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
divinum naturale that is the moral Law or Decalogue as it bindeth all Nations whether Christians or Infidels being the Law of the Creator and King of Nations The Magistrate by his authority may and in duty ought to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to that Law and punish the external man with external punishments for external trespasses against that Law From this obligation of the Law and subjection to the corrective power of the Magistrate Christian Subjects are no more exempted then Heathen Subjects but father more straitly obliged So that if any such trespasse is committed by Church-Officers or Members the Magistrate hath power and authority to summon examine judge and after just conviction and proof to punish these as well as other men We do therefore abominate the disloyal Papal Tenent that Clergy men are not to be examined and judged by civil but by Ecclesiastical Courts onely even in causes civil and criminal Whereof see Duarenus de Sacr. Eccl. Minist lib. 1. cap. 2. Spelman Concil Britann Tom. 1. pag. 413. I further explane my self by that common distinction that there are two sorts of things that belong to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things inward and things outward For Church Officers and Church-members do consist as other men of a soul and of a body All things properly belonging to the soul or internal man which here we call things inward are the object of Ecclesiastical power given to Church-officers Pastors and other ruling officers But what belongs to the outward man to the bodies of Church-officers and members which things are outward the judging and managing thereof is in the hand of the Magistrate who ruleth not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are without whom the Church judgeth not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things outward of the Church Salmasius calls the power of the Magistrate in things Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inward Episcopacy or overseeing Which well agreeth with that which Constantine said to the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are made Bishops of the inward things of the Church I of the things outward So that he doth not assume their government but distinguisheth his from theirs This external inspection and administration of the Magistrate in reference to Religion is twofold 1. Corrective by externall punishments 2. Auxiliary by externall benefits and adminicles The Magistrate may and ought to be both Custos vindex utriusque Tabulae he ought to preserve both the first and second Table of the holy and good Law of God from being despised and violated and punish by corporal or other temporal punishments such whether Church Officers or Church-members as openly dishonour God by grosse offences either against the first or against the second Table and this he doth as Gods Deputy and Vicegerent subordinate and subservient to that universall dominion which God almighty exerciseth over the children of men But in doing hereof he is also helpfull and usefull to the Kingdom of Christ as Mediator Magistracy being in the respects aforesaid serviceable and profitable as to order the Common-wealth aright so also to purge the Church of scandals to promote the course of the Gospel and the edification of one another But how not perfectly but pro tanto not every way but more suo not intrinsecally but extrinsecally not primarily but secundarily not directly but ex consequenti not sub formalitate scandali sed sub formalitate criminis not under the notion of scandall but of crime The Magistrate in punishing all crimes committed by any in the Church which are contrary to the Law of God in suppressing tumults disorders in protâ—cting the Church from danger harme or molâ—station in putting a hook in the nostrils and a bridle in the mouthes of unruly obstinate and contumacious sinners who vexe the Church and create trouble to the people of God in so doing he doth by consequence and removendo prohibens purge the Church and advance the Kingdom of Christ and the course of the Gospel In the mean while not depriving the Church of her owne intâ—insecall power and Jurisdiction but making it rather more 〈◊〉 by the aid of the secular power And so much of the corrective part of the Magistrates administration The other part of his administration in reference to Religion is auxiliary or assistant to the Church For the Magistrate watcheth over the outward businesse of the Church not onely by troubling those persons and punishing those sins that trouble the Israel of God but by administring such things as are necessary for the well being and comfortable subsistence of the Church and for that end doth convocate Synods pro re nata beside the ordinary and set meetings and presideth therein if he please in externall order though not in the Synodicall debates and resolutions He addeth his civil sanction to the Synodical results if he find nothing therein which may hurt Peace or Justice in the Common-wealth The Magistrate ought also to take care of the maintenance of the Ministery Schooles poor and of good works for necessary uses that Religion and Learning may not want their necessary adminicles Finally He ought to take care that all Churches be provided with an able orthodox and Godly Ministery and Schools with learned and well qualified Teachers such as shall be best approved by those to whom it belongeth to examine and Judge of their qualifications and parts And all these wayes the Magistrate ought to be and the well affected Magistrate hath been and is a nursing Father to the Church of Christ. 2. My second distinction shall be this The Magistrate may and ought not onely to conserve Justice peace and order in the Common-wealth and in the Church as it is in the Common-wealth but also to take speciall care of the conservation of the true Reformed Religion and of the Reformation of it when and wherein it needeth to be reformed imperativè not elicitivè The Magistrate saith Dr. Rivet on the decalogue pag. 262. is neither to administer Word nor Sacraments nor Church discipline c. but he is to take care that all these things be done by those whom God hath called thereunto What ever is properly spiritual belonging to the soul and inward man such as Church-censures and the other particulars before mentioned cannot be actus elicitus of the Magistrate The Magistrate can neither immediatione suppositi nor immediatione virtutis determine controversies of faith ordain Ministers suspend from the Sacraments or excommunicate He can neither doe these things himself nor are they done in the name and authority of the Magistrate or by any Ministeriall power receeived from him but in the name and authority of Jesus Christ and by the power given from Jesus Christ. Yet all these and generally the administration of the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are actus imperati of the Christian Magistrate and that both antecedenter and consequenter Antecedently
the power of the Sword when I plead for the power of the Keys These two are most distinct they ought not to be confounded neither need they to clash or interfeere between themselves The controversie is not about taking from the Magistrate what is his but about giving to Christ that which is his We hold a reciprocall subordination of persons but a coordination of powers As the Ministers and others of the Ecclesiastical estate are subject to the Magistrate civill so ought the person of the Magistrate be subject to the Church Spiritually and in Ecclesiasticall government And the exercise of both these jurisdictions cannot stand in one person ordinarily Againe b The Magistrate neither ought to preach minister the Sacraments nor execute the censures of the Church nor yet prescribe any rule how it should be done but command the Ministers to observe the rule commanded in the Word and punish the transgressors by civill meanes The Ministers exerce not the civill Jurisdiction but teach the Magistrate how it should be exercised according to the word The Laws and Statutes of Geneva doe at once ratifie the Ecclesiasticall Presbyteriall power of Iurisdiction or censure and withall appoint that Ministers shall not take upon them any civill jurisdiction but where there shall be need of compulsion or civill punishments that this be done by the Magistrate Yea under a Popish Magistrate as in France and even under the Turke himselfe many Churches doe enjoy not onely the Word and Sacraments but a free Church government and Discipline within themselves rectio disciplinae libera which is thought no prejudice to the civill government they that governe the Churches having no dominion nor share of Magistracy Vide D. Chytraei orat de statu Ecclesiarum in Graecia c. I know well that there are other horrid calumnies and mis-representations of Presbyteriall Government besides that of encroaching upon Magistracy but they are as false as they are foule And although we goe upon this disadvantage which Demosthenes being loadened with a heavy charge and grievous aspersions by Aeschines did complaine of that though by right both parties should be heard yet the generality of men doe with pleasure hearken to reproaches and calumnies but take little or no pleasure to heare mens clearing of themselves or their cause and that his adversary had chosen that which was more pleasant leaving to him that which was more tedious Neverthelesse I must needs expect from all such as are conscionable and faithfull in this Cause and Covenant that their eares shall not be open to calumnies and shut upon more favourable informations And however let the worst be said which malice it selfe can devise it shall be no small comfort to me that our Lord and Master hath said Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and shal say all manner of evill against you falsely for my names sake I know also that a Government and Discipline in the Church the thing which I now undertake to plead for is a very displeasing thing to those that would faine enjoy liberty either of pernicious errors or grosse prophannesse But as Maimonides saith well we must not judge of the easinesse or heavinesse of a Law according to the affections and lust of any evill man being rash in judgement and given to the worst vices but according to the understanding of one who is most perfect among men like unto whom according to the Law all others ought to be More Nevochim part 2. Cap. 39. No marvell that the licentious hate that way wherein they shall finde themselves hemmed in if not hedged up with thornes And that they may the more flatter themselves in their sinfull licentiousnesse they imagine that Christs yoke is easie and his burthen light to the flesh as well as to the Spirit to carnall as well as to spirituall men For my part if I have learned Christ aright I hold it for a sure principle that in so farre as a man is spirituall and regenerate in as farre his flesh is under a yoake and in so farre as he is unregenerate in as farre his flesh is sine jugo without a yoke The healing of the spirit is not without the smiting of the flesh When I speake of this Divine Ordinance of Church Government my meaning is not to allow muchlesse to animate any in the too severe and over strict exercise of Ecclesiasticall discipline and censures It was observed by Hierome as one of the errors of the Montanists Illi ad omne pene delictum Ecclesiae obserant fores They shut the Church doore that is they excommunicate and shut out of the Church almost at every offence I confesse the greater part are more apt to faile in the defect then in the excesse and are like to come too short rather than to goe too farre Yet a failing there may be and hath been both waies The best things whether in Church or State have been actually abused and may be so againe through the error and corruption of men The holy Scripture it selfe is abused to the greatest mischiefes in the world though in its owne nature it serves for the greatest good in the world The abuse of a thing which is necessary and especially of a divine Ordinance whether such abuse be feared or felt ought not may not prejudice the thing it selfe My purpose and endeavour shall be wherein I beseech the Lord to help my infirmities to own the thing to disowne the abuses of the thing to point out the path of Christs Ordinance without allowing either rigour against such as ought to be tenderly dealt with or too much lenity towards such as must be saved with feare and pulled out of the fire or at all any aberration to the right or left hand I have had much adoe to gaine so many â—…orae subâ—…isivae from the works of my publique calling as might suffice for this worke I confesse it hath cost me much paines and I thinke I may say without presumption he that will goe about solidly to answer it will finde it no easie matter Subitane lucubrations will not doe it But if any man shall by unanswerable contrary reasons or evidenees discover error or mistake in any of my principles let truth have the victory let God have the glory Onely this favour I may say this justice I shall protest for First that my principles and conclusions may be rightly apprehended and that I may not be charged with any absurd dangerous or odious assertion unlesse my own words be faithfully cited from which that assertion shall be gathered yea also without concealing my explanations qualifications or restrictions if any such there be Which rule to my best observation I have not transgressed in reference to the Opposites Secondly that as I have not dealt with their Nauci but with their Nucleus I have not scratched at their shell but taken out their kernell such as it
is I have not declined them but encountered yea sought them out where their strength was greatest where their Arguments were hardest and their exceptions most probable so no man may decline or dissemble the strength of my Arguments Inferences Authorities Answers and Replies nor thinke it enough to lift up an Axe against the uttermost branches when he ought to strike at the root Thirdly if there be any acrimony let it be in a reall and rationall conviction not in the manner of expression In which also I aske no other measure to my selfe than I have given to others T is but in vaine for a man to help the bluntnesse of reason with the sharpnesse of passion for thereby he loseth more than he gaineth with intelligent Readers the simpler sort may peradventure esteem those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those despicable nothings to be something but then they are delu ded not edified Therefore let not a man cast sorth a flood of passionate words when his Arguments are like broken cisternes which can hold no water If any Replyer there be of the Erastian party who will confine himselfe within these Rules and Conditions as I doe not challenge him so if God spare me life and liberty I will not refuse him But if any shall so reply as to prevaricate and doe contrary to these just and reasonable demands I must to his greater shame call him to the Orders and make his tergiversation to appeare I shall detaine thee good Reader no longer The Lord guide thee and all his people in waies of truth and peace holinesse and righteousnesse and grant that this Controversie may I trust it shall have a happy end to the glory of God to the embracing and exalting of Iesus Christ in his Kingly Office to the ordering of his House according to His owne will to the keeping pure of the Ordinances to the advancing of Holinesse and shaming of prophanesse and finally to the peace quiet wel-being comfort and happinesse of the Churches of Christ. These things without thoughts of provoking any either publike or private person the searcher of hearts knoweth to be desired and intended by him who is Thine to please thee for thy good to edification GEO. GILLESPIE THE CONTENTS The first Booke Of the Jewish Church Government CHAP. I. That if the Erastians could prove what they alledge concerning the Iewish Church Government yet in that particular the Iewish Church could not be a president to the Christian. THe Jewish Church a patterne to us in such things as were not typicall or temporall If it could be proved that the Jewes had no supreme Sanhodrin but one and it such as had the power of civill Magistracy yet there are foure reasons for which that could be no president to the Christian Church Where the constitution manner of proceedings and power of the Sanhedrin ure touched Of their Synagoga Magna what it was That the Priests had great power and authority not onely in occasionall Synods but in the civill Sanhedrin it selfe CHAP. II. That the Iewish Church was formally distinct from the Iewish State or Commonwealth WE are content that the Erastians appeale to the Jewish government Seven distinctions between the Jewish Church and the Jewish State Of the proselytes of righteousnesse and that they were imbodied into the Jewish Church not into the Jewish State CHAP. III. That the Iewes had an ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the civill DIvers Authors cited for the ecclesiastcal Sanhedrin of the Jews The first Institution thereof Exo. 24. That the choosing calling forth of these 70 Elders is not coincident with the choosing of the 70 Elders mentioned Num. 11. nor yet with the choosing of Judges Exod. 18. The institution of two coordinate Governments cleared from Deut. 17. A distinct Ecclesiasticall government setled by David 1 Chro. 23. and 26. The same distinction of Civill and Church government revived by Iehoshaphat 2 Chro. 19. That Text vindicated Two distinct Courts one Ecclesiasticall another Civill proved from Ierem. 26. Another argument for an Ecclesiasticall Senate from Ierem. 18. 18. Who meant by the wise men of the Jewes Another argument from Ezech. 7. 26. Another from 2 Kings 6. 32. and Ezech. 8. 1. Another from Psal. 107. 32. Another from Zech. 7. 1 2 3. That Ezech. 13. 9. seemeth to hold forth an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin That the Councell of the chiefe Priests Elders and Scribes so often mentioned in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles was an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and not a civill Court of Justice as Erastus and M. Prynne suppose which is at length proved That the civill Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Hierusalem 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City and consequently neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. The great objection that neither the Talmud nor Talmudicall Writers doe distinguish a civill and an ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin answered Finally those who are not convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes may yet by other Mediums be convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiasticall Government among the Jewes as namely the Priests judgement of cleannesse or uncleannesse and so of admitting or shutting out CHAP. IV. That there was an Ecclesiasticall Excommunication among the Iewes and what it was FIfteen witnesses brought for the Ecclesiasticall excommunication among the Jewes all of them learned in the Jewish antiquities Of the 24 causes of the Jewish excommunication which were lookt upon formally qua scandals not qua injuries Of the three degrees of their excommunication Niddui Cherem and Shammata The manner and form of their Excommunication sheweth that it was a solemne Ecclesiasticall censure Formula anathematis The excommunication of the Cuthites The excommunication among the Jewes was a publique and judicial act and that a private or extrajudicial excommunication was voyd if not ratified by the Court The effects of the Jewish excommunication That such as were excommunicated by the greater excommunication were not admitted to come to the Temple He that was excommunicated with the lesser excommunication was permitted to come yet not as other Israelites but as one publiquely bearing his shame The end of their excommunication was spirituall CHAP. V. Of the cutting of from among the people off God frequently mentioned in the Law THe sence of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scanned That the commination of cutting off a man from his people or from the Congregation of Israel is neither meant of eternall death nor of dying without children nor of capitall punishment from the hand of the Magistrate nor yet of cutting off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sinne Reasons brought against all these That Excommunication was meant by that cutting off proved by six reasons CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue THe casting out of the Synagogue is understood by Interpretâ—rs and others to be an excommunication from the Church assemblies and
signification and was a Type of Christ and Communion with him It is worthy of observation that by the Chaldee paraphrase Exod. 12. 43. Any Israelite who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an apostate might not eate of the Passeover Againe verse 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis prophanus So the Latine Interpreter of Onkelos And no prophane person shall eate of it The word is used not onely of a Heathen but of any prophane person as Prov. 2. 16. where the Chaldee expresseth the whorish woman though a Jewesse by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be prophaned è sancto prophanum fieri Surely Onkelos had not thus paraphrased upon Exod. 12. if it had not been the Law of the Jewes that notorious prophane persons should be kept backe from the Passeover The second Book OF THE CHRISTIAN Church-Goverment CHAP. I. Of the Rise Growth Decay and Reviving of Erastianisme DIverse Learned men have to very good purpose discovered the origination occasion first authors fomenters rise and growth of Errors both Popish and others I shall after their example make known briefly what I find concerning the rise and growth the planting and watering of the Erastian Error I cannot say of it that it is honest is parentibus natus it is not borne and descended of honest parents The Father of it is the old Serpent who finding his Kingdom very much impaired weakned and resisted by the vigor of the true Ecclesiastical discipline which separateth between the precious and the vile the holy prophane and so contributeth much to the shaming away of the unfruitful works of darknesse thereupon he hath cunningly gone about to draw men first into a jealousie and then into a dislike of the Ecclesiastical discipline by Gods mercy restored in the Reformed Churches The Mother of it is the enmity of nature against the Kingdom of Iesus Christ which he as Mediator doth exercise in the goverment of the Church Which enmity is naturally in all mens hearts but is unmortified and strongly prevalent in some who have said in their hearts We will not have this man to raigne over us Luke 19. Let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their cords from us Psal. 2. 3. The Midwife which brought this unhappy brood into the light of the world was Thomas Erastus Doctor of Medicine at Heidelberg of whom I shall say no more then what is apparant by his owne Preface to the Reader namely that as he was once of opinion that excommunication is commanded in the Word of God so he came off to the contrary opinion not without a male-contented humour and a resentment of some things which he lookt upon as provocations and personal reflections though its like enough they were not really such but in his apprehensions they were One of these was a publick dispute at Heydelberg in the year 1568. upon certain Theses concerning the necessity of Church Government and the power of Presbyteries to excommunicate Which Theses were exhibited by M. George Withers an Englishman who left England because of the Ceremonies and was at that time made Doctor of Divinity at Heydelberg And the learned dispute had thereupon you may find epitomized as it was taken the day following from the mouth of Dr. Vrsinus in the close of the second part of Dr. Pareus his explication of the Heidelberg Catechisme The Erastian error being borne the breasts which gave it suck were prophanesse and self-interest The sons of Belial were very much for it expecting that the eye of the civil Magistrate shall not be so vigilant over them nor his hand so much against them for a scandalous and dissolute conversation as Church-discipline would be Germanorum bibere est vivere in practice as well as in pronunciation What great marvel if many among them for I do not speak of all did comply with the Erastian Tenent And it is as little to be marvelled at if those whether Magistrates Lawyers or others who conceived themselves to be so far losers as Ecclesiastical Courts were interested in Government and to be greater gainers by the abolition of the Ecclesiastical interest in government were by assed that way Both these you may find among the causes mentioned by Aretius 〈◊〉 probl loc 133. for which there was so much un willingnes to admit the discipline of Excomunication Magistratus jugum non admittuxt timent honoribus licentiam amant c. The Magistrates do not admit a yoke are jealous of their honours love licentiousnesse Vulgus quoque plebs dissolutior major pars corruptissima est c. The Communaltic also and people are more dissolute the greater part is most vicious After that this unlucky child had been nursed upon so bad milk it came at last to eat strong food and that was Arbitrary Government under the name of Royall Prerogative Mr. Iohn Wemys sometime Senator of the Colledge of Justice in Scotland as great a Royalist as any of his time in his book de Regis primatu lib. 1. cap. 7. doth utterly dissent from and argue against the distinction of Civil and Ecclesiasticall lawes and against the Synodical power of censures holding that both the power of making Ecclesiastical lawes and the corrective power to censure Transgressors is proper to the Magistrate The Tutor which bred up the Erastian error was Arminianisme for the Arminians finding their plants pluckt up and their poison antidoted by Classes and Synods thereupon they began to cry down Synodical authority and to appeal to the Magistrates power in things Ecclesiastical hoping for more favour and lesse opposition that way They will have Synods onely to examine dispute discusse to impose nothing under pain of Ecclesiastical censure but to leave all men free to do as they list See their exam cens cap. 25. and Vindic. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 131. 133. And for the Magistrate they have endeavoured to make him head of the Church as the Pope was yea so far that they are not ashamed to ascribe unto the Magistrate that Jurisdiction over the Churches Synods and Ecclesiastical proceedings ' which the Pope did formerly usurpe For which see Apollonius in his Ius Majâ—…statis circa sacra But the Erastian Error being thus borne nursed fed and educated did fall into a most deadly decay and consumption the procuring causes whereof were these three First the best and most and in some respect all of the Reformed Churches refused to receive harbour or entertain it and so left it exposed to hunger and cold shame and nakednesse Some harbour it had in Switzerland but that was lookt upon as comming onely through injury of time which could not be helped the Theological and Scriptural principles of the Divines of those Churches being Anti-Erastian and Presbyteriall as I have else-where shewed against Mr. Coleman So that Erastianisme could not get warmth and strength enough no not in Zurick it self Yea Dr. Ursiâ—…us in his Iudicium de
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
delegare plus juris quam ipse habet No man can give from him by delegation or deputation to another that right or power which he himself hath not 3. If the power of excommunication come by delegation from the Magistrate either the Magistrate must in conscience give this power to Church-officers onely or he is free and may without sin give this power to others If the former what can bind up the Magistrates conscience or astrict the thing to Church-Officers except it be Gods ordinance that they only do it If the latter then though this Parliament hath hath taken away the old High Commission Court which had Potestatem utriusque gladii yet they may lawfully and without sin erect a new High Commission Court made up of those who shall be no Church-officers yea having none of the Clergy in it as the other had with commission and power granted to them to execute spiritual Jurisdiction and Excommunication and that not onely in this or that Church yea or Province but in any part of the whole Kingdom So much of the first point Now to the second concerning appeals to the Magistrate as to the head of the Church It is asked what remedy shall there be against the abuse of Church-discipline by Church-officers except there be appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the civil Magistrate which if it be Church-officers will be the more wary and cautious to do no man wrong knowing that they may be made to answer for it And if it be not there is a wide dore opened that ministers may do as they please Answ. 1 Look what remedy thene is for abuses in the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments the like remedy there is for abuses in Church-discipline Mal-administration of the Word and Sacraments is no lesse sinfull to the ministers and hurtful to others then mal-administration of discipline and in some respects the former is more to the dishonour of God and destruction of men than the latter Ministers have not an arbitrary power to preach what they will Now when the word is not truly preached nor the Sacraments duely administred by any minister or ministers the Magistrate seeketh the redresse of these things in a constituted Church by the convocating of Synods for examining discovering and judging of such errors and abuses as are found in particular Churches But if the Synod should connive at or comply with that same error yet the Magistrate taketh not upon him the supreme and authoritative decision of a controversie of faith but still endeavoureth to help all this by other Ecclesiastical remedies as another Synod and yet another till the evil be removed The like we say concerning abuses in Church-discipline The Magistrate may command a resuming and re-examination of the case in another Synod but still the Synod ratisieth or reverseth the censure In which case it is betwixt the Magistrate and the Synod as betwixt the will and understanding for Voluntas imperat Intellectui quo ad exercitium yet notwithstanding determinatur per intectellum quoad specificationem actus Take for instance this also If it be a case deserving deposition or degradation In such a case saith learned Salmasius appar ad lib. de primatu pag. 298. the Prince or Magistrate cannot take from a minister that power which was given him in ordination with imposition of hands for he cannot take away that which he cannot give But if a Prince would have a minister for his offenceâ— to be deprived of his ministeriall power he must take care that it be done by the ministers themselves qui Judices veri ipsius sunt auferre soli possunt quod per ordinationem dederunt Who are his true Judges and they onely can take away what by ordination they have given Thus Salmasius 2. And further if Presbyteries or Synods exceed the bounds of Ecclesiasticall power and go without the Sphaere of their own activity interposing and judging in a civil cause which concerneth any mans life or estate The Magistrate may reverse and make null whatsoever they do in that kind and punish themselves for such abuse of their power As Solomon punished Abiathar and banished him to Anathoth he being guilty of high treason 1 Kings 2. 26. It was not a case of scandall onely or of Delinquency or mal-administration in his Sacerdotall office otherwise it had fallen within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin 3. Though the case be meerly spirituall and ecclesiastical the Christian Magistrate by himself and immediatly may not onely examine by the judgement of discretion the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court but also when he seeth cause either upon the complaint of the party or scandall given to himself interpose by letters messages exhortations and sharp admonitions to the Presbyterie or Synod who in that case are bound in conscience with all respect and honour to the Magistrate to give him a reason of what they have done and to declare the grounds of their proceedings till by the blessing of God upon this free and fair dealing they either give a rationall and satisfactory accompt to the Magistrate or be themselves convinced of their mal-administration of Discipline 4 And in extraordinary cases when the Clergy hath made defection and all Church discipline is degenerated into Tyrannie as under Popery and Prelacy it was it belongeth to the Magistrate to take the protection of those who are cast out or censured unjustly for extraordinary evils must have extraordinary helps And in this sence we are to understand divers of our Reformers and others groaning under the pressures of the Roman Clergy and calling in the help of the civil Magistrate for their relief But we deny that in a well constituted Church it is agreeable to the will of Christ for the Magistrate either to receive appeals properly so called from the sentence of an Ecclesiastical Court or to receive complaints exhibited against that sentence by the party censured so as by his authority upon such complaint to nullifiâ— or make void the Ecclesiastical censure The latter of these two Vâ—…delius pleadeth for not the former But Apollonius oppugneth the latter as being upon the matter all one with the former Now to ascribe such power to the Magistrate is 1. To change the Pope but not the Poâ—…edome the Head but not the Headship for is not this the Popes chief supremacy to judge all men and to be judged of no man to ratifie or rescind at his pleasure the decâ—ees of the Church Councels â—nd all and shall this power now be transferred upon the Magistrate Good Lord where are we if this shall be the up-shot of our Reformation Oâ— for it Shall we condemn the Papists and Anabaptists who give too little to the Magistrate and then joyn hands with the Arminians who give as much to the Magistrate as the Pope hath formerly usurpâ—d 2. Appeals lie in the same line of subordination and do not go de gâ—…nere
for my Argument that he acknowledgeth this Scripture to warrant Synods of Ministers and Elders and the power of these Synods to be not onely consultive but conclusive decisive and obligatory for this I suppose he means by the power to determine controversies and to make Canons for the Churches peace and government else he had concluded nothing against the Independents who yeeld a consultive Synodicall power If any shall yet desire to be more partiâ—ularly satisfied concerning the strength of my present Argument from Act. 15. I will make it out from these particulars following First Here is a power and authority to assemble Synodically and it is an intrinsecall power within the Church it self not adventitioâ—s or extrinsecall from the Magistrate Whence the soundest Protestant writers prove that though the civil Magistrate hath a power of convocating Synods and he ought to do it when the Churches necessity or danger doth call for such a remedy yet this power of his is positive not privative cumulative not destructive And that if the Magistrate be an enemy and persecuter of the Church and of true Religion or cease to do his duty that is to wit in a manifest danger of the Church the Church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting to her self but ought to use the right and authority of convocation which first and forâ—…most remaineth with the Rulers of the Church as may be seen Act. 15. So say the Professors of Leyden in Synops. purior Theol. Disp. 49. Thes. 24. beside diverse others whom I might here cite but that is not now my businesse Secondly Beside the publike debate and deliberation the Synod did also choose and send certain delegates or commissioners to Antioch and wrote by them a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in Antioch Syria and Cilicia I beleeve such Synodical acts of sending Commissioners and letters to the Churches in other Nations or Provinces should now be lookt upon as acts of government if done without the leave of the Magistrate as then Iudas and Silas were sent Thirdly That Synod did exercise and make use of a threefold Ecclesiastical power for remedy of a three-fold Ecclesiastical disease 1. They purge out the leven of false doctrine and heresie by deciding and determining that great controversie whether Circumcision and the keeping of the Ceremoniall Law of Moses were neeessary to salvation They hold forth and declare to the Churches the negative And this they do by the dogmatik power 2. There was a great scandal taken by the beleeving Jewes then not fully instructed and perswaded concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law by the death of Christ who were so far stumbled and offended at the beleeving Gentiles for their eating of things sacrificed to Idâ—ls and of blood and things strangled that they could not freely nor contentedly converse company and eate together with the Gentiles For remedy whereof the Synod doth require in regard of the law of love edification peace and avoyding of scandall that the Gentiles should abstain from those things as also from fornication which for what cause it is added I do not now dispute And this they do by the Diataktik power 3. There was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a schisme dissention and rent made in the Church by the Judaizing Teachers vers 2. Who clothed themselves with a pretended authority and warrant from the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem and thereupon got the more following and drew away the more disciples after them For remedy hereof the Synod stigmatizeth and brandeth those men by declaring them to be lyars troublers of the Church and subverters of souls vers 24. And this they do by the Critick power or authority of censures Fourthly The decree and Canon of the Synod which is made imposed emitted and promulgat is authoritative decisive and binding Act. 15. 28. For it seemed good to the holy Ghost and here the Arabick repeateth it seemed good to us to lay upon you no greater burthen then these necessary things That ye abstain c. If it be said that this was but a doctrinal advice It seemed good c. I answer Iosephus Antiq. Iud. lib. 4. cap. 8. speaking of the decree of the supreme Sanhedrin which he that disobeyed was to be put to death calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which seemeth good So likewise in this place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant of an Opinion onely for an Opinion as Schoolmen define it is properly such a 〈◊〉 of or assent to a thing as is evident and firme but not certain So that Opinion cannot be ascribed to the holy Ghost It is therefore here a word of authority and decree as Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth out of Châ—…mnitius In which sence the Grecians frequently use it So Stephanus out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is de reed by the Senate And Budaeus out of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is certainly appointed to die Observe also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imposing and burthen They do impose some burthen onely they are carefull to impose no burthen except in necessary things Acts 16. 4. And as they went through the Cities they delivered them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Hierusalem And here I cannot passe the observation of that gentleman who hath taken so good pains in the Original Tongues Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra of the New Testament in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wheresoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found in the New-Testament it is put for Decrees or Lawes as Luke 2. 1. Acts 17. 7. it is put for the Decrees of Caesar and Ephes. 2. 15. Colos. 2. 14. for the Ceremonial Lawes of Moses and so frequently by the LXX in the Old Testament for Decrees as Dan. 2. 13. and 3. 10. 29. and 4. 6. for Lawes Dan. 6. 8. Caeterum saith Erasmus upon Act. 16. 4. Dogmata Graeca vox est significans ipsa decreta five placita non doctrinam ut vulgus existimat And whereas some have objected that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used onely in reference to a doctrinal power as Col. 2. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer Budaeus expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be decerno and Col. 2. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriack makes it judicamini Erasmus and Bullinger Decretis tenemini Stephanus Beza and Gualther ritibus oneramini the English Translators are ye subject to Ordinances This subjection was not onely to Doctrines but to Commandements vers 22. after the Commandements and Doctrines of men and these commandements though in deed and truth the commandements of men onely at that time were imposed as the Commandements of God and as Ceremoniall Lawes given by Moses The vulgar Latine hath decernitis and Tertullian readeth Sententiam fertis
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
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
not so hatefull to God as legall uncleannesse The Law of confessing sin Levit. 5. Num. 5. is meant of every known sin which was to be expiated by Sacrifice especially the more notorious and scandalous sins CHAP. XIII M. Prynnes argument from 1 Cor. 10. which he takes to be unanswerable discussed and confuted Mr Prynne in expounding that Text of the Passeover differeth both from the Apostles and from Erastus himselfe His argument if good wil necessarily conclude against his owne Concessions If scandalous sinners had been suspended from the Manna and Water of the Rocke they had been suspended from their ordinary orporal meat and drinke That the scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle were committed not before but after their eating of that Spirituall meate and drinking of that Spirituall drinke The Argument strongly retorted The scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle were Nationall sins and so come not home to the present Question which is of persons not of Nations An Appendix to the first Booke THe Erastians misrepresent the Jewish Government Their complyance with the Anabaptists in this particular Their confounding of that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Church with that which was the ordinary rule Fourteen Objections answered M. Prynne his great mistakes of Deut. 17. and 2 Chron. 19. The power and practice of the godly Kings of Iudah in the reformation of Religion cleared The Argument from Solomon his deposing of Abiathar and putting Zadock in his place answered foure waies The Priests were appointed to be as Judges in other cases beside those of leprosie and jealousie 2 Chro. 23. 19. further scanned A scandalous person was an unclean person both in the Scripture phrase and in the Jewish language The sequestration of the uncleane from the Sanctuary no civill punishment Of Lawes and causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall among the Jewes Of their Scribes and Lawyers Some other observable passages of Maimonides concerning Excommunication What meant by not entring into the Congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 1 2 3. and by separating the mixed multitude Nehem. 13. 3. Five reasons to prove that the meaning of these places is not in reference to civil dignities and places of government nor yet in reference to unlawful mariages onely but in reference to Church-membership and communion Two Objections to the contrary answered One from Exod. 12. 48. Another from the example of Ruth An useful observation out of Onkelos Exod. 12. The second Booke Of the Christian Church Government CHAP. I. Of the rise growth decay and reviving of Erastianisme THe Erastian error not honest is parentibus natus Erastus the Mid-wife how engaged in the busines The breasts that gave it sucke prophannesse and self-interest It s strong food arbitrary Government It s Tutor Arminianisme It s deadly decay and consumption whence it was How ill it hath been harboured in all the reformed Churches How stiffled by Erastus himselfe Erastianisme confuted out of Erastus The Divines who have appeared against this error How the Controversie was lately revived CHAP. II. Some Postulata or common principles to be presupposed THat there ought to be an exclusion of vile and prophane persons knowne to be such from the holy things is a principle received among the Heathens themselves That the dishonour of God by scandalous sinnes ought to be punished as well yea much rather than private injuries That publique sinnes ought to be publiquely confessed and the offenders put to publique shame That there ought to be an avoyding of and withdrawing from scandalous persons in the Church and that by a publique order rather then at every mans discretion That there is a distinction of the Office and power of Magistracy aâ—d Ministery That the directive judgement in any businesse doth chiefly belong to those who by their prosession and vocation are set apart to the attendance and oversight of such a thing CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto us and what we yeeld unto them THey yeeld that the Magistrate his power in Ecclesiasticis is not arbitrary but tied to the word That there may be a distinct Church government under Heathen Magistrates That the abuse takes not away the just power They allow of Presbyteries and that they have some jurisdiction That the Ministery is Iure divino and Magistracy distinct from it We yeeld unto them That none ought to be Rulers in the Church but such against whom there is no just exception That Presbyteriall government is not a Dominion but a Service That it hath for its object onely the inward man That Presbyteriall government is not an Arbitrary government cleared by sive considerations That it is the most limited and least Arbitrary government of any other cleared by comparing it with Popery Prelacy Independency and with lawfull Magistracy That the civil Magistrate may and ought to doe much in and for Religion ordinarily and yet more in extraordinary cases That the civil Sanction is a free and voluntary act of the Magistrates favour That Ministers owe as much subjection and honour to the Magistrate as other Subjects CHAP. IV. Of the agreement and the differences between the nature of the Civill and of the Ecclesiasticall powers or Governments TEn agreements between the Civil power and the Ecclesiasticall power The differences between them opened in their causes efficient matter where a fourfold power of the keys is touched for me and ends both supreme and subordinate where it is opened how and in what respect the Christian Magistrate intendeth the glory of Jesus Christ and the purging of his Church Also effects objects adjuncts correlations ultimate terminations and divided executions CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdome of Iesus Christ a generall Kingdome as he is the eternall Sonne of God the Head of all Principalities and Powers raigning over all creatures and a particular Kingdome as he is Mediator raigning over the Church onely HOw this controversie fals in and how deepe it drawes That our Opposites herein joyne issue with the Socinians Nine Arguments to prove this distinction of a twofold Kingdom of Christ. In which of the eternity universality donation and subordination of the Kingdome of Christ. The Arguments brought to prove that Christ as Mediator raigneth over all things and hath all government even civil put in his hands examined and confuted In what sence Christ is said to be over all the heire of all things to have all things put under his feet to be the head of every man A distinction between Christs Kingdome Power and Glory cleared CHAP. VI. Whether Iesus Christ as Mediator and Head of the Church hath placed the Christian Magistrate to hold and execute his office under and for him as his Vicegerent The Arguments for the affirmative discussed THe decision of this Question will doe much yet not all in the decision of the Erastian controversie The question rightly stated Ten Arguments for the affirmative discussed and answered Where divers Scriptures are debated and cleared How we are to understand that Christ is King
of Kings and Lord of Lords How all power in Heaven and in Earth is said to be given to him That the Governments set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not civill Magistrates fully proved Ephes. 1. 21 22 23. and Colos. 2. 10. vindicated CHAP. VII Arguments for the negative of that Question formerly propounded THe lawfull authority of the Heathen Magistrates vindicated It can not be shewed from Scripture that Christ as Mediator hath given any Commission of Vice-gerentship to the Christian Magistrate That the worke of the Ministery is done in the name and authority of Jesus Christ the worke of Magistracy not so The power of Magistracy or civill Government was not given to Christ as Mediator shewed from Luke 12. 14. Iohn â—8 36. Luke 17. 20 21. Magistracy founded in the Law of nature and Nations The Scripture holds forth the same origination of Heathen Magistracy and of Christian Magistracy CHAP. VIII Of the power and priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not and what it is THat no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall and namely the dispencing of Church censures doth belong unto the Magistrate nor may according to the Word of God be assumed and exercised by him proved by six Arguments That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church to receive appeales from all Ecclesiasticall Assembles There are other sufficient remedies against abuses or Mal-administration in Church-Government Reasons against such appeales to the Magistrate The Arguments to the contrary from the Examples of Ierenâ—…y and of Paul discussed Of the collaterality and coordination of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers What is the power and right of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall cleared first generally next more particularly by five distinctions 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong to the civill power but non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Magistrate may imperare that which he may not elicere 3. Distinguish the directive power from the coercive power 4. The Magistrates power is cumulative not privative 5. He may doe in extraordinary cases that which he ought not to doe ordinarily A caution concerning the Arbitrary power of Magistrates in things Ecclesiasticall CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government besides Magistracy or civill Government namely an Ecclesiasticall Government properly so called in the hands of Church-officers THe Question stated and the Affirmative proved by one and twenty Scripturall Arguments Who meant by the Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 names of government The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 13. 7 17. examined Of receiving an accusation against an Elder Of rejecting an Hereticke Of the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian and the sence of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the subjection of the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets The Angels of the Churches why reproved for having false Teachers in the Church Note that man 2 Thess. 3. 14. proved to be Church-censure Of the Ruler Rom. 12. 8. and Governments 1 Cor. 12. 28. A patterne in the Jewish Church for a distinct Ecclesiasticall government What meant by cutting off Gal. 5. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly what Of the Ministeriall power to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 8. what Of the visible administration of the Kingdome of Christ by his Laws Courts Censures The Arguments for Excommunication from Matth. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. briefly vindicated That Elders are rulers of the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of Government Ministers why called Sâ—…ewards of the Mysteries of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of government Church-Government exercised by the Synod of the Apostles and Elders Acts 15. CHAP. X. Some objections made against Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline answered Mr Husseys objection doth stricke as much against Paul as against us The fallacy of comparing Government with the word preached in point of efficacy Foure ends or uses of Church-government That two coordinate Governments are not inconsistent The objection that Ministers have other worke to doe answered The feare of an ambitious ensnarement in the Ministery so much objected is no good Argument against Church-government M. Husseys motion concerning Schooles of Divinity examined Church Government is no immunity to Church-officers from Censure Though the Erastian principles are sufficiently overthrown by asserting from Scripture the may be of Church-government yet our Arguments prove a must be or an Institution Six Arguments added which conclude this point CHAP. XI The necessity of a distinct Church-government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates THis acknowledged by Christian Emperours of old Grotius for us in this particular Christian Magistracy hath never yet punished all such offences as are Ecclesiastically censurable Presbyteries in the primitive times did not exercise any power which did belong of right to the Magistrate No warrant from the word that the Ordinance of a distinct Church government was onely for Churches under persecution but contrariwise the Churches are charged to keep till the comming of Christ the commandement then delivered No just ground for the feare of the interfeering of the civill and of the Ecclesiasticall power The Churches liberties enlarged not diminished under Christian Magistrats The Covenant against this exception of the Erastians The Christian Magistrate if he should take upon him the whole burthen of the corrective part of Church-government could not give an account to God of it The Erastian principles doe involve the Magistrate into the Prelaticall guiltinesse The reasons and grounds mentioned in Scripture upon which Church-censures were dispenced in the Primiâ—ive Churches are no other then concerne the Churches under Christian Magistrâ—tes The end of Church-censures neither intended nor attained by the administration of Christian Magistracy The power of binding and loosing not temporary They who restrict a distinct Church-government to Churches under Heathen or persecuting Magistrats give a mighty advantage to Socinians and Anabaptists Gualther and Master Prynne for us in this Question APPENDIX A Collection of some testimonies out of a Declaration of King Iames the Helvetian Bohemian Augustane French and Dutch confessions the Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches in France Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum the Irish Articles a Book of Melanchton and another of L. Humfredus The third Booke Of Excommunication from the Church AND Of Suspension from the Lords Table CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles A Transition from Church-government in generall to Excommunication and Suspension in particular The present controversie ten waies mis-stated by M. Prynne That which was publiquely depending between the Parliament and Assembly did rather concerne the practicall conclusion it selfe then the Mediums to prove it The strength of the Assemblies proofes
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
is misapplied by him His tenth concerning the ends of the Sacrament yeeldeth the cause and mireth himselfe His eleventh a grosse petitio principii His twelfth appealing to the experience of Christians rectified in the state and repelled for the weight That this debate concerning the nature end use and effect of the Sacrament doth clearely cast the ballance of the wholecontroversie concerning Suspension Lucas Osiander cited by M. Prynne against us is more against himselfe CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a pollution and prophanation of that holy Ordinance And in what respects it may be so called THe true state of this Question cleared by five distinâ—ions Nine Arguments to prove the affirmative That the admitting of the scandalous and prophane to the Sacrament gives the lie to the word preached and looseth those whom the word binddeth That it is a strengthning of the hands of the wicked T is a prophanation of Baptisme to baptise a Catechumene Jew or a Pagan being of a known prophane life although he were able to make confession of the true faith by word of mouth That such as are found unable to examine themselves whether through naturall or sinfull disability or manifestly unwilling to it ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper The reason for keeping backe children and fooles holds stronger for keeping back known prophane persons Hag. 2. 11 12 13 14. explained A debate upon Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs c wherein M. Prynne is confuted from Scripture from Antiquity from Erastus also and Grotius CHAP. XVI An Argument of Erastus drawn from the Baptisme of John against the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper examined THat Iohn baptised none but such as confessed their sinnes and did outwardly appeare penitent T is a great question whether those Pharisees who came to his Baptisme Matth. 3. were baptised The coincidency of that story Matth. 3. with the message of the Pharisees to Iohn Baptist Ioh. 1. The Argument retorted CHAP. XVII Antiquity for the Suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament even such as were admitted to other publique Ordinances Oâ— the foure degrees of Penitents in the ancient Church and of the Suspension of some unexcommunicated persons from the Lords Supper who did joyn with the Church in the hearing of the word and prayer Proved out of the ancient Canons of the Councels of Ancyra Nice Arles the sixth and eighth General Councels out of Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Basilius Magnus confirmed also out of Zonaras Balsamon Albaspinâ—…us The Suspension of all sorts of scandalous sinners in the Church from the Sacrament further confirmed out of Isidorus Pelusiota Dionysius Areopagita with his Scholiast Maximus and his paraphrast Pachimeres Also out of Cyprian Justin Martyr Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine Gregorius Magnus Walafridus Strabo CHAP. XVIII A discovery of the instability and loosenesse of M. Prynne his principles even to the contradicting of himselfe in twelve particulars AN Argument hinted by M. Prynne from the gathering together all guests to the wedding Supper both bad and good examined and foure answers made to it That M. Prynne doth professe and pretend to yeeld the thing for which his Antagonists contend with him but indeed doth not yeeld it his Concessions being clogged with such things as do evacuate and frustrate all Church Discipline That M. Prynne contradicteth himselfe in twelve particulars Foure Counter-quaerees to him A discourse of M. Fox the Author of the Booke of Martyrs concerning three sorts of persons who are unwilling that there should be a Discipline or power of Censures in the Church The Names of Writers or Workes cited and made use of in this Tractate IS Abrabanel Melchier Adamus Ainsworth Aeschines Albaspinaeus Albinus Flaccus Alcuinus Alex. Alensis Algerus Ambrosius Ambrose the Monke Ammonius Alexandrinus Ampsinâ—ius Dutch Annotations English Annotations Apollâ—nius Aquinas Arabick N. T. Aretius Arias Montanus Aristótle Arnobius Irish Articles of faith Augustinus Azorius B BAlsamon Io. Baptista derubcis Baronius Basilius Magnus M r Bayne Becanus Becmanus Beda Bellarmine Bertramus Beza Bilson Brentius Brochmand Brughton Mart. Bucerus Gers. Bucerus Budoeus Bullingâ—r Buxtorff C CAbeljavius Cajetanus Calvin I. Camero Camerarius Canons of the African Church L. Capellus D. Carthusianus Cartwright I. Casaubon The Magdeburgian Centurists Chaldee Paraphrase Chamiâ—rus Chemnitius Chrysostomus D. Chytraeus Is. Clarus Fr. à S. Clara Clemens Clemens Alexandrinus Nic. de Clemangis Iudocus Clichtoveus I. Cloppenburgius I. Coch M r Coleman Aâ—gid de Coninck Barthol Coppen Balthasar â—orderius Corpus Disciplinae M r Cotoon Tomes of Councels Richardus Cowsin Cyprian Cyrill D DAnâ—us R. David Ganz Demosâ—henes M. David Dickson Didoclavius Lud. de Dieu Mich. Dilherrus Diâ—dati The Directory of both Kingdomes Dioâ—yfins 〈◊〉 Synâ—d of Dort Iesuits of Doway I. Drusius Duâ—renus Durandus Duranâ—s E ELias R. Eliâ—ser C â— Empereur Erastus Erasmus C. Espenâ—us Esâ—ius Euthymius Aben Ezra F FAâ—ritius M r Fox Ch. Francken Hist. of the troubles at Franckeford The Disciplin of the reformed Churches of Franâ— D r Fulkâ— G P. Galatinus Phil. Gamachaeus Gelenius Laws and Statuâ—es of Genevah Genebrardus Geo. Genzius I. â—rhardus Gesnerus Sâ—l Glassius Godwyn Gomarus Gorranus Gregorius Magnus Gregorius Thaumaturgus Professors of Groning Grotius Gualther H HArmony of confessions Harmonia Synoderâ—n Belgicarum Haymo Helmichius Hemmiugius Heshusius Hesychius Hierâ— Hilarius M. Hildersham P. Hinkelmannus Fraâ— Holy-Oke 〈◊〉 Honnius Hâ—go de S. Uictâ—re Hugâ— Cardiâ—lis L. Humfredus Aegid Hâ—ius M. Hussey Hutterus I KIng Iames Iansenâ—us I'lyricus Iâ—nocentius 3. Iosephus Iosuae levitae Halichoth Olam Isidorus Hispâ—lensis Isidorus 〈◊〉 Iulius Caesar Fr. Iunius Iustinus Martyr K KEâ—erm â—nnus D r Kâ—llet C. Kirâ—erus L COrn a Lapide Lavater Laurentius de la barre M r Leigh Nieolaus Lambardus Lorinus Lutheâ—us Lyrâ— M MAccovius Maimonides Maldonat Manâ—sseh Ben. Israel Conciliaâ—or Marianae Marlorat Martial M. Martinius P. Martyr Maximus Medina Meisnerus Menochius Mercerus P. Maulin Munsterus Musculus N G. Nazianzen I. Newenklaius Nonnus Novarinus O OEcumenius Origen Luc. Osiander P PAchymeres M r Paget Pagnin Paraeus Parker Pasor Pelargus Pellicanus Pemble Philo the Iew Piscator Plato Polanus M r Prynne R RAbanus Maurus Raynolds The Remonstranâ—s Revius Rittangelius D. Rivetus Rupertus Tuitiensis M. Rutherfurd S EManuel Sa Salmasius Salmeron M. Salâ—marsh Sanctius Saravia I. Scaliger Scapula Schindlerus Ionas Schlichtingius The Booke of Discipline of Scotland Scotus Subtilis M. Selden The 〈◊〉 â—eius F. Socinâ—s â—ipingius Fr. Spanbemiâ—t Spelman Stegmannus Strigelius Suarez Suidas Suâ—livius Syariacâ— N. T. T TAcianus The Talmud Tannerus Tertullian Theodoretus Theophylactus Tilenus Tirinus Titus Bostrorum Episcapus Toletus Tostatus Tossanus Trelcatius Triglandius Tully W WAlaeus Walafridus Strabo M r Io. Welsh Mr Iohn Weyâ—es of Craigton Mr Iohn Weimes of Lathoâ—ker Westhemerus Whitgift Whittakerus Willet I. Winkelmannus Wolphius V GR. de Valentia Vatablus Uazquez Uedelius Uictor Antiochenus
Gisb. Vâ—etius Gul. Vorstius Hen. Vorstius Gerâ—ardus Uossius Dionysius Vossius Ursinus Z ZAncâ—ius Zepperus Zonâ—ras Zâ—inglius Aarons Rod blossoming OR The Divine Ordinance of Church-government VINDICATED The first Booke Of the Jewish Church-government CHAP. I. That if the Erastians could prove what they alledge concerning the Iewish Church Government yet in that particular the Iewish Church could not be a president to the Christian. OBserving that very much of Erastus his strength and much of his followers their confidence lieâ—h in the old Testament and Jewish Church which as they averre knew no such distinction as Civill Government and Church Government Civill Justice and Church Discipline I have thought good first of all to remove that great stumbling-block that our way may afterward lie fair and plain before us I doe heartily acknowledge that what we finde to have been an Ordinance or an approved practice in the Jewish Church ought to be a rule and patterne to us such things onely excepted which were typicall or temporall that is for which there were speciall reasons proper to that infancy of the Church and not common to us Now if our opposites could prove that the Jewish Church was nothing but the Jewish State and that the Jewish Church-government was nothing but the Jewish State-government and that the Jewes had never any supreame Sanhedrin but one onely and that civil and such as had the temporall coercive power of Magistracy which they will never be able to prove yet there are divers conâ—iderable reasons for which that could be no president to us First Casaubon exerc 13. anno 31. num 10. proves out of Maimonides that the Sanhedrin was to be made up if possible wholly of Priests and Levites and that if so many Priests and Levites could not be found as were fit to be of the Sanhedrin in that case some were assumed out of other Tribes Howbeit I hold not this to be agreeable to the first institution of the Sanhedrin But thus much is certaine that Priests and Levites were members of the Jewish Sanhedrin and had an authoritative decisive suffrage in making decrees and inflicting punishments as well as other members of the Sanhedrin Philo the Jew de vita Mosis pag. 530. saith that he who was found gathering sticks upon the Sabbath was brought ad principem sacerdotum consistorium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to the Prince or chiefe Ruler meaning Moses together with whom the Priests did sit and judge in the Sanhedrin Jehosaphat did set of the Levites of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord c. 2 Chro. 19. 8. Secondly the people of Israel had Gods own Judiciall Law given by Moses for their civill Law and the Priests and Levites in stead of civill Lawyers Thirdly the Sanhedrin did punish no man unlesse admonition had been first given to him for his amendment Maimon de fundam legis cap. 5. sect 6. yea saith Gul. Vorstius upon the place though a man had killed his parents the Sanhedrin did not punish him unlesse he were first admonished and when witnesses were examined seven questions were propounded to them one of which was whether they had admonished the offender as the Talmud it self tels us ad tit Sanhedrin cap. 5. sect 1. Fourthly the Sanhedrin respondebat de Jure did interpret the Law of God and determine controversies concerning the sence and intent thereof Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11. and it was on this manner as the Ierusalem Talmud in Sanhedrin cap. 10. sect 2. records There were there in Ierusalem three assemblies of Iudges one sitting at the entry to the mountaine of the Sanctuary another sitting at the doore of the Court the third sitting in the Conelave made of cut stone First addresse was made to that which sate at the ascent of the mountaine of the Sanctuary then the Elder who came to represent the cause which was too hard for the Courts of the Cities said on â—…his manner I have drawne this sence from the holy Scripture my fellows have drawn that sence I have taught thus my fâ—…llows so and so If they had learned what is to be determined in that cause they did communicate it unto them If not they went forward together to the Iudges sitting at the doore of the Court by whom they were instructed if they after the laying forth of the difficulty knew what resolution to give Otherwise all of them jointly had recourse to the great Sanhedrin For from it doth the Law go forth unto all Israel It is added in Exc. Gemar Sanhed cap. 10. sect 1. that the Sanhedrin did sit in that roome of cut stone which was in the Temple from the morning to the evening daily sacrifice The Sanhedrin did judge cases of Idolatry apostasie false Prophets c. Talm. Hieros in Sanhed cap. 1. sect 5. Now all this being unquestionably true of the Jewish Sanhedrin if we should suppose that they had no supreme Sanhedrin but that which had the power of civill Magistracy then I aske where is that Christian State which was or is or ought to be moulded according to this patterne Must Ministers have vote in Parliament Must they be civill Lawyers must all criminall and capitall Judgements be according to the Judiciall Law of Moses and none otherwise Must there be no civill punishment without previous admonition of the offender Must Parliaments sit as it were in the Temple of God and interpret Scripture which sence is true and which false and determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience and judge of all false doctrines yet all this must be if there be a paralell made with the Jewish Sanhedrin I know some divines hold that the Judiciall Law of Moses so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the morall â—aw Idolatry blasphemy Sabbath-breaking adultery theft c. ought to be a rule to the Christian Magistrate and for my part I wish more respect were had to it and that it were more consulted with This by the way I am here only shewing what must follow if the Jewish Government be taken for a prâ—sident without making a disâ—inction of Civil Church government Surely the consequences will be such as I am sure our opposites will never admit of and some of which namely concerning the civill places or power of Ministers and concerning the Magistrates authority to interpret Scripture ought not to be admitted Certainly if it should be granted that the Jewes had but one Sanhedrin yet there was such an intermixture â—of Civill and Ecclesiasticall both persons and proceedings that there must be a partition made of that power which the Jewish Sanhedrin did exercise which taken whole and entire together can neither sute to our Civill nor to our Ecclesiasticall Courts Nay while the Erastians appeale to the Jewish Sanhedrin suppose it now to be but one they doe thereby ingage themselves to grant unto Church officers a share at
least yea a great share in Ecclesiasticall government for so they had in the Supreme Sanhedrin of the Jewes And further the Jewes had their Synagoga magna which Grotius on Matth. 10. 17. distinguisheth from the Sanhedrin of 71. for both Prophets and others of place and power among the people praeter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides the members of that Sanhedrin were members of that extraordinary assembly which was called the great Synagogue such as that Assembly Ezra 10. which did decree forfeiture and separation from the Congregation to be the punishment of such as would not gather themselves unto Ierusalem in which assembly were others beside those of the Sanhedrin Of the men of the great Synagogue I read in Tzemach David pag. 56. â—…dit Hen. Vors that they did receive the traditions from the Prophets and it is added Viri Synagogae magnae ordinarunt nobis preces nostras The men of the great Synagogue did appoint unto us our prayers meaning their Liturgies which they fancy to have been so instituted The Hebrews themselves controvert whether all the men of the great Synagogue did live at one and the same time or successively but that which is most received among them is that these men did flourish all at one time as is told us in the passage last cited where also these are named as men of the great Synagogue Haggai Zechariah Malachi Zerubbabel Mordechai Ezra Jehoshua Seria Rehaliah Misphar Rechum Nehemias Rambam addeth Chananiah Mischael and Azariah Finally as Prophets Priesâ—s and Scribes of the Law of God had an interest in the Synagoga magna after the Captivity so we read of occasionall and extraordinary Ecclesiasticall Synods before the Captivity as that assembly of the Priests and Levites under Hezekiah 2 Chro. 29. 4. 15. and that erring Synod of the 400 Prophets 1 Kings 22. 6. Herod also gathered together the chiefe Priests and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. I conclude that if it should be granted there was no Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes distinct from the civill yet as the necessity of a distinct Ecclesiasticall Government among us is greater then it was among them in respect of the foure considerations above mentioned so likewise the Priests had a great deale more power and authority in the Jewish Church not onely by occasionall Synods but by their interest in Synagoga magna and in the civill Sanhedrin it selfe then the Erastians are willing that Church officers should have in the Christian Church CHAP. II. That the Iewish Church was formally distinct from the Iewish State or Common-wealth IT hath been by some with much confidence and scorne of all who say otherwise averred that Excommunication and Church-government distinct from the Civill hath no patterne for it in the Jewish Church I am sure saith M r Coleman in his Brotherly examination re-examined pag. 16. the best reformed Church that ever was went this way I meane the Church of Israel which had no distinction of Church government and Civill government Hast thou appealed unto Caesar unto Caesar shalt thou goe Have you appealed to the Jewish Church thither shall you goe Wherefore I shall endeavour to make these five things appeare 1. That the Jewish Church was formally 〈◊〉 from the Jewish State 2. That there was an Eccleâ—iasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the Civill 3. That there was an Ecclesiasticall Excommunication 〈◊〉 from Civill punishments 4. That in the Jewish Church there was also a publike exomologesis or declaration of repentance and thereupon a reception or admission againe of the offender to fellowship with the Church in the holy things 5. That there was a suspension of the prophane from the Temple and Passeover First the Jewish Church was formally diâ—tinct from the Jewish State I say formally because ordinarily they were not distinct materially the same persons being members of both But formally they were distinct as now the Church and State are distinct among us Christians 1. In respect of distinct lawes the Ceremoniall Law was given to them in reference to their Church state the Judiciall Law was given to them in reference to their Civill State Is. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 13. putteth this difference between the Lawes given to Adam and to the sonnes of Noah and the divine Law given by Moses that those Laws were given for conservation of humane society and are in the classis of Judiciall or civill Laws But the divine Law given by Moses doth direct the soule to its last perfection and end I doe not approve the difference which he puts between these Lawes This onely I note that he distinguisheth Judiciall or Civill Laws for conservation of society though given by God from those Laws which are given to perfect the soule and to direct it to its last end such as he conceives the whole morall and ceremoniall Law of Moses to be Halichoth Olam tract 5. cap. 2. tels us that such and such Rabbies were followed in the ceremoniall Lawes other Rabbies followed in the Judiciall Lawes 2. In respect of distinct acts they did not worship God and offer Sacrifices in the Temple nor call upon the name of Lord nor give thanks nor receive the Sacraments as that State but as that Church They did not punish evill doers by mulcts imprisonment banishment burning stoning hanging as that Church but as that State 3. In respect of controversiâ—s some causes and controversies did concerne the Lords matters some the Kings matters 2 Chro. 19. 11. To judge between blood and blood was one thing To judge between Law and Commandement between Statutâ—s and judgements that is to give the true sence of the Law of God when it was controverted was another thing 4. In respect of Officers the Priests and Lâ—vites were Church-officers Magistrates and Judges not so but were Ministers of the State The Priests might not take the Sword out of the hand of the Magistrates The Magistrates might not offer Sacrifice nor exercise the Priests office 5. In respect of continuance when the Romans tooke away the Jewish State and civill Government yet the Jewish Church did remaine and the Romans did permit them the liberty of their religion And now though the Jewes have no Jewish State yet they have Jewish Churches Whence it is that when thâ—y tell where one did or doth live they doe not mention the Town but the Church In the holy Church at Uenice at Frankford c. See Buxtorf lex Rabin pag. 1983. 6. In respect of variation The constitution and Government of the Jewish State was not the same but different under Moses and Ioshua under the Iudges under the Kings and after the Captivity But we cannot say that the Church was new modelld as oft as the State was 7. In respect of members For as M. Selden hath very well observed concerning that sort of Proselytes who had the name of Prâ—…selyti Justitiae they were initiated into the Jewish religion by Circumcision Baptisme and Sacrifice and they were
capitall causes 2. mulcts 3. leprosie and the judgement of clean or unclean Now this third belonged to the cognizance and judgement of the Priests Yea the Text it self holdeth forth two sorts of causes and controversies some forensicall between blood and blood some ceremoniall between stroke and stroke not onely Hierome but the Chaldee and Greek readeth between leprosie and leprosie Grotius noteth the Hebrew word is used for leprosie many times in one chapter Lev. 13. Plea and plea seemeth common to both there being difference of judgement concerning the one and the other 3. Here are two Iudicatories distinguished by the disjunctive Or V. 12. which we have both in the Hebrew Chaldee Greek and in our English Translation so that vers 9. and is put for or as Grotius noteth expounding that verse by vers 12. And as the Priests and Levites are put in the plurall V. 9. the like must be understood of the Iudge whereby we must understand Iudges and so the Chaldee readeth V. 9. even as saith Ainsworth many Captains are in the Hebrew called an head 1 Chron. 4. 42. And so you have there references of difficult cases from inferior Courts to the Priests or to the Judges at Ierusalem 4. There is also some intimation of a twofold sentence one concerning the meaning of the Law according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee V. 11. and this belonged to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. for the Priests it s not said the Judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth Another concerning matter of fact and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt do Grotius upon the place acknowledgeth a udgement of the Priests distinct from that of the Judges and he addâ—th a simile from the Roman Synod consisting of seventy Bishops which was consulted in weighty controversies But he is of opinion that the Priests and Levites did onely end avour to satisfie and reconcile the dissenting parties which if they did well if not that then they referred the reasons of both parties to the Sanhedrin who gave forth their decree upon the whole matter The first part of that which he saith helpeth me But this last hath no ground in the Text but is manifeâ—ly inconsistent therewith V. 12. The man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge even that man shall die Which proves that the judgement of both was supreme in suo genere that is if it was a controverâ—e ceremoniall between leprosie and leprosie or between clean and unclean Lev. 10. 9 10 11. Ezech. 22. 26. or dogmaticall and doctrinall concerning the sence of the Law and answering de Jure when the sence of the Law was controverted by the Iudges of the Cities then he that would not stand to the sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin whereof the high Priest was preâ—dent was to die the death But if the cause was criminall as between blood and blood wherein the nature or proofe of the fact could not be agreed upon by the Judges of the Cities then he that would not submit to the decree of the civill Sanhedrin at Iâ—…rusalem should die the death And thus the English Divines in their late annotations give the sence according to the disjunction V. 12. While the Priest bringeth warrant from God for the sentenee which he passeth in the cause of man Ezech. 44. 23 24. he that contumaciously disobeyeth him disobeyeth God Luke 10. 16. Matth. 10. 14. The cause is alike if the just sentence of a competent Judge be contemned in secular effaires In the third place we read that David did thus divide the Levites at that time eight and thirty thousand foure and twenty thousand of them were to set forward the work of the house of the Lord foure thousand were porters and foure thousand praised the Lord with instruments and six thousand of them were made some schoterim Officers and some schâ—…phtim Judges 1 Chro. 23. 4. Some understand by Schoterim Rulers or those who were over the charge To speak properly schophtim were those that gave sentence schoterim those that lookt to the execution of the sentence and to the keeping of the law like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Craecians for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another So 1 Chro. 26. 29. Chenaniah and his sonnes were for the outward businesse over Israel foâ—… Officers or Rulers or over the charge and Judges that is they were not tied to attendance and service in the Temple as the Porters and singers and those that did service about the Sacrifices Lights Washings and such like things in the Temple but they were to judge and give sentence concerning the law and the meaning thereof when any such controversie should be brought before them from any of the Cities in the Land They were not appointed to be Officers and Judges over the rest of the Levites to keepe them in order for which course was taken in another way but to be Rulers and Judges over Israel saith the Text in the outward businesse which came from without to Ierusalem in judging of which peradventure they were to attend by course or as they should be called If any say that all those Levites who were Judges did not sit in judgement at Ierusalem but some of them in severall Cities of the Land that there might be the easier accesse to them I can easily grant it and I verily believe it was so and it maketh the more for a Church government in particular Cities which was subordinate to the Ecclesiasticall Sanh dâ—in at Ierusalem However the Levites had a ruling power and Deut. 31. 28. those who are schoterim in the originall the Septuagints call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome Doctores because their Teachers were Officers over the charge and had a share in Government Now no man can imagine that there were no other Officers over the charge not Judges in Israel except the Levites onely for it followeth in that same Story â— Chro. 28. 1. And David assembled all the Princes of Israel the Princes of the Tribes and the Captains of the Companies that ministred to the King by course the Captains over the thousands c. Nor yet wil any man say that the Levites were Officers over the charge and Judges of the same kind in the same manner or for the same ends with the civill Rulers and Judges or the military Commanders or that there was no distinction between the ruling power of the Princes and the ruling power of the Levites Where then shall the difference lie if not in this that there was an Ecclesiasticall Government besides the Civill and Military I grant those Levites did rule and judge not onely in all the businesse of the Lord but also in the service of the King 1 Chro. 26. 30 32. But the reason was because the Jewes had no other civill
Law but Gods owne Law which the Priests and Levites were to expound So that it was proper for that time and there is not the like reason that the Ministers of Jesus Christ in the New Testament should judge or rule in civill affairs nay it were contrary to the rule of Christ and his Apostles for us to do so yet the Levites their judging and governing in all the bufines of the Lord is a patterne left for the entrusting of Church officers in the New Testament with a power of Church government there being no such reason for it as to make it peculiar to the old Testament and not common to the New The fourth Scripture which proves an Ecclesiasticall government and Sanhedrin is 2 Chro. 19. 8 10 11. where Iehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government which was first instituted by the hand of Moses and afterward ordered and setled by David Moreover saith the Text in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies c. It is not controverted whether there was a civill Sanhedrin at Ierusalem but that which is to be proved from the place is an Ecclesiasticall Court which I prove thus Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiasticall members judging Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end moderated by an Ecclesiasticall president having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and controversies brought before them by appeale or reference from inferiour Courts and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiasticall officers There it must needs be granted that there was a supream Ecclesiasticall court with power of Government But such a Court we finde at Ierusalem in Iehoshaphats time Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man wil deny For a Court so constituted so qualified and so authorised is the very thing now in debate And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption shall have leave to call it by another name if he please The assumption I prove by the parts 1. Here are Levites and Priests in this Court as members thereof with power of decisive suffrage and with them such of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel as were joyned in the government of that Church Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Divines and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders And this is one of the Scriptures alledged by our Divines against Bellarmin to prove that others beside those who are commonly but corruptly called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voyce in Synods 2. Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes were here judged which are called by the name of the judgement of the Lord V. 8. and the matters of the Lord distinguished from the Kings matters V. 11. so V. 10. beside controversies between blood and blood that is concerning consanguinity and the interpreting of the Laws concerning forbidden degrees in marriage it being observed by interpreters that all the lawfull or unlawfull degrees are not particularly expressed but some onely and the rest were to be judged of by parity of reason and so it might fall within the cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin Though it may be also expounded otherwise between blood and blood that is Whether the murther was wilfull or casuall which was matter of fact the cognisance whereof belonged to the civill Judge It is further added between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements noting seeming contradictions between one Law and another such as Manasseb Ben Israel hath spoken of in his Conciliator or when the sence and meaning of the Law is controverted which is not matter of fact but of right wherein speciall use was of the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge and the Law was to be sought at his mouth Aâ—…al 2. 7. and that not onely ministerially and doctrinally but judicially and in the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem such controversies concerning the Law of God were brought before them as in 2 Chro. 19. the place now in hand Yea shall even warn them c. Which being spoken to the Court must be meant of a synedricall Decree determining those questions and controversies concerning the Law which should come before them As for that distinction in the Text of the Lords matters and the Kings matters Erastus page 274. saith that by the Lords matters is meant any cause expressed in the Law which was to be judged Whereby he takes away the distinction which the Text makes for in his sence the Kings matters were the Lords matters Which himselfe it seems perceiving he immediately yeeldeth our interpretation that by the Lords matters are meant things pertaining to the worship of God and by the Kings matters civill things Si per illas libet res ad cultum Dei spectantes per haec res civiles accipere non pugnabo If you please saith he by those to understand things pertaining to the worship of God by these civill things I will not be against it 3. It was for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord. It s not said against one another but against the Lord for two reasons 1. Because mention had been made of the Commandements Statutes and Iudgements after the generall word Law V. 10. by which names Interpreters use to understand both in this and many other places of Scripture the Lawes morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall Now the case to be judged might be part of the Ceremoniall Law having reference to God and his Ordinances and not part of the Judiciall law or any injury done by a man to his neighbour And in referâ—nce to the morall Law it might â—e a trespasse against the first Table not against the second 2. Even in the case of a personall or civill injury or whatsoâ—ver the controversie was that was brought before them they were to warn the Judges in the Cities not to trespasse against the Lord by mistaking or mis-understanding the Law or by righting mens wrongs so as to wrong Divine right And for that end they were to determine the Ius and the intendment of the law when it was controverted 4. Whatsoever cause of their brethren that dwelt in the Cities should come unto them V. 10. whether it should come by appeale or by reference and arbitration this Court at Ierusalem was to give out an ultimate and authoritative determination of it So that what was brought from inferiour courts to them is brought no higher to any other Court 5. This Court had an Ecclesiasticall Prolocutor or moderator V. 11. Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord Whereas Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah was Speaker in the civill Sanhedrin for all the Kings matters Amariah and Zebadiah were not onely with the Sanhedrin as members or as Councellors but over them as Presidents Eis summos Magistratus
Diodati citing Ier. 26. 7. Secondly they shall not so much as come into the computation or numbring of the people as members of the Church of Israel 3. Nay they shall not be permitted to dwell in the holy Land or to returne thither from their captivity they shall not have so much favour as strangers had who might come into the holy Land and sojourne there In the first branch the word translated assembly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sod which properly signifieth a secret and is used for counsell because counsell ought to be secret or for the place of counsell or assembly of Counsellers Pagnin in his Thesaurus p. 1761. readeth this place with Hierome in consilio or otherwise saith he in concilio Vatablus in concilio populi mei non erunt The Septuagints read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is those Prophets shall have no hand in the Discipline of my people The same word they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea by both these put together Prov. 20. 19. where for the Hebrew sod the Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that revealeth the secret counsels in the Sanhedrin and it cohereth well with the preceding Verse where they mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governments Sometime they expound the word by an Episcopall I mean not Prelaticall inspection Iob 29. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was an overseer of my house So that so far as the Septuagints authority can weigh that place Ezek. 13. 9. must be understood of the secluding of those Prophets from the Sanhedrin not from the Civill in which the Prophets were not members but from the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin In the twelfth and last place the new Testament holds out to us an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin Whether the civill Sanhedrin was wholy taken away by Herod and another civill Sanhedrin not substitute in the place of that which he took away but the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin onely remaining as some hold or whether both did then continue though not so clearely distinct as others hold This we finde that there was an Ecclesiasticall government in the hands of Church-officers for 1. there was a councell of the Priests and Elders and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. 16. 21. 21. 23. 26. 57 59. 27. 1. 12. Marke 14. 43. Luke 22. 66. Acts 4. 5. The Centurists say that those Elders were joyned with the Priests in the government of the Church with Ecclesiasticall persons in Ecclesiasticall affaires Which hath been rightly taken for a president of our ruling Elders 2. That Councell is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22. 66. Acts 22. 5. the Presbytery or Eldership the very name which Paul gives to that assembly of Church-officers who ordained Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 14. is it credible that the Apostle would transfer the name of a civill Court to signifie an Assembly which was meerely Ecclesiasticall and not Civill The very use of the word in this sence by the Apostle tels us that in his age the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was taken in an Ecclesiasticall notion onely 3. This Councell did examine Iesus concerning his Disciples and his doctrine and received witnesses against him and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy Matth. 27. 57. Marke 14. 53 55. Ioh. 18. 19. Hence Protestant writers draw an argument against Papists to overthrow their infallibility of Councels unto which argument Bellarmine deviseth foure answers But it came not once into his thoughts to reply that this councell was civill not Ecclesiasticall which had been his best answer if any probability for it It hath been supposed both by Protestant and Popish Writers that it was an Ecclesiasticall Councell such as the controversie is about otherwise our Argument had been as impertinent as their answer was insufficient 4. Our opposites have no evasion here but that which Bilson Saravia and others of the Prelaticall party did answer in opposition to ruling Elders namely that the Jewish Elders were Judges or Magistrates But the reply which served then will serve now the Elders are plainly distinguished from Judges Rulers and Princes Ios. 8. 33. 23. 2. Deut. 5. 23. Iud. 8. 14. 2 Kings 10. 1 5. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. Tâ—…status on Deut. 21. 2. 22. 15 16. observeth the same distinction of Judges and Elders Pelargus on Deuâ—… 21. 2 3 4. observeth the like That which I say concerning the distinction of Judges and Elders may be confirmed by Halichoth Olam Tract 1. cap 3. The Judges of Soura M. Houna and D. Isaac The Iudges of Phoumbeditha M. Papa the sonne of Samuel c. The Elders of Soura M. Houna and M. Hisda The Elders of Phoumbeditha Ena and Abimi the sonne of Rahba And thus we are taught how to under and thâ—se Gemarick phrases of the Judges of such a place and the Eldâ—rs of such a place that we may not mistake them as if they were one 5. Some have also drawne a patterne for the constitution of Synods from that Councell Acts 4. 5 6. where we finde assembled together Rulers 〈◊〉 Elders Scriâ—es according to which patterne we have in our Synods 1. the civill 〈◊〉 to preside in the order of proceedings for preventing tumults injuries disorders and to assist and protect the Synod 2. Pastors of Churches 3. Doctors from universities answering to the Scribes or Doctors of the Law 4. Ruling Elders who assist in the Government of the Church 6. After that Iudaea was redacted into a Province and the Romans having keptin their owne hands not only the power of life and death Iohn 18. 31. but all judgement in whatsovever civill or criminall offences falling out among the Jews meant by matters of wrong or wicked leudness Acts 18. 14. And having left to the Jewes no government nor any power of judgement except in things pertaining to their religion onely Ib. verse 15. These six things considered it is very unprobable if not unpossible that the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes mentioned so often in the New Testament should be no Ecclesiasticall Court but a temporall and civill Magistracy The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. reckon that Councell for an Ecclesiasticall Court distinct from civill Magistracy and they propose these two to be distinctly treated of Acta coram Pontificibus seu Magistratu Ecclesiastico and here they bring in the councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes And Actio coram Pilato seu magistratu politico I know Erastus lib. 3. cap. 2. aud lib. 4. cap. 4. though he confesse plainly that the Jewish Sanhedrin mentioned in the Gosspell and in the Acts of the Apostles had onely power of judging causes belonging to Religion and that the Romans did leave them no power to judge of civill injuries yet he holdeth that in these causes of Religion the Sanhedrin had power not onely of imprisoning and scourging but even of death it selfe And so endeavours to make it a temporall or civil Magistracy which
Judgement-hall I perceive would he say that this man is accused of such things as concerne your Law and your Religion therefore take him and judge him according to your Law They reply in reference to that which Pilate did drive at It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death If they had meant for causes which concerned Caesars Crown it had been not onely an impertinent reply but a yeelding to Pilates intention for he might have said I doe not meane that ye shall judge him for that which concerneth Caesar but for that which concerneth your owne Law and Religion Therefore certainely the answer which the Jewes made to Pilate did reply that though they had power to judge a man in that which concerned their Law and Religion yet they had no power to put any man to death no not for that which concerned their Law 4. There are severall passages in the story of Paul which shew us that though the Jewish Sanhedrin might judge a man in matters of their Law yet they were accusers not Judges in civill or capitall punishments I meane when a man was accused as worthy of bonds or of death though it were for a matter of their Law they had no liberty to judge but onely to accuse The Jewes drew Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio even for a matter of their law This fellow say they to Gallio perswadeth men to worship God contrary to the Law Acts 18. 13. If they had intended onely an Ecclesiasticall censure their recourse had been either to the Sanhedrin or at least to the Synagogue but because they intended a corporall temporall punishment which neither the Sanhedrin nor the Synagogue had power to inflict therefore they must prosecute Paul before Gallio whose answer was to this purpose that if it had been a matter of wrong or wicked leudnesse it had been proper for him to have judged it but that since it was no such thing he would not meddle in it knowing also that the Jewes had no power to doe it by themselves Againe Acts 23. 28 29. Claudius Lysias writeth to Faelix concerning Paul thus and when I would have knowne the cause wherefore they accused him I brought him forth into their Councell Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their Law but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds That which made Lysias interpose in the businesse and rescue Paul from the hands of the Jewes was the Jewes designe to put Paul to death under colour of judging him according to their Law which was the pretence made by Tertullus Acts 24. 6. Now in that which was to be punished either by death or so much as by bonds Lysias conceives the Jewes to be no competent Judges therefore he brings Paul into the councell of the Jewes not to be judged by them but to know what accusation they had against him For the same reason Paul himselfe did decline going to Ierusalem to be judged there no not of matters concerning the Religion and Law of the Jewes that accusation being so far driven on as to make him worthy of death His accusers saith Festus to King Agrippa brought none accusation of such things as I supposed but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition and of one Iesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive And because I doubted of such manner of questions I asked him whether he would goe to Ierusalem and there be judged of these matters Acts 25. 18 19 20. This Paul had declined vers 10. I stand at Caesars judgement seat said he where I ought to be judged And why but because his accusation was capitall even in that which concerned the Law of the Jewes and he knew the Jewes at that time had no power of capitall judgements Some have alledged this example of Paul for appeales from Presbyteries or Synods to the civill Magistrate by which argument themselves grant that the Jewish Sanhedrin then declined by Paul was a Ecclesiasticall not a civill Court 5. Besides all this Erastus his opinion is strongly confuted by that which Constantinus L'Empereur Annot. in remp Jud. pag. 404. to 407. proving that the Jewes after the thirtieth yeere of Christ had no power of punishing with death for proofe hereof citeth a passage of Aboda zara that forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin which had in former times exercised capitall judgements did remove from Hierusalem quum viderent se non posse judicia capitalia exercere when they perceived that they could not exercise capitall judgements they said let us remove out of this place lest we be guilty it being said Deut. 17. 10. according to the sentence which they of that place shall shew thee whence they collected that if they were not in that place they were not obliged to capitall judgements and so they removed And if you would know whe ther he tels us out of Rosch Hasschana they removed from Hieru salem to Iabua thence to Ousa thence to Scâ—…aphrea c. He that desires to have further proofes for that which hath been said may read Buxtorf lexic. Chald. Talmud rabbin pag. 514 515. He proves that Iudicia criminalia criminall judgements did cease and were taken away from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple This he saith is plaine in Talmud Hierosol in lib. Sanhedrin cap. 7. in Talmud Babyl in Sanbedrin fol. 41. 1. in Aboda zâ—…ru fol. 8. 2. in Schab fol. 15. 1. in Iuchasin fol. 51. 1. Majenâ—…on in Sanhedrin cap. 14. sect 13. He cites also a passage in Berachos fol. 58. 1. concerning one who for a hainous crime even for lying with a beast ought to be adjudged to death but when one said that he ought to die it was answered that they had no power to put any man to death And this saith D r. Buxâ—…orf is the very same which the Jewes said to Pilate John 18. 31. Now this power being taken from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City which was in the 71 yeere of Christ his death being in the 34. Hence he proveth that this power was taken from the Jewes neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. And I further make this inference that since the Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Hierusalem forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple for which see also Tzemach David edit Hen. Vorst pag. 89. and so about three yeeres before the death of Christ it must needs follow that the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes mentioned so often in and before Christs passion was not a civill Magistracy nor the civill Sanhedrin but an Ecclesiasticall Sanâ—edrin Whence also it follows that the Church Matth. 18. 17. unto which Christ directs his Disciples to goe with their complaints was not the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes as M r Prynne takes it for that
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus pag. 315. confesseth it is very hard to tell what it was He gives three conjectures First that it was some ignominy put upon a man which I thinke no body denies and it may well stand with our interpretation Secondly he saith not that it was a separating of the party from all company or society with any man for which Master Prynne citeth Erastus with others but a pulling away or casting out of a man from some particular Towne onely for instance from Nazareth Thirdly He saith it seemes also to have been a refusall of the priviledges of Jewish Citizens or the esteeming of one no longer for a true Jew but for a Proselyte But that a Proselyte who was free to come both to Temple and Synagogue for of such a Proselyte he speaketh expressely should be said to be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may well weaken it cannot strengthen his cause 8. In Tzemach David edit Hen. Vorst pag 89. We read that when the Sanhedrin did remove from Hierusalem 40. yeeres before the destruction of the Temple there was a Prayer composed against the Hereticks Hen. Vorstius in his observ pag. 285 sheweth out of Maimon that it was a maledictory Prayer appointed to be used against the Hereticks of that time who encreased mightily and that R. Sol. Jarchi addeth this explanation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minim the Disciples of Jesus of Nazareth D. Buxtorf Lexic Chald. Talm. rab pag. 1201. collecteth that this maledictory Prayer was composed in Christs time and against his Disciples Surely it suteth no story so well as that of the decree of casting out of the Synagogue Io. 12. 42. After all these eight considerations this I must adde that I doe not a little admire how Master Prynne could cite Godwyns Jewish Antiquities lib. 5. cap. 2. for that opinion that the casting out of the Synagogue was not an Ecclesiasticall but onely a civill censure If he had but looked upon the page immediately preceding he had found this distinction between the Ecclesiasticall and civill courts of the Jewes The office of the Ecclesiasticall Court was to put a difference between things holy and unholy c. It was a representative Church Hence is that diâ—… Ecclesiae Matt. 18. 17. Tell the Church because unto them belonged the power of excommunication the severall sorts of which censure follow and so he beginneth with the casting out of the Synagogue as the first or lesser Excommunication oâ— Niddui and tells us among other effects of it that the male Children of one thus cast out were not circumcised To Master Prynnes fourth exception the Answer may be collected from what is already said We never find the temporall Magistrate called the Ruler of the Synagogue nor yet that he sate in Judgement in the Synagogue The beating or scourging in the Synagogues was a tumultuous disorderly act we read of no sentence given but onely to be put out of the Synagogue which sentence was given by the Synagogicall consistory made up of the Priest or Priests and Jewish Elders For the power of judging in things and causes Ecclesiasticall did belong to the Priests and Levites together with the Elders of Israel 1 Chro. 23. 4. 26. 30. 32. 2. Chro. 19. 8. And therefore what reason Master Prynne had to exclude the Priests from this corrective power and from being Rulers of the Synagogue I know not Sure I am the Scriptures cited make Priests and Levites to be Judges and Rulers Ecclesiasticall of which before As for the chief Ruler of the Synagogue Archysynagogus erat primarius in Synagoga Doctor say the Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap 7. and if so then not a civill Magistrate To the fifth I Answer 1. If there was an exclusion from Reading Expounding Preaching and Prayer then much more from Sacraments in which there is more of the communion of Saints 2. He that was cast out of the Synagogue might not enter in the Synagogue saith Menochius in Io. 9. 22. therefore he did not communicate in Prayer with the Congregation nor in other acts of Divine Worship which how farre it is applicable to excommunication in the Christian Church I do not now dispute nor are all of one opinion concerning excommunicate persons their admission unto some or exclusion from all publike Ordinances hearing of the word and all I know Erastus answereth the word Synagogue may signifie either the materiall house the place of Assembling or the people the congregation which did Assemble and some who differ in Judgement from us in this particular hold that when we read of putting out of the Synagogue the word Synagogue doth not signifie the house or place of publike worship which yet it doth signifie in other places as Luk. 7. 5. Act. 18. 7. but the Church or Assembly it selfe But I take it to signifie both joyntly and that it was a casting out even from the place it selfe such as that Io. 9. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they cast him out or excommunicated him as the English Translators adde in the Margine Besides I take what it is granted It was a casting out from the Assembly or Congregation it selfe But how could a man be cast out from the Congregation and yet be free to come where the Congregation was Assembled together O but he must keepe off foure cubites distance from all other men And was there so much roome to reele to and fro in the Synagogue I doe not understand how a man shall satisfie himselfe in that notion But I rather thinke Bertramus speakes rationally that he that was excommunicate by Niddui was shut out ab hominum contubernio atque adeâ—… ab ipsius Tabernaculi aditu de Rep. Jud. cap. 7. which Niddui he takes to be the same with casting out of the Synagogue He that was cast out from mens society must needs be excluded from the publike holy Assemblies and from the place where these Assemblies are Whereunto agreeth that which we read in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 3. Sect. 9. a certaine Disciple having after two and twenty yeeres divulged that which had been said in the Schoole of R. Ammi he was brought out of the Synagogue and the said Rabbi caused it to be proclaimed this is a revealer of secrets 3 It is more then Mr. Prynne can prove that the Sacrament of Circumcision was not then administred in the Synagogues The Jewes do administer it in their Synagogues and that Iohn was Circumcised in the Synagogue some gather from Luk. 1. 59. Venerunt they came to wit to the Synagogue to Circumcise the Child for my part I lay no weight upon that argument But I see lâ—sse ground for Mr. Prynnes Assertion As for that which M. Prynne addeth in the close that those who were cast out of the Synagogue might yet resort to the Temple he hath said nothing to prove it I find the same thing affirmed by Sutlivius de Presbyt pag. 25. though I
these two things 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jewes one Civill and another Ecclesiasticall that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concerne both Church and State both did consult conclude and decree in a joynt way and by agreement together Now Ezra 10. the Princes Elders Priests and Levites were assembled together upon an extraordinary cause which conjuncture and concurrence of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious forfeiture and excommunication But 2. The objection made doth rather confirme me that Excommunication is intended in that place For this forfeiture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a making sacred or dedicating to an holy use as I have shewed out of Iosephus The originall word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted which is the word put in the margin of our bookes The Greek saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anathemstizabitur which is the best rendring of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a mans substance Intellige saith Grotius ita ut Deo sacra fiat And so the excommunication of a man and the devoting of his substance as holy to the Lord were joyned together and the substance had not been anathematized if the man had not been anathematized I doe not say that Excommunication ex natura rei doth inferre and draw after it the devoting of a mans estate as holy to the Lord. No Excommunication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate further than the Civill Magistrate and the Law of the Land appointeth And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches where there was no Christian Magistrate to adde a Civill mulct But the devoting of the substance of Excommunicated persons Ezra 10. as it had the authority of the Princes and Rulers for it so what extraordinary warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence we can not tell Finally M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 4. cap. 9. p. 523. agreeth with Lud. Capellus that the separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. plane ipsum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri it is the very same with casting out of the Synagogue which confuteth further that which M. Prynne holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods word but was onely a humane invention I know some have drawne another argument for the Jewish Excommunication from Nehem. 13. 25. I contended with them and cursed them id est anathematizavi excommunicavi saith C. a lapide upon the place So Tirinus upon the same place Mariana expounds it anathema dixi Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of Excommunication Niddui and Cherem For my part I lay no weight upon this unlesse you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiasticall power onely authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate Which the words may well beare for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his owne hand smite those men and plucke off their hayre but that by his authority he tooke care to have it done by civill Officers as the cursing by Ecclesiasticall Officers The Dutch annotations leane this way telling us that Nehemiah did expresse his zeale against them as persons that deserved to be banned or cut off from the people of God Another Text proving the Jewish Excommunication is Luke 6. 22. When they shall separate you and shall reproach you and â—…ast out your name as evill It was the most misapplied censure in the world in respect of the persons thus cast out but yet it proves the Jewish custome of casting out such as they thought wicked and obstinate persons This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beda upon the place understandeth of casting out of the Synagogue Separent Synagoga depellant c. yet it is a more generall and comprehensive word then the casting out of the Synagogue It comprehendeth all the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication as Grotius expounds the place Which agreeth with Munsterus Dictionar Trilingue where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the onely Greeke word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui Cherem and Shammata and for the Latine Excommunicatio Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is extermino excommunico repudio which is one of the usuall significations of the word given by Stephanus and by Scapula It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Councels to expresse such a separation as was a Church-censure and namely suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For by the ancient Canons of the Councels such offences as were punished in a Minister by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deposition were punished in one of the people by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is segregation or sequestration Zonaras upon the 13 th Canon of the eighth generall Councell observeth a double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the ancient Church â—ne was a totall separation or casting out of the Church which is usually called Excommunication another was a suspension or sequestration from the Sacrament onely Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Booke I hold now at the Text in hand which may be thus read according to the sence and letter both when they shall excommunicate you c. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you holds forth the same thing which I speake of separate from what our Translators supply from their company but from what company of theirs not from their civill company onely but from their sacred or Church assemblies and from religious fellowship it being a Church-censure and a part of Ecclesiasticall discipline in which sence as this word frequently occurreth in the Greeke fathers and ancient Canons when they speake of Church discipline so doubtlesse it must be taken in this place 1. Because as Grotius tels us that which made the Jewes the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civill coercive power of Magistracy which sometime they had And I have proved before that the civill Sanhedrin which had power of criminall and capitall judgements did remove from Ierusalem and cease to execute such judgement forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple 2. Because in all other places of the new Testament where the same word is used it never signifieth a bare separation from civill company but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church members did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walke or were conceived to walke disorderly and scandalously Acts 19. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Gal. 2. 13. or Gods separating between the godly and the wicked Matth 13. 49. 25. 32. or the setting apart of men to the ministery of the Gospell Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly a Civill separation is for a Civill injury but this separation
the Talmud it selfe proving that whether the sinne was expiated by Sacrifice or by death it was alwayes to be confessed from the same example of Achan doth P. Galatinus lib. 10. cap. 3. prove that Declaration of repentance was to be made by word of mouth and that the sinne was to be particularly confessed which he further proveth by another rabbinicall passage In the fourth place Io. 9. 24. seemeth to hold forth a judiciall publike confession of sinne to have been required of scandalous sinners The Pharisees being upon an examination of him that was born blind and was made to see they labour to drive him so farre from confessing Christ as to confesse sinne and wicked collusion Give God the Praise say they we know that this man is a sinner Which is to be expounded by Ios. 7. 19. Give glory to the Lord God of Israel and make confession Fifthly as the Jewes had an Excommunication so they had an absolution and that which interveened was Confession and Declaration of Repentance And hence came the Arabik 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nadam he hath repented and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nadim a penitent the Niddui made the nadim for when a man was excommunicated by the lesser Excommunication the Consistory waited first 30. dayes and then other 30. dayes and as some thinke the third time 30. dayes to see whether the offender were penitent which could not be known without confession and would seek absolution which if he did not but continued obstinate impenitent then they proceeded to the greater excommunication Which doth prove a publike Confession at least in the case of the excommunicated Sixthly we find a publike penitentiall confession Ezra 10. 10. 11. And Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them ye have transgressed and have taken strange wives to encrease the trespasse of Israel Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your Fathers and doe his pleasure and separate your selves from the people of the land and from the strange wives Marke here the foresaking of the sinne could not suâ—fice without confessing the sinne All Israel had sworne and covenanted to doe the thing to put away the strange wives vers 5. But Ezra the Priest tells them they must also make confession of their sinne confession of their former trespasse must be joyned with Reformation for the future All which the people promise to doe as Ezra had said vers 12. But what was this confession was it onely a private confession to God alone or was it onely a generall confession made by the whole congregration of Israel at a solemne Fast and humiliation Nay that there was a third sort of Confession differing from both these appeareth by vers 13. neither is this a worke of one day or two for we are many that have transgressed in this thing yea three Moneths are spent in the businesse vers 16 17. during which space all that had taken strange wives came at appointed times out of every City and were successively examined by Ezra the Priest and certaine chiefe of the Fathers and Levites such of both as were not themselves guilty before whom such as were found guilty did make Confession The Sons of the Priests made Confession as well as others yea with the first and gave their hands that they would put away their wives and being guilty they offerered a Ram of the Flock for their trespasse With which trespasse offering confession was ever joyned as hath been before shewed from the Law Seventhly Master Hildersham of worthy memory in his 34. Lecture upon Psal. 51. draweth aâ— Argument from Davids example for the publike Confession of a scandalous sinne before the Church He made saith he publike Confession of his sinne to the Congregation and Church of God for we see in the Title of this Psalme 1. That he committed this Psalme that containeth the acknowledgement of his sinne and profession of his repentance to the chief musitian to be published in the Sanctuary and Temple 2 That in this publication of his Repentance he hideth not from the Church his sinne nor cloketh it at all but expresseth in particular the speciall sinne c. Adde hereunto this publike Confession was made after ministeriall conviction by Nathan who did convince David of the greatnesse of that scandalous sinne in which he had then continued impenitent neer a yeer or thereabout The Doctrin which Master Hildersham draweth from Davids example is this That they whose sinnes God hath detected and brought to light whose sinnes are publike and notorious scandalous and offensive to the congregations where they live ought to be willing to confesse their sins publikely to make their Repentance as publike and notorious as their sinne is He addeth in his explanation when they shall be required to doe it by the Discipline of the Church Marke one of his applications which is the Subject of the 37. Lecture The second sort that are to be reproved by this Doctrine are such as having authority to enjoyne publike Repentance to scandalous sinners for the satisfying of the Congregation when they are detected and presented unto them refuse or neglect to doe it And here he complaineth that the publike acknowledgement of scandalous sinnes was grown out of use and that though it was ordered by authority yet it was not put in execution The Canons of our Church saith he can 26. straightly charge every Minister That he shall not in any wise admit to the Communion any of his flock which be openly known to live in sinne notorious without Repentance And the Booke of Common Prayer in the rubrike before the Communion commandeth that if any be an open and notorious evill liver so that the Congregation by him is offended the Minister shall call him and advertise him in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table till he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which were afore offended So that you may see the Lawes and Discipline of our Church require that open and scandalous sinners should dâ—…e open and publike Repentance yea give power to the Minister to repell and keepe back such from the Communion that refuse to doe it Where it may be observed by the way that the Power of Elder-ships for suspending scandalous persons not Excommunicated from the Sacrament now so much contented against by Master Prynne is but the same Power which was granted by authority to the Ministery even in the prelaticall times And he hath upon the matter endeavoured to bring the Consciences of a whole Elder-ship into a greater servitude under this present Reformation then the Conscience of a single Minister was formerly brought under by Law in this particular Eightly Master Hildersham Ibid. Lect. 34. argueth not onely â—… pari but â—… fortiori If a necessity of satisfying an offended Brother how much more a necessity of satisfying an offended Church which will equally hold both for the old and
and as they say cum grano salis between that which was ordinary and that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Government We can not from extraordinary cases collect and conclude that which was the fixed setled ordinary rule The examples which have been alledged for the administration of Church-Government the purging away of scandals the ordering of the Ministery in the old Testament by the Temporall Magistrate or civill powers onely and by their owne immediate authority how truly alledged or how rightly apprehended shall appeare by and by this I say for the present diverse of them were extraordinary cases and are recorded as presidents for godly Magistrates their duty and authority not in a reformed and constituted Church but in a Church which is full of disorders and wholly out of course needing reformation So that the Erastian Arguments drawn from those examples for investing the Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Government and jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affaires are no whit better than the Popish and Prelaticall Arguments for the lawfulnesse of the civill power and places of Clergymen as they called them drawne from some extraordinary examples of Aaron his joyning with Moses and Eleazer with Ioshua in civill businesse of greatest consequence of the administration and Government of the Commonwealth by Eli the Priest and by Samuel the Prophet of the anointing of Iehu to be King by Elisha of the killing of Athaliah and the making of Ioash King by the authority of Iebojada the Priest of the withstanding and thrusting out of King Uzziah by fourscore valiant men of the Priests and such like cases Master Prynne himself in his Diotrephes catechised pag. 4. noteth that Ezra the Priest received a speciall commission from Artaxerxes to set Magistrates and Judges which might judge all the people Ezra 7. 11 25. from all which it appeareth that as Priests did extraordinary some things which ordinarily belonged to Magistracy so Magistrats did extraordinarily that which ordinarily did not belong to their administration I conclude this point with a passage in the second book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland Chap. 10. And although Kings and Princes that be godly sometimes by their own authority when the Church is corrupted and all things out of order place Ministers and restore the true service of the Lord after the example of some godly Kings of Judah and divers godly Emperours and Kings also in the light of the new Testament yet where the Ministery of the Church is once lawfully constituted and they that are placed doe their Office faithfully all godly Princes and Magistrates ought to beare and obey their voyce and reverence the Majesty of the Sonne of God speaking in them In the third place let us take a particular survey of such Objections from which the Erastians doe conclude that the power of Church-govâ—rnment in the old Testament was onely in the hand of the Magistrate And first concerning Moses it is objected that he being the supreme Magistrate did give Lawes and Ordinances for ordering the Church in things pertaining to God Answ. This he did as a Prophet from the mouth of the Lord yea as a type of Jesus Chriâ—t the great Prophet Deut. 18. 15. 18. not as civill Magistrate 2. Object We read not of an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin adjoyned with Moses but onely of a civill Sanhedrin Num. 11. Neither doth the Talmud mention any supreme Sanhedrin but one Answ. 1. If those 70 Elders Num. 11. be understood onely of the civill Sanhedrin which some doe not admit though for my part I doe not gainsay it yet we read of the conâ—itution of another Sanhedrin or Assembly of 70 before them Which I have before proved from Exod. 24. 1. 2. And if there had been no disâ—inct Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin in Moses his time yet by the Law Deut. 17. when the people came into the Land of promise they were to have two distinct Courts in the place which the Lord should choose Of which also before And whereas M r Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quaest 2. intimateth that by the Law Deut. 17. the Priests were onely â—oyntly and together with the temporall Judges to resolve hard civill cases or controversies this sence can neither agree with the disâ—unction in the Text verse 12. the man that will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge nor yet with the received interpretation of those words between stroke and stroke that is between leprosie and leprosie the decision whereof is no where in Scripture found to be either committed unto or assumed by the civill Judge As for the Talmud that of Babylon was not begun to be compiled before the yeere of 〈◊〉 367 nor finished before the yeere of Christ 500. The Ierusalem Talmud can pretend to no greater antiquity than the yeere of Christ 230. So that both were collected long after the dissolution of the Sanhedrin and government of the Jewes No marvell therefore if these declining times did weare out the memory of some part of their former government 3. Object The King was by Gods appointment entrusted with the custody of the booke of the Law Deut. 17. 18. 2 King 11. 12. Answ. 1. The principall charge of the custody of the Law was committed to the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 9 24 25 26. Of the King it is onely said Deut. 17. 18. That he shall write him a coppy of this law in a Booke out of that which is before the Priests and Levites 2. I heartily yeeld that a lawfull Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen ought to be a keeper or guardian of both Tables and as Gods Vâ—cegerent hath authority to punish haynous sinnes against either Table by civill or corporall punishments which proves nothing against a 〈◊〉 Church-government for keeping pure the Ordinances of Christ. 4. Object King David did appoint the Offices of the Levites and divided their courses 1 Chrâ—… 23. So likewise did Solomon appoint the courses and charges of the Priests Levites and Porters in the Temple Answ. David did not this thing as a King but as a Prophet 2 〈◊〉 8. 14. For so bad David the man of God commanded the same thing being also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord 2 hro 29. 25. According to the commandement of David and of Gâ—…d the Kings seer and Nathan the Prophet for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets Which cleareth also Solomons part for beside that himselfe also was a Prophet he received from David the man of God a patterne of that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord and directions concerning the courses of the Levites 1 Chro. 28. 11 12 13. 2 Chro. 8. 14. 5 Object King Solomon deposed Abiathar from his Priesthood and did put 〈◊〉 in his place Answ. Abiathar was guilty of high treason for assisâ—ing and ayding Adonijah against Solomon whom not onely his father David but God himselfe had designed to the Crowne So that
your selves in any of these things Of the shedding of bloud defile not therefore the Land wherein ye dwell Wherefore this word uncleannesse or defilement is said of three sorts of things first of a mans qualities and of his transgressions of the Commandements whether theoricall or practicall that is which concerne either Doctrine or his conversation Secondly of externall filthinesse and defilements c. Thirdly of these imaginary things that is the touching or carrying upon the shoulders some uncleane thing c. Adde hereunto the observation of Drusius de tribus sect Judaeor lib. 2. num 82. 83. 84. The Pharisees did account sinners and prophane persons to be uncleane and thought themselves polluted by the company of such persons for which reason also they used to wash when they came from the mercate Though there was a superstition in this Ceremony yet the opinion that prophane persons are uncleane persons and to be avoided for uncleannesse had come from the purest antiquities of the Jewes even from Moses and the Prophets Since therefore both in the old Testament phrase and in the usuall language of the Jewes themselves a scandalous prophane person was called an unclean person it is to me more then probable that where I read none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in it is meant of those that were morally uncleane by a scandalous wicked conversation no lesse yea much more than of those that were onely ceremonially uncleane 3. Especially considering that the Sanctuary was prophaned and polluted by the morall uncleannesse of sinne and by prophane persons their entring into it as is manifest from Lev. 20. 3. Eze. 23. 39. How can it then be imagined that those Priests whose charge it was to keepe back those that were uncleane in any thing would admit and receive such as were not onely unclean persons in the language of Scripture and of the Jewes themselves but were also by expresse Scriptures declared to be defilers or polluters of the Sanctuary 4. It is said of the high Priest Lev 16. 16. and he shall make atonement for the holy place because of the uncleannesse of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins or from their uncleannesse and from their transgressions as the Chaldee and the LXX have it the sence is the same and it sheweth that the holy place was made uncleane by the transgressions and sinnes of the children of Israel which uncleannesse of transgression if it were visible publik and notorious then the Priests had failed in admitting such to the holy place 12. Object Throughout the old Testament we read onely of temporall punishments as burning hanging stoning fines stripes and the like but never of Excommunication or any Church censure Neither did the Jewes know the distinction of Lawes Ecclesiasticall and Lawes civill causes Ecclesiasticall and causes civill for the Church of the Jewes was thâ—ir Common-Wealth and their Common-Wealth was their Church and the Government of Church and State among them was one and the same Their civill Lawyers were also Expositors or Doctors of the Law of God Ans. That in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiasticall censure or punishment distinct from the civill I have proved in this preceeding booke both from Scripture and from the Jewish antiquities And if there were no more but the sequestration or separation from the Temple or from the passeover for such legall uncleannesse as did not separat a man from his house nor from all company of men even that alone proves a kinde of censure distinct from all civill punishment neither did it belong to the Magistrate or civill Judge but to the Priests to examine judge and determine concerning cleannesse or uncleannesse and consequently concerning admission to or separation from the Temple Passeover and sacrifices That the Jewish Church and the Jewish State were formally distinct see before Chap. 2. Where it hath beene observed that some Proselytes had the full priviledges of the Jewish Church though none of them had the full priviledges of the Jewish common-wealth The like I have read of the Spaniards who admit the Moores or inhabitants of Morisco to turne Christians and receive them into Ecclesiasticall Membership and Communion but by no meanes into their civill liberties That the causes of Excommunication among them were lookt upon as scandalls and not as civill inâ—uries see Chap. 4. This onely I adde that More Nevochim part 2. Chap. 40. doth distinguish civill Lawes from sacred Lawes even among the people of God making the scope of the civill Lawes to be the good safety and prosperity of the Common-wealth the Sacred or Divine Lawes to concerne properly Religion and mens soules He that will compare the civill Lawes and panall Statutes of the Jewes mentioned in Baba Kama with their ceremoniall Lawes concerning the holy Ordinances of God and who should have communion therein who not cannot but looke upon their Church and 〈◊〉 Lawes as formally distinct from their State and civill Lawes Again he that will consider who were the viri synagogae magnae the men of the great synagogue and what their power and acts were as Dr. Buxtorf describeth the same in his Tyberiâ—…t Cap. 10 11. and their authoritative determinations concerning the right writing reading and expounding of the holy Scripture c. must needs acknowledge that it was Senatus ecclesiasticus magnus as Buxtorf cals it and that such power and acts were incompetent to the civill Magistrate As for their Doctors of Law and Scribes they were of the sons of Aaron yet some way diversified in their administrations Scaliger in elench Trihaeres Nic. Serar cap. 11. distinguisheth between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the former were the wisemen or chief of the Scribes who did interpret the Law and declare the sence of it the latter did attend civill forensicall matters Drusius de tribus sect Jud. lib. 2. cap. 13. noteth from Luke 11. 45. 46. that there was some distinction between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the Scribes and the Lawyers for when Christ had spoken of the Scribes and Pharises then answered one of the Lawyers and said unto him Master thus saying thou reproachest us also And he said Wo unto you also ye Lawyers This will be more plaine by that other distinction observed by Lud. de dieu in Mat. 22. 35. and diverse others between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the Scribes of the Law of God who did interpret the Law such as Ezra the Priest and the Scribes of the people who were Actuarii publici publick Notaries or Clerks Whence it appeareth that the Offices of Scribes and Lawyers although the persons themselves were of the Tribe of Levi were so ordered as that civill and sacred affaires might not be confounded Yea the Scriveners or Notaries were of two sorts for besides those which did attend
3. 14. Not eat with them 1 Cor. 5. 11. Nor bid them God speed 2 Epist. John vers 10. 11. 6. That since there must be a withdrawing from a brother that walketh disorderly and scandalously it s more agreeable to the glory of God and to the Churches peace that this be done by a publick authoritative Ecclesiastical judgement and sentence than wholly and solely to trust it to the piety and prudence of each particular Christian to esteem as heathens and publicans whom and when and for what he shall think good and accordingly to withdraw and separate from them 7. That there is a distinction between Magistracy and Ministery even Iure Divino That the civil Magistrate hath not power to abolish or continue the Ministery in abstracto at his pleasure nor yet to make or unmake Ministers in concreto that is to ordain or depose Ministers as he thinks fit 8. As the Offices are distinct so is the power Magistrates may do what Ministers may not doe and Ministers may doe what Magistrates may not do 9. It is Iuris Communis a principle of common equity and naturall reason that the directive Judgement in any matter doth chiefly belong to such as by their profession and vocation are devoted and set apart to the study and knowledge of such matters and in that respect supposed to be ablest and fittest to give Judgement thereof A consultation of Physitians is called for when the Magistrate desires to know the nature symptomes or cure of some dangerous disease A consultation of Lawyers in Legal questions A Councell of War in military expeditions If the Magistrate be in a ship at Sea he takes not on him the directive part of Navigation which belongs to the master with the mates and pilot Neither doth the master of the ship if it come to a Sea-fight take on him the directive part in the fighting which belongs to the Captain And so in all other cases Artifici in sua arte credendum Wherefore though the Judgement of Christian prudence and discretion belongs to every Christian and to the Magistrate in his Station and though the Magistrate may be and sometime is learned in the Scriptures and well acquainted with the principles of true Divinity yet ut plurimum and ordinarily especially in a rightly Reformed and well constituted Church Ministers are to be supposed to be fittest and ablest to give a directive Judgement in things and causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical with whom also other ruling Church Officers do assist and joyne who are more experimentally and practically they ought also and diverse times are more Theoretically acquainted with the right way and rules of Church-government and censures then the civil Magistrate when he is no ruling Elder in the Church which is but accidentall can be rationally or ordinarily supposed to be 10. There is some power of Governement in the Church given to the Ministery by Christ else why are they said to be set over us in the Lord and called Rulers and Governours as we shall see afterwards CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto Vs and what We yeeld unto them FOr better stating of the controversie We shall first of all take notice of such particulars as are the Opposites concessions to us or our concessions to them Their concessions are these 1. That the Christian Magistrate in ordering and disposing of Ecclesiastical causes and matters of Religion is tyed to keep close to the Rule of the Word of God and that as he may not assume an Arbitrary Government of the State so far lesse of the Church 2. That Church-Officers may exercise Church-government and authority in matters of Religion where the Magistrate doth not professe and defend the true Religion In such a case two Governments are allowed to stand together one civil another Ecclesiastical This Erastus granteth as it were by constraint and it seems by way of compliance with the Divines of Zurik who hold excommunication by Church-Officers under an infidel Magistrate and that Iure Divino to move them to comply the more with him in other particulars 3. That the abuse of Church-governement is no good argument against the thing it self There being no authority so good so necessary in Church or State but by reason of their corruptions who manage it may be abused to tyranny and opression These are Mr. Prinnes words Vindic. of the 4. Questions pag. 2. 4. That some Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyteries by Divine Right Mr. Prynne in his Epistle Dedicatory before the vindication of his four questions saith that his scope is not to take from our new Presbyteries all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction due by Divine Right to them but to confine it within certain definite limits to prevent all exorbitant abuses of it 5. That the Christian Magistrate ought not may not preach the Word nor minister the Sacraments Mr. Coleman in his Brotherly examination re-examined pag. 14. I never had it in my thoughts that the Parliament had power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments Then so far there is a distinction of Magistracy and Ministery Iure Divino Yet in this he did not so well agree with Erastus 6. That the ministery is Iure Divino and Ministers have their power and authority of preaching the Word derived to them from Christ not from the Magistrate So Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to my self We preach the Word with all authority from Christ derived to us by those of our Brethren that were in Commission before us Magistrates may drive away false Teachers but not the Preachers of the Gospel but at their utmost peril 7. They admit and allow of Presbyteries so that they doe not exercise Government and Jurisdiction Erast. lib. 4. cap. 1. Our Concessions to our Opposites are these 1. That all are not to be admitted promiscuously either to be governours or members in the Ecclesiastical Republick that is in a visible political Church None are to governe nor to be abmitted members of Presbyteries or Synods except such as both for abilities and conversation are qualified according to that which the Apostle Paul requireth a Bishop or Elder to be Scandalous or prophane Church-Officers are the worst of dogs and swine and to be first cast out And as all are not to governe so all are not to be governed Ecclesiastically but onely Church-Members 1 Cor. 5. 12. Therefore what hath been objected concerning many both Pastors and People in England who are still branches of the old stock doth not strike against what we hold All are not sit for a Church-government Therefore those that are fit shall not have a Church-Government So they must argue Or thus a Popish people are not fit to be governed Presbyterially and Episcopal Ministers are not fit to governe therefore the rest of the Nation shall want a Government 2. Presbyteriall Government is not despotical but ministerial it is not a Dominion but a Service We are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.
power hath for the matter of it the earthly Scepter and the Temporal Sword that is it is Monarchical and Legislative it is also punitive or coercive of those that do evil understand upon the like reason remunerative of those that do well The Ecclesiastical power hath for the matter of it the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven 1. The key of knowledge or doctrine and that to be administred not onely severally by each Minister concionaliter but also Consistorially and Synodically in determining controversies of Faith and that according to the rule of holy Scripture onely which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The key of order and decency so to speak by which the circumstances of Gods Worship and all such particulars in Ecclesiastical affairs as are not determined in Scripture are determined by the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church so as may best agree to the generall rules of the word concerning order and decency avoyding of scandall doing all to the glory of God and to the edifying of one another And this is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The key of corrective discipline or censures to be exercised upon the scandalous and obstinate which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Adde also the key of Ordination or mission of Church-Officers which I may call clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authorizing or power giving key others call it missio potestativa 3. They differ in their formes The power of Magistracy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is an authority or dominion exercised in the particulars above mentioned and that in an immediate subordination to God for which reason Magistrates are called gods The Ecclesiastical power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely It is meerly Ministeriall and Steward-like and exercised in an immediate subordination to Iesus Christ as King of the Church and in his name and authority 4. They differ in their ends The supreme end of Magistracy is onely the glory of God as King of Nations and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth And in that respect the Magistrate is appointed to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to the moral Law the obligation where of lyeth upon all Nations and all men The supreme end of the Ecclesiastical power is either proximus or remotus The neerest and immediate end is the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church The more remote end is the glory of God as having all power and authority in heaven and earth You will say Must not then the Christian Magistrate intend the glory of Iesus Christ and to be subservient to him as he is Mediator and King of the Church Certainly he ought and must and God forbid but that he should do so But how not qua Magistrate but qua Christian. If you say to me again Must not the Christian Magistrate intend to be otherwise subservient to the Kingdom of Iesus Christ as Mediator then by personal or private Christian duties which are incumbent to every Christian I answer no doubt he ought to intend more even to glorifie Iesus Christ in the administration of Magistracy Which that you may rightly apprehend and that I be not misunderstood take this distinction It is altogether incumbent to the ruling Officers of the Church to intend the glory of Christ as Mediator even ex natura rei in regard of the very nature of Ecclesiasticall power and government which hath no other end and use for which it was intended and instituted but to be subservient to the Kingly office of Iesus Christ in the governing of his Church upon earth and therefore sublata Ecclesiâ perit regimen Ecclesiasticum take away the Church out of a Nation and you take away all Ecclesiasticall power of government which makes another difference from Magistracy as we shall see anon But the Magistrate though Christian and godly doth not ex natura rei in regard of the nature of his particular vocation intend the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church but in regard of the common principles of Christian Religion which do oblige every Christian in his particular vocation and station and so the Magistrate in his to intend that end All Christians are commanded that whatever they do in word or deed they do all in the name of the Lord Iesus Col. 3. 17. that is according to the will of Christ and for the glory of Christ And so a Marchant a Mariner a Tradesman a School-master a Captain a Souldier a Printer and in a word every Christian in his own place and station ought to intend the glory of Christ and the good of his Church and Kingdom Upon which ground and principle if the Magistrate be Christian it is incumbent to him so to administer that high and eminent vocation of his that Christ may be glorified as King of the Church and that this Kingdom of Christ may flourish in his Dominions which would God every Magistrate called Christian did really intend So then the glory of Christ as Mediator and King of the Church is to the Ministery both finis operis and finis operantis To the Magistrate though Christian it is onely finis operantis That is it is the end of the godly Magistrate but not the end of Magistracy whereas it is not onely the end of the godly Minister but the end of the Ministery it self The Ministers intendment of this end flowes from the nature of their particular vocation The Magistrates intendment of the same end flowes from the nature of their general vocation of Christianity acting guiding and having influence into their particular vocation So much of the supreme ends Now the subordinate end of all Ecclesiastical power is that all who are of the Church whether Officers or members may live godly righteously and soberly in this present world be kept within the bounds of obedience to the Gospel void of all known offence toward God and toward man and be made to walk according to the rules delivered to us by Christ and his Apostles The subordinate end of the Civil power is that all publike sins committed presumptuously against the moral Law may be exemplarly punished and that peace justice and good order may be preserved and maintained in the Common-wealth which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the Church and to the promoting of the course of the Gospel For this end the Apostle bids us pray for Kings and all who are in Authority though they be Pagans much more if they be Christians that we may live under them a peaceable and quiet life in all Godlinesse and Honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. He saith not simply that we may live in Godlinesse and Honesty but that we may both live peaceably and quietly and also live godly and honestly which is the very same that we
commonly say of the Magistrate that he is Custos utriusque Tabulae He is to take speciall care that all his Subjects be made to observe the Law of God and live not onely in moral honesty but in Godlinesse and that so living they may also enjoy peace and quietnesse More particularly the end of Church censures is that men may be ashamed humbled reduced to repentance that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. The end of civil punishments inflicted by the Magistrate is That justice may be done according to Law and that peace and good order may be maintained in the Common-wealth as hath been said The end of delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan was that they may learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20. Erastus yeelds to Beza pag. 239. that the Apostle doth not say Ut non possint blasphemare that henceforth they may not be able to sin as they did before which yet he acknowledgeth to be the end of civil punishments but that they may learn not to blaspheme Wherefore when he expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to no other sence but this That the Apostle had delivered those two to be killed by Satan Ut non possint that they may not be able to blaspheme so any more just as a Mastgirate delivers a theef from the gallows that he may not be able to steal any more and as he tels us some speak that he may learn to steal no more He is herein confuted not onely out of the Text but out of himself So then the end of Church-censures is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the offenders may learn or be instructed to do so no more which belongeth to the inward man or soul. The end of civil punishments is Ut non possint as Erastus tels us that the offenders may not be able or at least being alive and some way free may not dare to do the like the sword being appointed for a terrour to them who do evil to restrain them from publike and punishable offences not to work upon the spirit of their mindes nor to effect the destroying of the flesh by mortification that the spirit may be safe in the day of the Lord. The fifth difference between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers is in respect of the effects The effects of the Civil power are Civil Laws Civil punishments Civil rewards The effects of the Ecclesiastical power are Determinations of Controversies of Faith Canons concerning Order and Decency in the Church Ordination or Deposition of Church-Officers Suspension from the Sacrament and Excommunication The powers being distinct in their nature and causes the effects must needs be distinct which flow from the actuating and putting in execution of the powers I do not here speak of the effects of the Ecclesiastical power of Order the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments but of the effects of the power of Jurisdiction or Government of which onely the Controversic is Sixthly The Civil power hath for the object of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things of this life matters of Peace War Justice the Kings matters and the Countrey-matters those things that belong to the external man But the Ecclesiastical power hath for the object of it things pertaining to God the Lords matters as they are distinct from Civil matters and things belonging to the inward man distinct from the things belonging to the outward man This difference Protestant Writers do put between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers Fr. Junius Ecclesiast lib. 3. cap. 4. saith thus We have put into our definition humane things to be the subject of Civil administration but the subject of Ecclesiastical administration we have taught to be things Divine and Sacred Things Divine and Sacred we call both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our minde and conscience as things necessary and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary For example Prayers the administration of the Word and Sacraments Ecclsiastical censure are things necessary and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saints but set dayes set hours set places fasts and the like belong to the decency and order of the Church c. But humane things we call such as touch the life the body goods and good name as they are expounded in the second Table of the Decalogue for these are the things in which the whole Civil administration standeth Tilen Synt. part 2. disp 32. tels us to the same purpose That Civil Government or Magistracy versatur circa res terrenas hominem externum Magistratus saith Danaui Pol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 1. instituti sunt à Deo rerum humanarum quae hominum societati necessariae sunt respectu ad earum curam If it be objected How can these things agree with that which hath been before by us acknowledged that the Civil Magistrate ought to take special care of Religion of the conservation and purgation thereof of the abolishing idolatry and superstition and ought to be Custos utriusque Tabulae of the first as well as second Table I answer That Magistrates are appointed not onely for Civil Policy but for the conservation and purgation of Religion as is expressed in the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland before cited we firmly beleeve as a most undoubted truth But when Divines make the object of Magistracy to be onely such things as belong to this life and to humane society they do not mean the object of the Magistrates Care as if he were not to take care of Religion but the object of his Operation The Magistrate himself may not assume the administration of the keys nor the dispensing of Church-censures he can but punish the external man with external punishments Of which more afterwards The seventh difference stands in the Adjuncts For 1. the Ecclesiastical power in Presbyterial or Synodical Assemblies ought not to be exercised without prayer and calling upon the Name of the Lord Matth. 18. 19. There is no such obligation upon the Civil power as that there may be no Civil Court of Justice without prayer 2. In divers cases Civil Jurisdiction hath been and is in the person of one man But no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is committed to one man but to an Assembly in which two at least must agree in the thing as is gathered from the Text last cited 3. No private or secret offence ought to be brought before an Ecclesiastical Court except in the case of contumacy and impenitency after previous admonitions This is the ordinary rule not to dispute now extraordinary exceptions from that rule But the Civil power is not bound up by any such ordinary rule For I suppose our opposites will hardly say at least hardly make it good that no Civil injury or breach of Law and Justice being privately committed may be brought before a Civil Court except first there
Gualther or because no man hath parity or equality of honour with Christ So Martyr and Hunnius The English annotations say that Christ is the Head of every man in as much as he is the first begotten among many brtheren Which best agreeth with my second answer But for taking off all these and for preventing of other objections that one distinction will suffice which I first gave in examining Mr. Colemans Sermon In the Mediator Iesus Christ there is 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dignity excellency honour glory splendor 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his mighty power by which he is able to do in heaven and earth whatsoever he will 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Kingdom and Kingly-office or government Which three as they are distinguished in God Thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory Why not in the Mediator also In the first two respects Christ as Mediator is over all things and so over all men and so over all Magistrates and all they in subjection to him But in the third respect the relation is onely between Christ and his Church as between King and Kingdom So that the thing in difference is that which Mr. Hussey hath not proved namely that Christ as Mediator doth not onely excell all things in glory and exercise a supreme power and providence over all things for his own glory and his Churches good neither of which is denied but that he also is as Mediator King Head and Governor of the Universe and hath not onely the government of his Church but all Civil government put in his hand When Mr. Hussey pag. 28. saith that I denyed pag. 43. what this distinction yeeldeth namely that Christ as Mediator exerciseth acts of divine power in the behalf and for the good of his Church it is a calumny for that which I denied pag. 43. was concerning the Kingdom not the power my words were these But as Mediator he is onely the Churches King Head and Governour and hath no other Kingdom Yea himsef pag. 26. speaking to these words of mine noteth that I did not say that as Mediator he hath no such power How commeth it to passe that he chargeth me with the denying of that which himself but two pages before had observed that I denie it not Well but pag. 43 he desires from me a further clearing of my distinction Kingdom power and glory and that I will shew from Scripture how it agreeth to Christ. I shall obey his desire though it was before easie to be understood if he had been willing enough to understand Solomon did excell all the Kings of the earth in wisedom riches glory and honour 2 Chron. 1. 12. and herein he was a type of Christ Psal. 89. 27. I will make him my first born higher then the Kings of the earth But as Solomon was onely King of Israel and was not by office or authority of Government a Catholique King over all the Kingdomes of the World nor all other Kings Solomons Vicegerents or Deputies So Iesus Christ as Mediator is onely the Churches King and is not King or Governour of the whole World nor Civil Magistrates his Vicegerents though he excell them all in dignity glory and honour Again David did subdue by power diverse States Provinces and Kingdoms and make them tributary But was David King of the Philistines and King of the Moabites and King of the Syrians and King of the Edomites because he smote them and subdued them 2. Sam. 8. Nay it is added in that very place vers 15. And David reigned over all Israel and David executed justice and judgement unto all his people And this is one argument to prove that those subdued and tributrary Territories were not properly under the government of Israel because Israel was not bound to extirpate Idolaters out of those lands but onely out of the holy land See Maimonides de Idolol cap. 7. sect 1. with the annotation of Dionysius Vossius So Christ who was set upon the throne of David doth as Mediator put forth his divine and irresistible power in subduing all his Churches enemies according to that Psal. 2 9. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron thou shalt dash them in peeces like a Potters vessel Rev. 17. 14. The Lamb shall overcome them for he is Lord of lords and King of kings But this vis major this restraining subduing power makes not Christ as Mediator