. 436. and that in the same respect he is worshipped that in the same respect he is King and that the Kingdom which the Scripture ascribeth to Jesus Christ is onely as Mediator and Head of the Church and that he hath no such Universal Dominion over all things as can prove him to be the eternal Son of God This gave occasion to Orthodox-Protestant-Writters more fully and distinctly to assert the great difference between that which the Scripture saith of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God and that which it saith of him as he is Mediator and particularly to assert a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ and to prove from Scripture that besides that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator he hath another Kingdom over all things which belongs to him onely as he is the eternal Son of God This the Socinians to this day do contradict and stisly hold that Christ hath but one Kingdom which he exerciseth as
are for impenitent contumacious offenders but the Magistrate doth and must punish offenders when the course of Justice and law so requireth whether they appear penitent or impenitent Fourthly The Magistrates power of punishing offenders is bounded by the law of the land What then shall become of such scandalls as are not crimes punishable by the law of the land such as obscene rotten talking adulterous and vile behaviour or the most scandalous conversing and companying together though the crime of adultery cannot be proved by witnesses living in known malice and envie refusing to be reconciled and thereupon lying off it may be for a long time from the Sacrament and the like which are not proper to be taken notice of by the civil Judge So that in this case either there must be Church-censures and discipline exercised by Church-officers or the Magistrate must go beyond his limits Or lastly Scandalls shall spread in the Church and no remedy against them Far be it from the thoughts of Christian Magistrates that scandalls of this kind shall be tolerated to the dishonour of God the laying of the stumbling blocks of bad examples before others and to the violation and pollution of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ who hath commanded to keep his ordinances pure A second Argument may be this In the old Testament God did not command the Magistrates but the Priests to put a difference betwixt the prophane and the holy the unclean and the clean Levit. 10. 10. Ezech. 22. 26. Ezech. 44. 23 24. Deut. 21. 5. 2 Chron. 23. 18 19. And in the new Testament the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Ministers of the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. but no where to the civil Magistrate It belongeth to Church-officers to censure false doctrine Revel 2. 2. 14. 15. to decide controversies Acts 16. 4. and to examine and censure scandalls Ezech. 44 23 24. which is a Prophecy concerning the ministery of the New Testament And Elders judge an Elder 1 Tim. 5. 19. or any other Church-member 1 Cor. 5. 12. Thirdly The Scripture holdeth forth the civil and Ecclesiastical power as most distinct insomuch that it condemneth the Spiritualizing of the civil Power aswell as the Secularizing of the Ecclesiastical power State Papacy aswell as Papal-State Church-officers may not take the civil sword nor judg civil causes Luke 12. 13 14 and 22. 25. Matth. 26. 52. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. So Uzzah might not touch the Ark nor Saul offer burnt offerings nor Uzziah burn incense I wish we may not have cause to revive the proverb which was used in Ambrose his time That Emperors did more covet the Priesthood then the Priests did covet the Empire Shall it be a sin to Church-officers to exercise any act of civil government and shal it be no sin to the civil Magistrate to ingrosse the whole and sole power of Church-Government Are not the two powers formally and specifically distinct Of which before Chap. 4. It is to be well noted that Maccovius and Vedelius who ascribe a sort of Papal power to the civil Magistrate to the great scandall of the Reformed Church do notwithstanding acknowledge that Christ hath appointed Church discipline and censures and the same to be dispenced by Church-officers onely And that the Magistrate as he may not preach the Word and administer the Sacraments So he may not exercise Church-discipline nor inslict spiritual censures such as excommunication Though Erastus pag. 175. hath not spared to say that the Magistrate may in the New Testament though he might not in the old exercise the ministeriall function if he can have so much leisure from his other employments Fourthly The power of Church discipline is intrinsecall to the Church that is both they who censure and they who are censured must be of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. 13. They must be of one and the same Corporation the one must not be in the body and the other out of the body But if this power were in the Magistrate it were extrinsecall to the Church For the Magistrate quatenus a Magistrate is not so much as a Church-member far lesse can the magistrate as magistrate have jurisdiction over Church-members as Church members even as the minister as minister is not a member of the Common-wealth or State far lesse can he as minister exercise jurisdiction over the Subjects as Subjects The Christian magistrate in England is not a member of the Church as a magistrate but as a Christian. And the minister of Jesus Christ in England is not subject to the magistrate as he is a minister of Christ but as he is a member of the Common-wealth of England He was both a learned man and a great Royallist in Scotland who held that all Kings Infidel as well as Christian have equal authority and jurisdiction in the Church though all be not alike qualified or able to exercise it Io. Wemius de Reg. primat pag. 123. Let our opposites loose this knot among themselves for they are not of one opinion about it Fifthly Church-officers might and did freely and by themselves dispence Church-censures under Pagan and unbeleeving magistrates as is by all confessed Now the Church ought not to be in a worse condition under the Christian magistrate then under an Infidel for the power of the Christian magistrate is cumulative not privative to the Church He is a Nursing Father Isa. 49. 23. not a Step-Father He is keeper defender and guardian of both Tables but neither Judge nor Interpreter of Scripture Sixthly I shall shut up this Argumentation with a convincing dilemma The Assemblies of Church-officers being to exercise discipline and censure offences which is supposed and must be granted in regard of the Ordinances of Parliament either they have power to do this Iure proprio and virtute officii or onely Iure devoluto and virtute delegationis such authority being derived from the magistrate If the former I have what I would If the latter then it followeth 1. That where Presbyteries and Synods do exercise spirituall Jurisdiction not by any power derived from or dependant upon the civil Magistrate but in the name and authority of Iesus Christ and by the power received from him as in Scotland France the Low-Countries c. there all Ecclesiastical censures such as deposition of Ministers and Excommunication of scandalous and obstinate persons have been are and shall be void null and of no effect Even as when the Prelaticall party did hold that the power of ordination and jurisdiction pertaineth onely to Prelats or such as are delegate with commission and authority from them thereupon they were so put to it by the Arguments of the Anti-Episcopall party that they were forced to say that Presbyters ordained by Presbyters in other Reformed Churches are no Presbyters and their excommunication was no excommunication 2. It will follow that the Magistrate himself may excommunicate for nemo potest aliis
militate not onely against Erastus and Bilson but likewise against Sutlivius de Presb. Cap. 9. where he gives this sence of Matth. 18. 15 16 17. that we ought to take heed we give no scandall in the pursuing of injuries and for that end ought to give admonition first privately then before witnesses and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury to tell the Rulers of the Church meaning the Prelates and if he will not hear them then to go to Law with that Brother as with an Heathen or Publican The other Arguments which are to follow the last excepted strike not at his Interpretation but at those other Glosses of Erastus Bilson and Master Prynne Fourthly this Erastian exposition makes these words but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican to be applicable onely to such Christians as live under unbelieving Magistrates and not to all Christians This consequence Erastus foresaw that it would needs follow from his Interpretation therefore he plainly owneth it Thes. 47. He confesseth that the former part concerning rebuking and seeking to gaine the offending Brother belongs to all Christians What a boldnesse is here to rent asunder this passage of Scripture which was uttered as it were with one breath And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians Must Christians that live under an Infidell Magistrate have more effectuall meanes and wayes to use towards an offending Brother and may they go a step further in putting him to shame or in humbling him then those Christians can doe who live under a Christian Magistrate How well doth this hang together I should have thought the ballance must rather fall to this hand But to make the condition of those who live under a Christian Magistrate to be more privative and the condition of those who live under an Infidell Magistrate to be more cumulative is too great a paradoxe for me Sixthly Whereas they say that the way prescribed by Christ Matth. 18. is such as is agreeable to the Law of Moses and they understand by Tell the Church Tell the Magistrate I aske what Magistrate If the Judges and Magistrates of the Cities as Bishop Bilson thinkes then he who did not hearken to those Judges might appeale to the great Sanhedrin at Hierusalem or the Judges themselves might referre and transmit the case thither so that the man was not to be straight way accounted as an Heathen man and a Publican But if by the Church they understand the great Sanhedrin it self he that would not hearken to it was to be put to death by the Law Deut. 17. So that it had not been agreeable to the Law of Moses to teach that he who will not hearken to the great Sanhedrin is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican for this supposeth that he shall not dye but be suffered to live Seventhly the Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves For both Erastus Bishop Bilson and Master Prynne hold that he Jewish Sanhedrin in Christs time was a temporall Magistracy and a civill Court of justice which had power to scourge imprison torture and outlaw offenders yea to put to death as the first two doe positively averre How then can it be said If he neglect to heare the Church c. that is if he neglect to heare the civill Magistrate who hath power to imprison scourge torture outlaw yea to put him to death Surely if he neglect to heare the Church doth intimate that the Church hath not used nor cannot use any externall coercive power Erastus findes himselfe so mightily puzled with this difficulty that to make out his interpretation of Matth. 18. he confesseth Thes. 53. and confirm Thes. lib. 2. cap. 2. the Jewish Sanhedrin had no power under the Romans to judge of civill causes and injuries but of things pertaining to their religion onely so that at that time saith he a man might impune without punishment contemne the judgement of the Sanhedrin in civill things And thus while he seeketh a Salvo for his Glosse upon Matth. 18. he overthroweth the great argument by which he and his followers endeavour to prove that there was no other Sanhedrin in Christs time but a civill Court of justice because say they that Sanhedrin had the power of the Sword and other temporall punishments Eighthly observe the gradation in the Text 1. a private conviction or rebuke 2. Conviction before two or three witnesses 3. Conviction before the Church and the Churches declaring the thing to be an offence and commanding the offender to turn from his evill way 4. If he will not heare the Church which implieth that the Church hath spoken and required him to doe somewhat which he refuseth to doe then Let him be as an Heathen man and a Publican This last is heavier then all that went before and is the punishment of his not hearing the Church now this gradation is in consistent with the Interpretation which Erastus giveth for by his owne confession the Sanh drin of the Jewes at that time had not power to judge of civill causes nor to punish any man for a civill injury but for a matter of religion onely yet they are not matters of Religion but civill trespasses which he understands to be meant Matth. 18. Here is an intercision in the third step of the gradation And if it were an offence in the matter of religion it had not been a greater punishment but a greater ease to the offender to draw him before the Roman tribunals for the Romans cared for none of those things of which the Jewish Sanhedrin was most zealous The gradation in the Text is as inconsistent with M r Prynnes interpretation for imagine the offender to be after previous admonitions publiquely accused and convict before the Church that is in his opinion the civill Court of justice which had power to imprison scourge torture and outlaw offenders if not to condemne and put to death what should be done with such an one can we goe no higher yes thus it is in M r Prynnes sence He that will not submit to the Magistrate and cannot be reduced by stripes and imprisonment torturing and outlawing yea peradventure by condemnation to die the death let this be the last remedy for such an one Let him be unto thee as an beathen man and a Publican that is withdraw familiar civill company from him Ninthly that interpretation of Erastus leaneth to a false supposition namely that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Publican are meant universally of all Publicans good or bad or whatever they were To prove this he takes an argument pag. 189 190 195. from the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for with the Grecians saith he the Article being joyned to the predicate noteth the nature and consequently the universality of the thing whence he concludeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth
3. but we are the servants both of Christ and of his Church We preach not our selves saith the Apostle but Christ Jesus the Lord and our selves your servants for Jesus sake 2 Cor. 4. 5. 3. That power of Government with which Pastors and Elders are invested hath for the object of it not the external man but the inward man It is not nor ought not to be exercised in any compulsive coercive corporal or civil punishments When there is need of coertion or compulsion it belongs to the Magistrate not to the Minister though the question be of a matter of Religion of Persons or things Ecclesiastical Which as it is rightly observed by Salmasius so he further asserteth against the Popish Writers that all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction hath for the object of it onely the inward man for consider the end of Church-censures saith he even when one is ex communicated or suspended from the Sacrament it is but to reduce him and restore him by repentance that he may again partake of the Sacrament rightly and comfortably which repentance is in the soule or inward man though the signes of it appear externally 4. Presbyterial Government is not an arbitrary Government for clearing whereof take these five Considerations 1. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth and the power which the Lord hath given uâ— is to edification and not to destruction 2 Cor. 13 8 10. All Presbyterial proceedings must be levelled to this end and squared by this rule 2. Presbyters and Presbyteries are 〈◊〉 to the Law of the Land and to the corrective power of the Magistrate Quatenus Ecclesia est in Republica Reipub. pars non Respublica Ecclesiae In so far as the Church is in the Common-wealth and a part of the Common-wealth not the Common-wealth a part of the Church saith Salmasius appar ad lib. de Primatu pag. 292. for which pag. 300. he cites Optatus Milivitanus lib. 3. Non enim Respullica est in Ecclesia sed Ecclesia in Republica Ministers and Elders are Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth and in that respect punishable by the Magistrate if they transgresse the Law of the Land 3. Yea also as Church-Officers they are to be kept within the limits of their calling and compelled if need be by the Magistrate to do those Duties which by the clear Word of God and received principles of Christian Religion or by the received Ecclesiastical Constitutions of that Church they ought to do 4. And in corrupto Ecclesiae statu I mean if it shall ever happen which the Lord forbid and I trust shall never be that Presbyteries or Synods shall make defection from the Truth to Errour from Holinesse to Prophanesse from Moderation to Tyranny and Persecution censuring the innocent and absolving the guilty as Popery and Prelacy did and there being no hopes of redressing such enormities in the ordinary way by intrinsecal Ecclesiastical remedies that is by well-constituted Synods or Assemblies of Orthodox holy moderate Presbyters In such an extraordinary exigence the Christian Magistrate may and ought to interpose his Authority to do diverse things which in an ordinary course of Government he ought not to do for in such a case Magistracy without expecting the proper intrinsecal remedy of better Ecclesiasticall Assemblies may immediately by it self and in the most effectual manner suppresse and restrain such defection exorbitancy and tyranny and not suffer the unjust heretical tyrannical Sentences of Presbyteries or Synods to be put in execution Howbeit in Ecclesia bene constituta in a well constituted and Reformed Church it is not to be supposed that the condition of affairs will be such as I have now said We heartily acknowledge with Mr. Cartwright annot on Mat. 22. Sect. 3. That it belongeth to the Magistrate to reforme things in the Church as often as the Ecclesiastical persons shall either through ignorance or disorder of the affection of covetuousnesse or ambition dâ—…file the Lords Sanctuary For saith Iunius Animad in Bell. contr 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. 18. Both the Church when the concurrence of the Magistrate faileth may extraordinarily doe something which ordinarily she cannot and again when the Church faileth of her duty the Magistrate may extraordinarily procure that the Church return to her duty 5. I dare confidently say that if comparisons be rightly made Presbyterial Government is the most limitted and the least Arbitrary Government of any other in the world I should have thought it very unnecessary and superfluous to have once named here the Papal Government or yet the Prelatical but that Mr. Prynn in his preface to his four grand Questions puts the Reverend Assembly of Divines in mind that they should beware of usurping that which hath been even by themselves disclaimed against and quite taken away from the Pope and Prelats Mr. Coleman also in his Sermon brought objections from the usurpations of Pope Paul the fift and of the Archhbishop of Canterbury Well if we must needs make a comparison come on The Papal usurpations are many 1. The Pope takes upon him to determine what belongs to the Canon of Scripture what not 2. That he onely can determine what is the sence of Scripture 3. He addeth unwritten Traditions 4. He makes himself Judge of all controversies 5. He dispenseth with the Law of God it self 6. He makes himself above General Councels 7. His government is Monarchical 8. He receiveth appeals from all the Nations in the world 9. He claimeth Infallibility at least ex Cathedra 10. He maketh Lawes absolutely binding the Conscience even in things indifferent 11. He claimeth a Temporal Dominion over all the Kingdoms in the world 12. He saith he may depose Kings and absolve Subjects from their oath of allegiance 13. He persecuteth all with fire and sword and Anathema's who do not subject themselves to him 14. He claimeth the sole power of convocating general Councels 15. And of presiding or moderating therein by Himself or his Legates What Conscience or ingenuity can there now be in making any parallel between Papall and Presbyteriall Governement As little there is in making the comparison with Prelacy the power whereof was indeed arbitrary and impatient of those limitations and rules which Presbyteries and Synods in the Reformed Churches walkby For 1. The Prelate was but one yet he claimed the power of ordination and jurisdiction as proper to himself in his owne Diocesse We give the power of ordination and Church censures not uni but unitati not to one but to an Assembly gathered into one 2. The Prelate assumed a perpetual precedency and a constant priviledge of moderating Synods Which Presbyterial Government denyeth to any one man 3. The Prelate did not tye himself either to aske or to receive advice from his fellow Presbyters except when he himself pleased But there is no Presbyteriall nor Synodicall sentence which is not concluded by the major part of voices 4. The Prelate made himself Pastor to the
falls in the same ditch with him The Question is not whether Church-officers ought to have any share in the Civil Government Nor whether Church-officers may have any Lordly government or imperious domination over the Lords heritage Nor whether Church-Officers may exercise an arbitrary irregular Government and rule as themselves list God forbid But the Question plainly is Whether there may not yea ought not to be in the Church a Ministeriall or Ecclesiastical Government properly so called beside the civil Government or Magistracy Mr. Coleman did and Mr. Hussey doth hold there ought not I hold there ought and I shall propound for the affirmative these Arguments The first Argument I draw from 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders that rule well Mr. Hussey pag. 8. askes whether the word Elder be prima or secunda notio If prima notio why must not Elder women be Church-officers as well as Elder men If secunda notio for a ruling Officer Parliament men Kings and all Civil Governours are such Elders I know no use which that distinction of prima and secunda notio hath in this place except to let us know that he understands these Logicall termes Egregiam vero laudem He might have saved himself the labour for who knowes not Hieromes distinction Elder is either a word of age or of office but in Ecclesiasticall use it is a word of office Mr. Husseys first notion concerning Elder women is no masculine notion His second notion is an anti-parliamentary notion For the honourable Houses of Parliament in the first words of their Ordinance concerning ordination of Ministers have declared that by the word of God a Bishop and a Presbyter or Elder are all one for thus beginneth the Ordinance Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function c. Therefore Parliament men and civil Governors cannot be the Elders mentioned by the Apostle Paul except Mr. Hussey make them Bishops and invest them with power of ordination Besides this if Kings and Parliament men be such Elders as are mentioned in this Text then the Ministers of the Word must have not onely an equall share in Government but more honour and maintenance then Kings and Parliament men See how well Mr. Hussey pleadeth for Christian Magistracy It is also an anti-Scripturall notion for some of those Elders that ruled well did labour in the Word and Doctrine as Paul tells us in the very same place these sure are not civil Governours Wherefore Mr. Hussey must seek a third notion before he hit the Apostles meaning It is not hujus loci to debate from this Text the distinction of two sorts of Elders though among all the answers which ever I heard or read Mr. Husseys is the weakest pag. 11. that by Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine are meant those Ministers whose excellencie lies in Doctrine and instruction and that by Elders that rule are meant those that give reproof He contradistinguisheth a reproving minister from a minister labouring in the Word and Doctrine The very reproof given by a minister will be it seemes at last challenged as an act of government It is as wide from the mark that he will have the two sorts of Elders to differ thus that the one must governe and not preach the other must preach and not govern not observing that the Text makes ruling to be common to both The one doth both rule and labour in the Word and Doctrine The other ruleth one y and is therefore called ruling Elder non quia solus praeest sed quia solum praeest But to let all these things be laid aside as heterogeneous to this present Argument the point is here are Rulers in the Church who are no civil Rulers Yea this my Argument from this Text was clearly yeelded by Mr. Coleman in his Maledicis pag. 8. But I will deal clearly saith he these Officers are Ministers which are instituted not here but else-where and those are the Rulers here mentioned Ergo he yeeldeth Ecclesiastical rulers and those instituted distinct from Magistracy Neither is it a Lordly but a ministeriall ruling of which our Question is For my part saith Mr. Hussey I know not how Lordship and Government doth differ one from another Then every Governour of a ship must be a lord Then every Steward of a great house must be lord of the House There is an oeconomicall or ministerial government and of that we mean My second Argument I take from 1 Thes. 5. 12. And we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui praesunt vobis Hence doth Calvin conclude a Church Government distinct from civil government for this is a spirituall Government it is in the Lord that is in the name of the Lord or as others in things pertaining to God Hence also Beza argueth against Episcopall Government because the Elders in the Apostolique Churches did govern in common But saith Mr. Hussey pag. 18. Pasor telleth us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive case signifieth praecedo and then it signifieth no more but them that go before you either by Doctrine or example I answer first to the matter next to the force of the Word For the matter certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ruling power of ministers is not meerly doctrinall or perswasive as is manifest by 1 Tim. 5. 17. where those who are not convinced of two sorts of Elders are yet fully convinced of two sorts of acts the act of ruling and the act of teaching Whatsoever that Text hath more in it or hath not this it hath that those who labour in the Word and Doctrine are Rulers but they are more especially to be honoured for their labouring in the Word and Doctrine Next as to the force of the Word if it be true which Mr. Hussey here saith then the English Translators that read are over you Calvin Beza Bullinger Gualther and others that here follow Hierome and read praesunt vobis Arias Montanus who reads praesidentes vobis have not well understood the Greek But if Mr. Hussey would needs correct all these and many more Why did he not at least produce some instances to shew us where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used for no more but a meer going before either by doctrine or example without any power or authority of Government Yea if this here be no more but a going before either by Doctrine or example then every good Christian who goeth before others by good example is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither will that of the genitive case help him for see the like 1 Tim. 3. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that ruleth well his
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