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
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
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
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
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
policy and how can it be imagined that mankind multiplying upon the earth should have been without headship superiority order society govenment And what wonder that the law of nature teach all Nations some government Hicrome observeth that nature guideth the very reasonlesse creatures to a kind of Magistracy Eightly If the Scripture hold forth the same derivation or origination of Magistracy in the Christian Magistrate and in the heathen Magistrate then it is not safe to us to hold that the Christian Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ as Mediator But the Scripture doth hold forth the same derivation or origination of Magistracy in the Christian Magistrate and in the Heathen Magistrate Ergo The proposition hath this reason for it because the Heathen Magistrate doth not hold his office of and under Christ as Mediator neither doth Mr. Hussey herein contradict me onely he holds the heathen Magistrate and his Government to be unlawful wherein he is Anabaptistical and is confuted by my first Argument As for the Assumption it is proved from divers Scriptures and namely these Rom. 13. 1. the powers that be are ordained of God which is spoken of heathen Magistrates Dan. 2. 37. Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory So saith Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar an Idolatrous and heathen King See the like Ier. 27. 6. Isa. 45. 1. God sent his servant the Prophet to anoint Hazael King over Syria 1 Kings 19. 15. Read to this purpose Augustine de civit Dei lib. 5. cap. 21. Where he saith that the same God gave a Kingdom and authority both to the Romans Assyrians Persians Hebrews and that he who gave the Kingdom to the best Emperors gave it also to the worst Emperors yea he that gave it to Constantine a Christian did also give it saith he to Iulian the apostate Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. speaking of the heathen Emperors of that time saith that they were from God à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes that he who had made them men did also make them Emperors and give them their power Ibid. cap. 33. Ut meritò dixerim noster est magis Caesar ut a nostro Deo constitutus so that I may justly say Caesar is rather ours as being placed by our God saith he speaking to the Pagans in the behalf of Christians Wherefore though there be huge and vast differences between the Christian Magistrate and the heathen Magistrate the former excelling the latter as much as light doth darknesse yet in this point of the derivation and tenure of Magistracy they both are equally interested and the Scripture sheweth no difference as to that point CHAP. VIII Of the Power and Priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiastical what it is not and what it is THe new notion that the Christian Magistrate is a Church-officer and Magistracy an Ecclesiastical as well as a civil administration calls to mind that of the Wise-man Is there any thing whereof it may be said See this is new it hath been already of old time which was before us Plato in his Politicus a little after the middle of that book tells me that the Kings of Egypt were also Priests and that in many Cities of the Grecians the supream Magistrate had the administration of the holy things Notwithstanding even in this particular there still appeareth some new thing under the Sun For Plato tells me again Epist. 8. that those supreme Magistrates who were Priests might not be present nor joyne in criminall nor capitall judgements lest they being Priests should be defiled If you look after some other President for the union of civil and ecclesiastical Government secular and spirituall administrations in one and the same person or persons perhaps it were not hard to find such presidents as our opposites will be ashamed to owne I am sure Heathens themselves have known the difference between the office of Priests and the office of Magistrates Aristotle de Repub. lib. 4. cap. 15. speaking of Priests saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is another thing then civil Magistrates He had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a civil society hath need of many Rulers but every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is made by election or lot is not a civil Magistrate and the first instance he giveth is that of the Priests and so Aristotle would have the Priest to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler but not a civil Magistrate So de Repub. lib. 7. cap. 8. he distingu sheth between the Priests and the Judges in a Citty But to the matter I will here endeavour to make these two things appear 1. 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 2. That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church to receive appeals properly so called from all Ecclesiasticall Assemblies Touching the first of these it is no other than is held forth in the Irish Articles of Faith famous among Orthodox and Learned men in these Kingdoms which do plainly exclude the Magistrate from the administration of the Word and Sacraments and from the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven It is the unhappinesse of this time that this and other truths formerly out of controversie should be so much stuck at and doubted of by some Now that the corrective part of Church-Government or the censure of scandalous persons in reference to the purging of the Church and keeping pure of the ordinances is no part of the Magistrates office but is a distinct charge belonging of right to Ministers and Elders as it may fully appear by the Arguments brought afterwards to prove a government in the Church distinct from Magistracy which Arguments will necessarily carry the power of Church censures and the administration of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven into other hands then the Magistrates so I shall here strengthen it by these confirmations First Church-censures must needs be dispensed by Ministers and Elders because they are heterogeneous to Magistracy For first the Magistrate by the power which is in his hand ought to punish any of his Subjects that doe evil and he ought to punish like siâ—s with like punishments But if the power of Church-censures be in the Magistrates hands he cannot walk by that rule For Church-censures are onely for Church-members not for all Subjects 1 Cor. 5. 10. 12. Secondly Church-censures are to be executed in the name of Christ Matth. 18. 20. with vers 17 18. 1 Cor. 5. 4. and this cannot be done in his name by any other but such as have commission from him to bind and loose forgive and retain sins But where is any such commission given to the civil Magistrate Christian more then Heathen Thirdly Church-censures
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
in genus but the civil and Ecclesiasticall Courts stand not in one line neither are they of one kind and nature they are disparata non subordinata 3. They who receive appeals have also power to 〈◊〉 the sentence else the appeal is in vain But the Magistrate hath no power to execute the Church ceâ—sure nor to shut out of the Church our opposites themselves being Judges It was not therefore without just cause that Augustine did vâ—ry â—uch â—lame the Donatists for their appealing from the Ecclesiâ—stical Assemblies to the Emperors and civil Câ—urts Epist. 48. and Epist. 162. There are two examples alledged from Scripture for appeals from Ecclesiastical to Civil Courts One is the example of Ieremiah Iâ—…r 26. The other is the example of Paul Act. 25. But neither of the two prove the point For 1. Ieremiah was not censured by the Priests with any Spirituall or Ecclesiastical censure of which alone our controversie is but the Priests took him and said to him Thou shalt surely die Jer. 26. 8. 2. Would God that every Christian Magistrate may protect the servants of God from such unjust sentences and persecuting decrees When Ecclesiasticall Courts are made up of bloody persecuters that is an extraordinary evil which must have an extraordinary remedy 3. Neither yet is there any syllable of Ieremiahs appealing from the Priests to the Princes but the Text saith When the Princes of Judah heard these things then they came up c. verse 10. that is The Princes so soon as they understood that the Priests had taken Ieremiah and had said to him Thou shalt surely die verse 8. And being also informed that all the people were gathered together tumultuously and disorderly against the Prophet verse 9. They thought it their duty to rescue the Prophet from the Priests and people that he might be examined and judged by the civil Court he being challenged and accused as one worthy to die As for Pauls Appellation to Caesar. First It is supposed by our opposites that he appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jews which is a great mistake For he appealed from the Judgement-seat of Festus to Caesar that is from an inâ—eriour civil Court to a superiour civil Court which he had just cause to do for though Festus had not yet given forth any sentence against Paul yet he appeals à gravamine and it was a great grievance indeed while as Festus shew'd himself to be a most corrupt Judge who though the Jews could prove none of those things whereof they accused Paul Act. 25. 7. which should have made Festus to acquit and dismisse him yet being willing to do the Jews a pleasure he would have Paul to go to Ierusalem there to be judged before himself verse 9. Now this was all the favour that the Jews had desired of Festus that he would send Paul to Ierusalem they laying wait in the way to kill him vers 3. No appellation here from the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem where he had not as yet compeered to be examined far lesse could he appeal from any sentence of the Sanhedrin The most which can be with any colour alleadged from the Text is that Paul declined to be judged by the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem they not being his competent and proper Judges in that cause I stand at Caesars Iudgement-seat saith he where I ought to be judged meaning that he was accused as worthy of death for sedition and offending against Caesar whereof he ought to be judged onely at Caesars Tribunall not by the Jews who were no Judges of such matters A declinator of a Judge is one thing and Appellation from his Judgement or sentence is another thing But put the case that Paul had indeed appealâ—d from the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem either it was the civil Sanhedrin or the Ecclesiasticall If the civil it is no President for appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts If the Ecclesiastical yet that serveth not for appeals from Ecclesiasticall Courts in Ecclesiasticall causes for it was a capital crime whereof Paul was accused Nay put the case that Paul had at that time appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in an Ecclesiastical cause yet neither could that help our opposites for the government of the Christian Church and the government of the Jewish Church were at that time separate and distinct so that the Ecclesiastical Court which should have judged of any scandall given by Paul if at all he ought to have been censured had been a Christian Synod not a Jewish Sanhedrin And so much of Appeals Of which Question Triglandius Revius and Cabeljavius have peculiarly and fully written Three famous Academies also of Leyden Groening and Utrecht did give their publike testimonies against appeals from Ecclesiastical to civil Courts And the three Professors of Utrecht in their testimony do obtest all Christians that love truth and peace to be cautious and wary of the Arminian poyson lurking in the contrary Tenent See Cabeljav defensio potestatis Ecclesiasticae pag. 60. It is further objected That thus fixing a spirituall jurisdiction in Church-officers we erect two collateral Powers in the Kingdom the Civil and the Ecclesiastical unlesse all Ecclesiastical Courts be subordinate to Magistracy as to a certain head-ship Answ. There is a subordination of Persons here but a co-ordination of powers A subordination of Persons because as the Ministers of the Church are subject to the civil Magistrate they being members of the Common-wealth or Kingdom So the Magistrate is subject to the Ministers of the Church he being a Church-member The former we assert against Papists who say that the Clergy is not subject to the Magistrate The latter we hold against those who make the Magistrate to be the head of the Church Again a co-ordination of powers because as the subjection of the person of the Christian Magistrate to the Pastors and Elders of the Church in things pertaining to God doth not inferre the subordination of the power and office of the Magistrate to the Church-officers So the subjection of Pastors and Elders to the Magistrate in all civil things as other members of the Common-wealth are subject may well consist with the co-ordination of the Ecclesiastical power with the civil And as it is an error in Papists to make the secular power dependant upon and derived from the Ecclesiasticall power So it is an error in others to make the Ecclesiastical power derived from and dependant upon the civil power for the Ecclesiastical power is derived from Christ Ephes. 4. 11. And now while I am expressing my thoughts I am the more confirmed in the same by falling upon the concession of one who is of a different Judgement For he who wrote Ius Regum in opposition to all spiritual authority exercised under any forme of Ecclesiastical Government doth not withstanding acknowledge pag. 16. Both of them the Magistrate and the Minister have their Commission immediatly from God and each of them are subject to the other without any subordination of offices
the Magistrate may command Church-officers to suspend or excommunicate all obstinate and scandalous persons he may command the Classis to ordain able and godly ministers and no other he may command a Synod to meet to debate and determine such or such a controversie Consequently also when the thing is examined judged resolved or done by the Ecclesiasticall power the Magistrate hath power and authority to adde his civil sanction confirmation ot ratification to make the Ecclesiasticall sentence to be obeyed and submitted unto by all whom it concerneth In all which the Christian Magistrate doth exceeding much for the conservation and purgation of Religion not eliciâ—…ndo actus doing or exercising by himself or by his owne authority acts of Church Government or discipline but taking care that such and such things be done by those to whom they do belong 3. Distinguish the directive part and the coercive part The directive part in the conservation or purgation of Religion doth belong to the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church assembled together In administring therefore that which concerneth Religion and peoples spirituall good the Magistrate not onely juvatur but dirigitur is not onely helped but directed by the Ecclesiastical directive power Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 6. Magistracy may say to Ministery as Moses said to Hobab Thou mayest be to us in stead of eyes Ad sacrae Religionis informationem fidâ—…lis Magistratus verbi divini administris veluti oculis uti debet and for that end he is to make use of consistoriall and Synodicall Assemblies say the Professors of Lâ—…yden Synopspur 〈◊〉 Disp. 50. Thes. 44. But the coercive part in compelling the obstinate and unruly to submit to the Presbyteriall or Synodicall sentence belongs to the Magistrate Not as if the Magistrate had nothing to do but to be an executioner of the pleasure of Church-officers or as if he were by a blind and implicite faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination God forbid The Magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compell men to do to judge of it not onely judicio apprehâ—…nsivo by understanding and apprehending â—right what it is but judicio discretivo by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion examining by the Word of God the grounds reasons and warrants of the thing that he may in Faith and not doubtingly adde his authority thereto In which judging he doth Iudicare but not Iudicem agere that is he is Iudex suarum actionum he judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to Church-officers and doth not concur therewith except he be satisfied in his Conscience that he may do so yet this makes him not supreme Judge or Governour in all Ecclesiastical causes which is the Prerogative of Jesus Christ revealing his will in his word nor yet doth it invest the Magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forensicall directive judgement in Ecclesiastical things or causes which belongeth to Ecclesiasticall not to civil Courts 4. Distinguish between a Cumulative and a Privativâ—… authority The Magâ—strate hath indeed an authoritative influence into matters of Religion and Church-Government but it is cumulative that is the Magistrate takes care that Church-officers as well as other Subjects may do those things which ex officio they are bound to do and when they do so he aideth assisteth strengtheneth ratifieth and in his way maketh effectuall what they do But that which belongs to the Magistrate is not privative in reference to the Ecclesiastical Government It is understood salvo jure Ecclesiastico for the Magistrate is a nursing Father not a step Father to the Church and the Magistrate as well as other men is under that tye 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth This Proviso therefore is justly made that whatever power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion it is not to hinder the free exercise of Church discipline and censures against scandalous and obstinate sinners As the Casuists in other cases distinguish Lucrum cessans and damnum emergens so must we distinguish between the Magistrate his doing no good to the Church and his doing evil to the Church between his not assisting and his opposing between his not allowing or authorizing and his forbidding or restraining It doth properly and of right belong to the Magistrate to adde a civil sanction and strength of a law for strengthning and aiding the exercise of Church discipline or not to add it And himself is Judge whether to add any such cumulative act of favour or not But the Magistrate hath no power nor authority to lay bands and restraints upon Church-officers to hinder any of Christs ordinances or to forbid them to do what Christ hath given them a commission to do And if any such restraints of prohibitions or lawes should be laid on us we ought to obey God rather than men 5. Distingue tempora Whatever belongs to the Magistrate in matters of Religion more then falls under the former distinctions is extraordinary and doth not belong to ordinary Government In extraordinary reformations the Magistrate may do much by his owne immediate authority when Synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine or from holinesse and godlinesse yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly Divines as can be had either in his owne or from other Dominions Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 5. And so much be spoken of the Magistrate his power and duty in things and causes Ecclesiasticall As we do not deny to the Magistrate any thing which the Word of God doth allow him so we dare not approve his going beyond the bounds and limits which God hath set him And I pray God that this be not found to be the bottome of the controversie Whether Magistracy shall be an arbitrary Government if not in civil yet in Ecclesiastical things Whether the Magistrate may do or appoint to be done in the matter of Church-Government admission to or exclusion from the Ordinances of Christ what ever shall seem good in his eyes And whether in purging of the Church he is obliged to follow the rules of Scripture and to consult with learned and godly Ministers although Erastus himself as is before observed and Sutlivius a great follower of him de Presbyt cap. 8. are ashamed of and do disclaim such assertions CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy â—r Civil Goveramâ—nt â—amely an Ecclesiastical Government properly so callâ—d in the hands of Church-officâ—rs THis Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament excluding all Government of Church-officers Ministers and Elders that is as he expounds himself all corrective government leaving them no power except what is meerly doctrinal and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate onely Mr. Hussey following him
falls in the same ditch with him The Question is not whether Church-officers ought to have any share in the Civil Government Nor whether Church-officers may have any Lordly government or imperious domination over the Lords heritage Nor whether Church-Officers may exercise an arbitrary irregular Government and rule as themselves list God forbid But the Question plainly is Whether there may not yea ought not to be in the Church a Ministeriall or Ecclesiastical Government properly so called beside the civil Government or Magistracy Mr. Coleman did and Mr. Hussey doth hold there ought not I hold there ought and I shall propound for the affirmative these Arguments The first Argument I draw from 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders that rule well Mr. Hussey pag. 8. askes whether the word Elder be prima or secunda notio If prima notio why must not Elder women be Church-officers as well as Elder men If secunda notio for a ruling Officer Parliament men Kings and all Civil Governours are such Elders I know no use which that distinction of prima and secunda notio hath in this place except to let us know that he understands these Logicall termes Egregiam vero laudem He might have saved himself the labour for who knowes not Hieromes distinction Elder is either a word of age or of office but in Ecclesiasticall use it is a word of office Mr. Husseys first notion concerning Elder women is no masculine notion His second notion is an anti-parliamentary notion For the honourable Houses of Parliament in the first words of their Ordinance concerning ordination of Ministers have declared that by the word of God a Bishop and a Presbyter or Elder are all one for thus beginneth the Ordinance Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function c. Therefore Parliament men and civil Governors cannot be the Elders mentioned by the Apostle Paul except Mr. Hussey make them Bishops and invest them with power of ordination Besides this if Kings and Parliament men be such Elders as are mentioned in this Text then the Ministers of the Word must have not onely an equall share in Government but more honour and maintenance then Kings and Parliament men See how well Mr. Hussey pleadeth for Christian Magistracy It is also an anti-Scripturall notion for some of those Elders that ruled well did labour in the Word and Doctrine as Paul tells us in the very same place these sure are not civil Governours Wherefore Mr. Hussey must seek a third notion before he hit the Apostles meaning It is not hujus loci to debate from this Text the distinction of two sorts of Elders though among all the answers which ever I heard or read Mr. Husseys is the weakest pag. 11. that by Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine are meant those Ministers whose excellencie lies in Doctrine and instruction and that by Elders that rule are meant those that give reproof He contradistinguisheth a reproving minister from a minister labouring in the Word and Doctrine The very reproof given by a minister will be it seemes at last challenged as an act of government It is as wide from the mark that he will have the two sorts of Elders to differ thus that the one must governe and not preach the other must preach and not govern not observing that the Text makes ruling to be common to both The one doth both rule and labour in the Word and Doctrine The other ruleth one y and is therefore called ruling Elder non quia solus praeest sed quia solum praeest But to let all these things be laid aside as heterogeneous to this present Argument the point is here are Rulers in the Church who are no civil Rulers Yea this my Argument from this Text was clearly yeelded by Mr. Coleman in his Maledicis pag. 8. But I will deal clearly saith he these Officers are Ministers which are instituted not here but else-where and those are the Rulers here mentioned Ergo he yeeldeth Ecclesiastical rulers and those instituted distinct from Magistracy Neither is it a Lordly but a ministeriall ruling of which our Question is For my part saith Mr. Hussey I know not how Lordship and Government doth differ one from another Then every Governour of a ship must be a lord Then every Steward of a great house must be lord of the House There is an oeconomicall or ministerial government and of that we mean My second Argument I take from 1 Thes. 5. 12. And we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui praesunt vobis Hence doth Calvin conclude a Church Government distinct from civil government for this is a spirituall Government it is in the Lord that is in the name of the Lord or as others in things pertaining to God Hence also Beza argueth against Episcopall Government because the Elders in the Apostolique Churches did govern in common But saith Mr. Hussey pag. 18. Pasor telleth us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive case signifieth praecedo and then it signifieth no more but them that go before you either by Doctrine or example I answer first to the matter next to the force of the Word For the matter certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ruling power of ministers is not meerly doctrinall or perswasive as is manifest by 1 Tim. 5. 17. where those who are not convinced of two sorts of Elders are yet fully convinced of two sorts of acts the act of ruling and the act of teaching Whatsoever that Text hath more in it or hath not this it hath that those who labour in the Word and Doctrine are Rulers but they are more especially to be honoured for their labouring in the Word and Doctrine Next as to the force of the Word if it be true which Mr. Hussey here saith then the English Translators that read are over you Calvin Beza Bullinger Gualther and others that here follow Hierome and read praesunt vobis Arias Montanus who reads praesidentes vobis have not well understood the Greek But if Mr. Hussey would needs correct all these and many more Why did he not at least produce some instances to shew us where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used for no more but a meer going before either by doctrine or example without any power or authority of Government Yea if this here be no more but a going before either by Doctrine or example then every good Christian who goeth before others by good example is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither will that of the genitive case help him for see the like 1 Tim. 3. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that ruleth well his
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
this were Matth. 7. 6. 2 Thess. 3. 6 14 15. 1 Cor. 11. 27 to the end of the Chapter compared with Iude vers 23. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Another proofe added by the Assembly was this There was power and authority under the Old Testament to keep unclean persons from holy things Levit. 13. 5. Num. 9. 7. 2 Chro. 23. 19. And the like power and authority by way of analogy continues under the new Testament for the authoritative suspension from the Lords Table of a person not yet cast out of the Church Now that which was the strength of the Assemblies proofes of the proposition M r Prynne hath almost never touched but run out upon other particulars Thirdly observe that he disputes all along whether any Minister can suspend one from the Sacrament But this no body that I know asserts The power is given not uni but unitati to the Eldership not to any one either Minister or Elder Fourthly that which in the Preface of his Queres he undertakes to prove is that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacrament being a matter of great moment and much difficulty is to be handled and established with great wisdom caution and moderation And his result in the close is concerning a limited jurisdiction in Presbyteries As these things are not denied by any that I know so himselfe manifestly acknowledgeth by these expressions the thing it selfe for the substance which yet the current of his debate runneth againstâ— and onely questioneth concerning the bounds cautions and limitations God forbid that Church-officers should ever claim an unlimited power their power is given them to edification and not to destruction and we can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth 2 Cor. 13. 8 10. The power of censures must not be in the power of any one man nor in the power of any who are themselves scandalous and worthy of censure There must be no sentence of Excommunication or suspension upon reports surmises suspitions but either upon the confession of the offence or proofe thereof by two witnesses at least None must be excommunicated nor suspended for money matters debts and such like civill causes which are not of Ecclesiasticall cognizance but are to be Judged by the civill Judge It must not be for those peccata quotidianae incursionis such sinfull infirmities as all the godly in this life are guilty of though on the other side the scandalous sinnes meant of in this controversie must not be restricted to such sinnes onely as can not stand with the state of grace These and such like limitations we doe not onely admit of but desire to be put Fifthly he goeth about to cleare the state of the question out of Aretius and citeth him for what himself now undertaketh to prove Whereas Aretius holds Excommunication to be an ordinance of God both in the Old and New Testament and that it was wanting through the injury and corruption of the times the abuse of it in Popery having made the thing it self hatefull and the most part in those places where he lived loving carnall liberty so well and taking upon them the protection and defence of prophane ones and being so unwilling to be brought under the yoke of Christ. For these and the like reasons he thought it not expedient to have that discipline of Excommunication erected at that time in those parts as himselfe gives the reasons and he professeth withall that he doth not despaire of better times when men shall be more willing to submit to that discipline So that this is the question if it shall be stated out of Aretius Whether Excommunication being an Ordinance of God ought to be setled where prophanesse and licentiousnesse abounds and where the better party is like to be oppressed by the greater party or whether we should wait till God send better times for the setling of it Sixthly the Author of those questions maketh a parallel between that power of censures now desired to be setled in Presbyteries and the Prelaticall tyranny as if this were the very power which heretofore was declaimed against in denied to and quite taken away from the Prelates Yea in the close he makes this power now desired to be setled in Presbyteries to be such as our very Lordly Prelates never durst to claime Yet Ecclesiae Anglicanae politeia in tabulas digesta authore Richardo Cousin Tab. 5. tels me that the Episcopall Jurisdiction did exercise it selfe in these censures which were common both to Lay-men and Clergy-men as they were called 1. Interdictio divinorum 2. Monitio 3. Suspensio vel ab ingressu Ecclesiae vel a perceptione Sacramentorum 4. Excommunicatio 5. Anathematisinius c. Neverthelesse there is a truth too in that which M r Prynne saith I confesse the Prelates never durst desire that which this learned and pious Assembly hath desired in this particular He hath said it The Prelats never durst indeed take upon them to suspend all scandalous persons from the Sacrament for if they had it had been said unto most of them Physitian cure thy selfe besides the losing of many of their party And moreover the very Lordly Prelates never durst make themselves to be but members of Presbyteries nor to be subject to the admonitions and censures of their brethren which every Minister now must doe The Lordly Prelate did contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ make himselfe Pastor of many Congregations even of his whole Diocesse and did assume sole and whole power of Government and Church censures to himself and his underling officers which were to execute the same in his name And as the appropriating of Jurisdiction to the Lordly Prelate so the manner and kind of his Government and his proceedings in Ecclesiasticall censures came neither from Christ nor from the purest antiquity but from the Popes Canon Law What then hath Presbytery to doe with Prelacy as much as light with darknesse or righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse He that would see more of the differences between Presbyteriall and prelaticall Government let him read a Book Printed in the Prelates times entituled The Pastor and the Prelate And the cleere Antithesis between Presbytery and Prelacy Printed at London anno 1644. See also what I have said before Book 2. Chap. 3. 7. It is evident by his fourth Question that he states the case as if Ministers meant to know the secrets of all mens hearts and to be so censorious and peremptory in their Judging as to quench the smoaking Flax or to break the bruised Reed Thereupon he askes whether the Sacrament may be denyed to a man if he desires to receive it in case he professe his sincere Repentance for his sinnes past and promise newnesse of life for the time to come God forbid we be censorious peremptory and rigid in our judging of mens spirituall Estate where there is any thing of Christ it s to be cherished not quenched But again God forbid that we shut our eyes to
a Publican qua Publican and so every Publican Now what can be the sence of Christs words in reference to every Publican saith he unlesse this be it that it was lawfull to pursue any Publican at a Tribunall of the Romans I answer his argument goeth upon a most false supposition which I cleare by the like instances Matth. 6. 7. Use not vaine repetitions as the Heathen doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shall we thence conclude that the Heathens as Heathens and so all Heathens without exception did use repetitions in prayer or that they were all so devout in their way as to make long prayers Luke 15. 11. I am not as other men are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extortioners unjustâ—… c. Did the Pharisee meane that every man eo ipso that he was another man and so the rest of the Pharisees as well as others were extortioners c. Iohn 15. 6. he is cast forth as a branch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the rule of Erastus hold then a branch as a branch and so every branch is cast out Many such instances might be given If in these Texts there must be a restriction of the sence notwithstanding of the prepositive article so that by Heathens we must understand devout or praying Heathens by other men vulgar men or the common sort of men by a branch a fruitlesse or withered branch Why shall we not also understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the prophane loose or unjust Publican and as Grotius doth rightly expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be esteemed saith he as an Heathen man that is as an alien from religion or as a Publican that is if he be a Jew esteeme him as an infamous sinner or one of a flagitious life Since therefore Erastus confesseth pag. 194. that as the office of the Publicans was lawfull so likewise many Publicans were honest chast religious and pious men I may safely conclude that Let him be unto thee as a Publican cannot be meant universally of all Publicans For how can it be supposed that Christ would tacitely allow of alienation from or severity to pious Publicans Tenthly whereas the Erastians lay great waight upon that forme of speech Let him be to thee not to the whole Church as an Heathen man and a Publican which is also one of Sullivius his exceptions de Presbyterio cap. 9. in this also they do abuse the Text for 1. The same offence which is a sufficient ground to one Church-member to esteem another Church member as an Heathen man or a Publican being a publique and known scandall such as is contumacy and disobedience to the Church must needs be a sufficient ground to all other Church members or to the whole Church to esteem so of him Surely Christ would not have contradictory judgements in his Church concerning so high a point as is the esteeming of a Church member to be as a Heathen man and a Publican 2. The Erastians herein argue no better than the Papists Christ said to Peter I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven Therefore unto Peter alone Peradventure Mr. Hussey was so sagacious as to prevent this objection with his popish concession these Keyes were never given to any of the Apostles but to Peter saith he in his plea for Christian magistracy pag. 9. It seems he will farre lesse sticke to grant the Prelaticall argument Timothy laid on hands and Titus ordained Elders therefore each of these had the power of ordination by himselfe alone 3. It is a good observation of Luther Tom. 1. Resolv super propos 13. de potest Papae fol. 299. in the sixteenth of Matthew Christ begins with all his disciples Whom say ye that I am and he endeth with one Unto thee will I give c. In the eighteenth of Matthew he beginneth with one If thy brother trespasse against thee c. and he endeth with all Whatsoever he binds on earth c. Whence he concludeth that in both these places what is said to one is said to all of them CHAP. V. That Tell it to the Church hath more in it then Tell it unto a greater number THere is yet another interpretation of these words invented to elude the argument for Ecclesiasticall government and censures from Mat. 18. Tell it unto the Church that is if the offending brother will neither hearken to private admonition nor to admonition before two or three witnesses then tell it unto many or unto a greater company This cals to mind D r Sutcliffes glosse upon the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. that it signifieth Presbyters or Ministers non juris vinculo sed utcunque collectos as if the occasionall meeting of some Presbyters in Westminster Hall or upon the Exchange or in a journey or at a buriall were a Presbytery with power to lay on hands That interpretation of the word Church is no better But that I may reject nothing without reason I desire it may be considered 1. Whether either in Scripture or in any Greeke Lexicon or in any Classick author it can be found that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever used to signifie meerly a greater number or company then two or three not called out and imbodied together for government or worship For my part I could never yet finde where the simple majority of the number maketh the denomination of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I finde the word sometimes yet very seldome used of an unlawfull assembly combining or joyning together to evill the reason I take to be this because they pretended to be authorised as a lawfull assembly so Christ called Iudas friend when he came to betray him with a kisse But since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 18. 17. doth signifie a lawfull assembly as all doe confesse I desire some testimony of Scripture or approved authors where this name is given to a lawfull assembly which was not imbodied for worship or government but had the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply because of the majority of number Sure I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is at least caetus evocatus an assembly called forth and every offended brother hath not from Christ the priviledge of gathering a Church 2. If by tell it unto the Church were meant no more but this tell it unto a greater number then if the offender doe not heare the Church there must be recourse unto some others distinct from the Church for the more authoritative and ultimate determination unlesse it be said that there is no remedy for offences but in a greater number which each man shall make choice of But where is their more effectuall remedy or where will they fixe the ultimate degree of proceedings 3. When Christ saith Tell it unto the Church and if he neglect to heare the Church c. whether respect be had to the forme of the Hebrews or to the forme of the Grecians the Church will still have a ruling power
and they shall be thine they shall come after thee in chaines they shall come over But because the Psalmist maketh mention of a corrective or punitive judiciary power therefore others adde for making the sence more full the power of excommunication for which Lorinus citeth Bruno and Hugo Victorinus Of the Protestant Interpreters upon the place Gesnerus applieth it to the power of the Keyes to be made use of according to that which is written Math. 18. Fabritius conceiveth the Text to comprehend castigationes spirituales and he citeth Math. 16. 19. Math. 18. 18. Io. 20. 23. Heshusius cleareth it by the Instance of Theodosius excommunicated by Ambrose Master Cotton in his Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven pag. 53. applyeth it to the Ecclesiasticall power of the Keyes Bartholomaeus Coppen understands it of the spirituall rule and Kingdom of Christ and makes it paralell to 2 Cor. 10. 4. the weapons of our warrefare are not carnall but mighty through God to the pulling downe of strong holds vers 6. and having in readinesse to revenge all disobedience This judiciary Ecclesiasticall power is to be executed upon all such of the nations as fall under the Government of the Church according to the rule of Christ. And this honour have all his Saints that their Ministers are armed with a power They that follow this latter exposition will be easily induced to beleive that the binding and loosing Mat. 18. 19. is also judiciall or juridicall They that follow the former exposition will also observe that the phrase of binding in Scripture even where it is ascribed to the Church or Saints is used in a judiciary sence and therefore it is most sutable to the Scripture phrase to understand Mat. 18 19. in that sence As touching that other Exposition of the binding and loosing that the object it is exercised about is not a person but a thing or Doctrine for it is not said Whomsoever but whatsoever ye bind It is sufficiently confuted by much of that which hath been said already proving a forensicall binding and loosing even of persons Onely I shall adde these further considerations First the binding and loosing are Acts of the power of the Keyes and are exercised about the same object about which the power of the Keyes is exercised Math. 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes is exercised about persons for the Kingdom of heaven is opened or shut to persons not to Doctrines If it be said that the Keyes are for opening and shutting not for binding and loosing to this I answer with Alexr Alensis part 4. Quaest. 20. Membr 5. that these Keyes are as well for binding and loosing as for shutting and opening but the Act of binding and loosing doth agree to the Keyes immediately and in respect of the subject but the act of opening in reference to the last end Ibid. Membr 2. He had given this reason why the power of the Keyes is called the power of binding and loosing because although to open and shut be the more proper Acts of the Keyes themselves yet neverthelesse to loose and bind are the more proper Acts in reference to those who are to enter into the Kingdome or to be excluded from the same for the persons themselves which doe repent are the subject of loosing and they that repent not of binding Which is not so of opening and shutting for although the opening be to those that are loosed and the shutting to those that are bound yet those that are loosed are not the subject of opening as to the manner of speaking nor those that are bound the Subject of shutting So then antecedently binding and loosing are Acts of the power of the Keyes because a man is bound before he be shut up and loosed before the door be opened to him Secondly that Glosse which now I despute against doth suppose one of these two things either that binding and loosing cannot be exercised upon the same object at different times and that the binding is such as can never be loosed againe or otherwise that one and the same doctrine may be condemned at one time and approved at another time Both which are absurd and contrary to the generality of Divines Thirdly seeing the Scripture speaketh of binding and loosing in reference to persons as corporally so spiritually which I have before proved Why then shall persons be excepted from being the object of binding and loosing Matth. 18 Fourthly that of binding and loosing Mat. 18. 18. doth cohere with and is added by occasion of that which went before as is also before proved If this concerning the context be acknowledged it will carry it to persons for it was an offending brother not a false Doctrine which was spoken of in the verses preceding Fifthly binding and loosing here doth at least reach as farre as retaining or remitting of sinnes Io. 20. 23. but there it is Whosoever sinnes ye remit c. They whose sinnes are retained are bound Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever Mat. 18. 18. is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whomsoever by an Hypallage generis many examples whereof may be given in Scripture so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io. 1. 11. is expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all things that offend Mat. 13. 41. expounded by them that doe iniquity Vnlesse you please to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever sinnes ye bind upon men or loose from off them they shall be bound upon them or loosed from off them in heaven CHAP. VII That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication and by a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation Suspension from the Sacrament of a person unexcommunicated MAster Prynne in his first Quaere did aske whether that phrase 1 Cor. 5. To deliver such a one to Sathan be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament onely This he saith I did in my Sermon wave with a rhetoricall preterition I answer for the latter part of the Quaere I know not the least ground for who did ever expound it of suspension from the Sacrament onely for the former part of it it s not necessary to be debated therefore for husbanding time and not to multiply Questions unnecessarily I said in my Sermon that the Question ought to be whether that Chapter not whether that phrase prove excommunication and that we have a shorter way to prove excommunication from the last words of that Chapter as Doctor Moulin doth in his Vates lib. 2. cap. 11. And if I should grant that delivering such a one to Sathan signifieth either of those things which Master Prynne conceiveth that is a bodily possession torture or vexation by Sathan inflicted either by the apostolicall power of miracles or by Gods immediate permission yet that will not prove that it signifieth no more Therefore Peter Martyr upon the place thinks that the Apostles delivering of the man to Sathan by a miraculous act and the Churches delivering of him to Sathan by Excommunication doe very
and unregenerate sinner c. 8. Vindic. Pag. 28. He admitteth that a Minister ought in duty and Conscience to give warning to unworthy persons of the danger of unworthy approaching to the Lords Table and seriously dehort them from 8. Pag. 46. He tells us of an old error in forbidding drink to those who were inflamed with burning feavers which Physitians of late have corrected by suffering such to drink freely He desires that this old comming to it unless they repent reform and come prepared error of Pâ—isicians may not enter among Divines for as drink doth extinguish the unnatural heat which else would kill the diseased so feaverish Christians burning in the flames of sins and lusts ought to be permitted freely to come to the Lords Table because they need it most to quench their flames Do these now repent reform and come prepared Yet here he makes it a sin to forbid them to come to the Lords Table Though he applieth it against suspension yet the ground he goeth upon makes it a soul murthering sin so much as to dehort them from that which they need most to quench the flames of their lusts 9. Vindic. Pag. 37. I answer First That the Minister doth not administer the Sacrament to any known impenitent sinners under that notion but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins past The meaning of which words cannot be that the Minister gives the Sacrament to known impenitent sinners while known to be impenitent and yet he gives the Sacrament to those known impenitent sinners not as impenitent 9. This as it casts down what himself hath built in point of the converting Ordinance for if the Sacrament be not administred to any known impenitent sinners under that notion but onely as penitent then it doth not work but suppose repentance and conversion in the receivers and so is not a converting Ordinance to any receiver So also it is inconsistent with what himself addeth in the very same place Secondly but as penitent which were a mighty strong Bull. But the meaning bust needs be that the Minister gives the Sacrament to such as have been indeed formerly lookt upon as impenitent sinners and known to be such but are now when they come to the Sacrament lookt upon under the notion of penitent sinners and that the Minister gives the Sacrament to none except onely under the notion and supposition that they are truly penitent saith Mr. Prynn He the Minister usâ—…h thâ—…se words The body of Christ which was broken and the blood of Christ shedd for you c. not absolutely but conditionally onely in case they receive the Sacrament worthily and become penitent and beleeving receivers as they all professe themselves to be just so as they preach repentanâ—…e and remission to their Auditors Therefore the case is just the same in both the Word preached and the Sacrament without any difference Here Christ is offered in the Sacrament as well as to the Word and accordingly the Sacrament administred to known impenitent sinners under that notion and as still known to be impenitent upon condition that they become penitent 10. Vindic. Pag. 52. It being onely the total exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which works both shame aud remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolves 2. Thess. 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 5. 1. to 11. 10. Yet Vindic. pag. 4. and 10. he denieth that either 1 Cor. 5. 9. 11. or 2 Thess. 3. 14. can amount to any Excommunication or exclusion from the Church and expounds both these places of a private withdrawing of Civil Fellowship without any publike judicial Act or Church censure 11. In his Epistle to the Reader before his Vindication he disclaimeth that which some conceived to be his opinion viz. that the Ministers and elders of Christs Church ought not to be trusted with the power of Church censures or that all of them are to be abridged of this power and professeth that these debates of his tend onely to a regular orderly settlement of the power of Presbyteries not to take from them all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction due by divine right to them but to confine it within certain definite limits 11. Diotrephes catechised pag. 7. It is the safest readiest way to unity and Reformation to remit the punishment of all scandalous offences to the civil Magistrate rather then to the pretended disputable questioned authority of Presbyteries Classes or Congregations 12. Vindic. pag. 2. He agreeth with his Opposites that scandalous obstinate sinners after proof and conviction may be justly excommunicated from the Church c. And that 1 Cor. 5. 13. warrants thus much c. So that thus far there is no dissent on either part Remember the present controversie which he speaks to is concerning excommunication in England and so under a Christian Magistracy 12. Diotrephes catechised pag. 9. 10. He plainly intimateth that 1 Cor. 5. 13. is no satisfactory Argument for the continuance and exercise of Excommunication in all Churches and where the Magistrates be Christian. And that those who presse this Text may as well conclude from the very next words 1 Cor. 6. 1. to 9. that it is unlawful for Christians to go to Law before any Christian Judges now c. Where by the way it is also to be noted that he should have said before any heathen judgeâ—… Otherwise the Argument cannot be parallel I shall now close with four Counter-Quaeries to Mr. Prynne 1. Since diu deliberandum quod semel statuendum which is a received maxime approved by prudent men and God himself as his Epistle to the Reader saith whether was it well done to publish his subitane lucubrations as himself in that preface calls them and upon so short deliberation to ingage in this publike and litigious manner against the desires of the Reverend and Learned Assembly especially in a businesse wherein it is well known the hearts of godly people do generally go along with them 2. Whether Mr. Prynus language be not very much changed from what it was in the Prelats times seeing Vindic. pag. 7. he hath these words our opposites generally grant c. citing onely Cartwright And are the old non Conformists of blessed memory now Opposites Where are we I confesse as he now stands affected he is opposite to the old non-Conformists and they to him For instance Mr. Hildersham Lect. 5. on Psal. 51. holdeth that all open and scandalous sinners should do open and publike repentance and acknowledge their scandalous sins in the Congregation otherwise to be kept back from the holy Communion And while Mr. Prynn pleadeth that Matth. 18. 15 16 17. is not meant of a Presbyterie or of any Church-censure he manifestly dissenteth from the non-Conformist and joyneth issue with Bpp. Bilson de gubern Eccl. c. 4. and Sutlivius de Presbyterio cap. 9. pleading for Prelacy against Presbyterie 3. Seeing the businesse of excommunication and sequestration
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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 to be King and Governour not onely of his Church but of the whole World beside Yea the power of Christ is over all things as well as all persons over all beasts fowles and fishes Heb. 2. 7. 8. compared with Psal. 8. 7. 8. Yea his power is over divells meant by things under the earth Phil. 2. 10. Wherefore it cannot be said that Christ as Mediator is King Head and Governour of all those whom he excelleth in glory or whom he hath under his power to do with them what he will It is a strange mistake when Mr Hussey pag. 43. objecteth against this distinction that a Kingdom without power and glory is a nominall empty thing Surely there may be a Kingly right and authority to governe where there is little either power or glory But this is nothing to my distinction which doth not suppose a Kingdom without power and glory nor yet power and glory without a Kingdom but onely that the Kingdom and Government is not to be extended to all those whom the King excelleth in glory for then one King that hath but little glory shall be subject to a King that hath much glory or over whom the King exerciseth acts of power for then the King shall be King to his and his Kingdomes enemies I verily beleeve that this distinction rightly apprehended will discover the great mistakes of that supposed universall Kingdom of Christ as Mediator reigning over all things and the Civil Magistrate as his Vicegerent CHAP. VI. Whether Jesus Christ as Mediator and head of the Church hath laced the Christian Magistrate to hold and execute his Office under and fo him as his Vicegerent The Arguments for the 〈◊〉 discussed MR. Hussey is very angry at my distinctions and arguments which I brought against Mr. Colâ—…mans fourth rule insomuch that in his Reply to me he spendeth very near two parts of three upon this matter from pag. 16. to 44. having past over sicco ped much of what I had said of other points in difference Come now therefore and let us try his strength in this great point He holds that Christ as Mediator hath placed the Christian Magistrate under him and as his Vicegerent and hath given him commission to govern the Church which if he or any man can prove from the Word of God it will go far in the decision of the Erastian controversie though this is not all which is incumbent to the Erastians to prove for as I first replied to Mr. Colemans fourth rule the Question is whether there be not some other government
instituted and appointed by Iesus Christ to be in his Church beside the Civil Government and if it should be granted that Christ even as Mediator hath committed delegated and instituted Civil Government in his Church yet they must further prove that Christ hath committed the whole and sole power of Church-Government to the Magistrate and so hath left no share of Government to the Ministery But I can by no means yeeld that so much contended for Vicegerentship of the Christian Magistrate and his holding of his Office of and under Christ as he is Mediator Mr. Coleman in his re-examination pag. 19. was fearfull to set his foot upon so slippery ground He was loth to adventure upon this aâ—sertion that Magistracy is derived from Christ as Mediator by a Commission of Deputation and Vicegerentship which yet did necessarily follow upon the fourth rule which he had delivered in his Sermon Wherefore he made a retreat and held him at this That Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his Kingdom But out steps Mr. Hussey and boldly 〈◊〉 a great deal more I much mistake if he shall not be made either to make a retreat as Mr. Coleman did or to do worse First of all this part of our Controversie is to be rightly stated The Question is not 1. Whether the Magistrate be Gods Deputy or Vicegerent and as God upon earth for who denies that Nor 2. Whether the Magistrate be Christs Deputy as Christ is God and as he exerciseth an universall dominion over all things as the Father and the holy Ghost doth Here likewise I hold the affirmative Nor 3. Whether the Christian Magistrate be usefull and subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ even as he is Mediator and King of the Church for in this also I hold the affirmative that is that as every man in his owne calling parents masters servants marchants souldiers c. being Christians so the Magistrate in his eminent station being a Christian is obliged to endeavour the propagation of the Gospel and the good and benefit of the Church of Christ. But the Question is Whether the Christian Magistrate be a Governour in the Church Vice Christi in the room and stead of Jesus Christ as he is Mediator Or which is all one Whether the rise derivation and tenure of Christian Magistracy be from Jesus Christ under this formall consideration as he is Mediator and head of the Church Or which is also the same whether Jesus Christ by vertue of that authority and power of Government which as Mediator and as God-man he received of the Father hath substituted and given commission to the Christian Magistrate to govern the Church in subordination to him as he governeth it in subordination to his Father In all these Mr. Hussey is for the affirmative I am for the negative Let us hear his reasons First pag. 16. He argueth from my concession A Christian Magistrate is a Governour in the Church said Mr. Coleman This understood sano sensu I admitted Now saith Mr. Hussey If the Church be Christs Kingdom surely such as govern in it must receive commission from him Which commission saith he must be in this forme Christ the Mediator King of his Church doth appoint Kings and Civil Magistrates to govern under him Let him find this commission in Scripture and I shall confesse he hath done much Neither doth any such thing follow upon my Concession For 1. It is one thing to govern in the Church another thing to govern the Church Christian parents masters of Colledges and the like are Governours in the Church that is being within not without the Church yet as Parents or masters they are not Church-Governours 2. I can also admit that the Christian Magistrate governeth the Church and if this had been the concession which is more then the other it could not have helped him For how doth the Magistrate govern the Church not qua a Church but qua a part of the Common-Wealth as learned Salmafiuâ—… distinguisheth Appar ad lib. de primat pag. 292. 300. For the Common-wealth is not in the Church but the Church in the Common-wealth according to that Rev 2. The Church in Smyrna the Church in Pergamus the Church in Thyatira And suppose all that are members of the Common-wealth to be also Church-members yet in an universall spread of the Gospel the Church is governed by the Magistrate as it is a Common-wealth not as it is a Church Every soule must be subject to the higher powers Church-Officers Church-members and all but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua tale and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo ad is not any Ecclesiastical or spiritual but a humane and civil relation But whereas Mr Hussey addeth that the Gospel is the Law by which Christ will judge all the world if all the world be under the Law of Christ thâ—…n the Kingdom of Christ must needs reach over all the World his proofes are meer mistakes he cites 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. Christ shall come in slaming fire to take vengeance on all them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ but in that place they that obey not the Gospel are those disobedient persons to whom the Gospel was preached He cites also Rom. 2. 16. Iudge all the world according to my Gospel but the Text saith not so it saith the secrets of men not all the World Wherefore as the Apostle there saith of the Law vers 12. so say I of the Gospel as many as have sinned without the Gospel shall also perish without the Gospel and as many as have sinned under the Gospel shall be judged by the Gospel Secondly He draweth an argument the strength whereof is taken from Psal. 2. 8. Ask of me and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession and from 1 Tim. 6. 15. our Lord Jesus Christ is said to be King of kings and Lord of lords Jesus Christ being names that agree to him onely as Mediator Answ. Christ as Mediator hath right to the whole earth and all the kingdoms of the World not as if all government even civil were given to Christ for in this kind he governeth not so much as any part of the earth as he is Mediator which was the thing he had to prove but it is meant onely of his spiritual kingdom which is not of this world and in this respect alone it is that Christ as Mediator hath right to the government of all Nations he hath jus ad rem though not in re As for that title King of kings and Lord of Lords it may be understood two wayes First as Christ is the eternal and natural Son of God the eternal wisdom of God by whom Kings reigne and Princes decree justice Prov. 8. 15. 16. which is spoken of Christ as he was the Fathers delight and as one brought up with him before the foundation of
that Text. When Christ said All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth it may be understood either as he is Mediator or as he is the second person in the blessed Trinity the eternall Sonne of God So when the Ubiquitaries would prove from that place the reall communication of Divine omnipotency to the humane nature of Christ our Divines answer the Text may be understood either of Christs person God-man or as he is the natural Son of God See Gomarus upon the place Now take the Text either way it proves not what Mr. Hussey would Let it be understood of Christ as God-man and as Mediator which is the most promising sence for him yet it cannot prove that all power without exception and all government as well without as within the Church as well secular as Ecclesiastical is put in Christs hand as he is Mediator and that the civil Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ but the sence must be All power which belongs to the Mediator and all authority which belongs to the gathering and governing of the Church is given to me for we must needs expound his meaning as himself hath taught us Iohn 18. 36. Luke 12. 14. We must not say that any such power is given to him as himself denieth to be given to him namely civil power and Magistracy Wherefore Martin Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 273. doth rightly referre these words All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth to the head de Ecclesiae oeconomia and makes this Text paralel to Iohn 20. 21 22 23. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you c. Whose soever sins ye remit c. and to Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority or power in heaven and in earth which is meant Matth. 28. 18. Which is further confirmed by the Syriack which readeth thus verse 18. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth but as my Father hath sent me even so send I you Vers. 19. Goe therefore teach all Nations So restricting the sence to be in reference to the Church onely and excluding civil government and Magistracy from which Christ had before excluded his Apostles Medina in tertiam Partem quaest 59. art 4. holds the same thing that the context and cohesion of vers 18. and vers 19. proves the Kingdom of Christ to be meerly spirituall But 2. The Text will suffer yet a further restriction namely that all power in heaven and in earth is said to given unto Jesus Christ as he is the eternal Sonne of God and that both in respect of the eternal generation by which the God-head and so all Divine properties of which omnipotency is one was from all eternity communicated from the Father to the Son and in respect of the declaration or manifestation of him to be the Son of God with power when God raised him from the dead Mr. Hussey saith he is astonished to hear that any thing should be given to Christ as God Where first of all I observe how miserably he mangleth and maimeth my words as in other places so here He citeth these words as mine That Christ as he is eternal God doth with the Father and the holy Ghost reigne over the Kingdoms of the earth c. and this power was given c. It is not fair nor just dealing to change a mans words in a citation especially when the change is materiall Now here are divers changes in this passage This one onely I take notice of I said not as he is eternal God but as he is the eternal Sonne of God and all along in that Question I spake of the Son of God not essentially but personally as he is the Sonne of God or second person in the Trinity and so the God head and all the attributes and properties thereof are communicated to him from the Father by the eternal Generation and as the Nicene Creed said he is Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine God of God Light of Light I ask therefore Mr. Hussey What do you mutter here Speak it out Doe you hold that Jesus Christ is not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely essentially but personally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he is not onely ex seipso Deus but ex seipso filius If this be the thing you hold then you oppose me indeed but so as you fall into a blasphemous heresie that Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God hath not all power in in Heaven and in Earth but onely as he is Mediator because that power is given to him and nothing can be given to Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God but onely as he is Mediator by your principles But if your meaning be no more then this that Christ considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the very nature and essence of the God-head is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not God of God but God of himself and that so nothing can be said to be given to him then why have you dealt so uncharitably as to suppose me to be herein opposite unto you when I plainly spake of the eternal Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the personality or relation of filiation or as he is the eternall Son of God in which sence I yet averre confidently that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Jesus Christ as he is the eternal Son of God by eternal generation I added that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of God in another respect namely in respect of the declaration thereof at his resurrection To this Mr. Hussey replieth that to hold any thing should be given him that should concern his God-head at the time of his resurrection is more monstrous Then hath Gomarus and others given a monstrous answer to the Ubiquitaries yet they clear it by Augustines rule aliquid dicitur fieri quando incipit patesieri Is it any more strange then to say that Christ was begotten that day when he was raised from the dead Act. 13. 33. The Son of God had in obedience to his Fathers will laid aside and relinquished his divine dominion and power when he took upon him the forme of a servant which I said before but it seems was not considered by Mr. Hussey now at his resurrection the Father restoreth with advantage that formerly relinquished Soveraignty But he addeth that if Matt. 28. 18. be not understood of Christ as Mediator then he had no authority as Mediator to send his Apostles for it followeth Go ye therefore and preach from this authority here
doctrine life and sufferings which are not mentioned by Matthew yet they are mentioned by Iohn or some of the other Evangelists So if we take the primitive platform right we must set the whole before us that which is not in one place is in another place The Apostle Eph. 4. intendeth onely to speak of preaching officers who are appointed for this work of the Ministery to bring us to unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God that we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrine v 12 13 14. And if the Apostle had intended to enumerate all Church-officers in that place which were then in the Church how comes it he doth not mention Deacons which he distinguisheth from Bishops or Elders 1 Tim. 3. His last Argument is that in this very place 1 Cor. 12. the Apostle when he doth again enumerate the particulars vers 29. 30. he leaveth out helps Governments for which he saith he knows no reason but because there were none such at that time and the Apostle in that induction was to deal with their experience This as many other things which he hath was before answered to Mr. Coleman I give this plain reason for the omission of these two The Apostle speaketh to those who were not well satisfied nor contented with their owne station in the Church but were aspiring to more eminent gifts and administrations are all Apostles saith he are all Prophets c. and so he reckoneth out onely those rare and singular gifts which men did most covet and for that cause it was neither necessary nor had it been agreeable to the scope of the Apostle to have added are all helps are all Governments But now he purposely leaveth out these thereby intimating to the ruling Elders and Deacons of the Church of Corinth that they ought to be contented with their owne station though they be neither Apostles nor Prophets c. It remaineth therefore that the Governments in the Church mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. were such Governments as were in the Church at that time and therefore not to be understood of Christian Magistracy but of Church Government distinct from the civil The ninth Argument brought to prove that all Government is given to Christ as Mediator and that the Christian Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ as the head of Magistracy and Principality is from Eph. 1. 21 22 23. This Argument first propounded by Mr. Coleman is prosecuted by Mr. Hussey pag. 32 33. c. He demurres upon that which I said that this place maketh more against him then for him the meaning whereof was no more then this that this place doth rather afford us an Argument against him then him against us Come we to the particulars My first Reply was The Apostle saith not that Christ is given to the Church as the head of all Principalities and Powers The Brother saith so and in saying so he makes Christ a head to those that are not of his body This exception Mr. Hussey quarrelleth but when he hath endeavoured to prove from that Text that Christ is the head of Principalities because he that is head of all things is also head of Principalities though he will never be able to make it out from that Text that Christ as Mediator is head of all things but onely that he who is the Churches head is over all things and gave him to be the head over not of all things to the Church saith the Text which as I told before the Syriack readeth more plainly thus and him who is over all he gave to be the head to the Church At last he fairly gives over the proof It is true saith he disputations do require men to keep close to termes but in Col. 2. 10. ye have the very words head of all Principality and Power In Col. 2. 10. Christ as he is the eternall Son of God is called head of all Principality and power as we shall see anon but Ephes. 1. where the Apostle speaketh of Christs headship in reference to the Church and as Mediator he is not called the head of all Principality and Power So that I had reason to except against Mr. Colemans argument which made that Text Ephes. 1. to say what it saith not Now what saith he to the reason I added can Christ be a head to them that are not of his body He tells me the visible Church is not the body of Christ but onely the faithfull He might have observed the visible Church consisting of visible Saints plainly spoken of as the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 1 Cor. 12 12. 14 27. I know the visible Church is not all one with the invisible and mystical body of Christ but he who denyeth the visible Church to â—e the visible political ministerial body of Christ must also deny the visible Church to be the visible Church for if a Church then certainly the body of Christ at least visibly The next thing which I did replie was in explanation of the Text which was to this sence He that is the Churches head is over all both as he is the Sonne of God or as the Apostle saith Rom. 9. 5. God over all blessed for ever yea even as man he is over or above all creatures being exalted to a higher degree of glory majesty and dignity then man or Angel ever was or shall be but neither his divine omnipotency nor the height of glory and honour which as man he is exalted to nor both these together in the Mediator and Head of the Church omnipotency and exaltation to glory can prove that as Mediator he exerciseth his Kingly office over all Principalities and Powers and that they hold of and under him as Mediator Mr. Hussey replieth that the Text makes Christ over or above Principalities and Powers not onely in dignity and honour but as King or Head of them and that thus we must understand the comparison that he is above Principality in Principality Power in Power Might in Might Dominion in Dominion This is nothing but a begging of what is in Question That the Power and Dominion of the civil Magistrate is eminently in Christ as Mediator and from him so considered derived to the Magistrate is that which I deny can be proved from that Text and lo when he comes to the point of probation he supposeth what he had to prove My exposition of the Text made good sence For as an earthly King is exalted to have more power and more glory then those not onely of his Subjects but of another State or Kingdom to whom he is not King so the Mediator and King of the Church is exalted to power and glory far above all Principality and Power but is not therefore Head or King or Governor to all Principality and Power as Mediator And as me exposition makes good sence of the Text his makes very bad sence of it For if Christ as Mediator be head and
King of all Principalities powers and Dominions then he is as Mediator head and King of Heathenish and Turkish Principality Power might and Dominion and when the Apostle wrote this to the Ephesians it must be granted according to Mr. Husseys glosse that Christ as Mediator was head and King of the Romane Emperour and that Caesar held his office of and under Christ as Mediator for if head of all Principality how shall they except any I further brought severall reasons from the Text it self The first was this The honour and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken of hath place not onely in this world but in that which is to come vers 21 But the Kingdom and Government which is given to Christ as Mediator shall not continue in the World to come Mr. Hussey answereth pag. 41. this is Ignoratio el nehi it followeth not that which belongeth to him in reference to the World to come belongeth not to him as Mediator therefore that Government that is given to him in reference to this World is not given to him as Mediator But still he beggs what is in Question and divideth asunder what the Text coupleth together not onely in this World but also in that which is to come here is a rising and heightning but no contradistinction nothing here of one exaltation in reference to the World to come another in reference to this World but that exaltation of Christ above every name that is named which this Text speaks of beginnes in this World and shall continue in the World to come Calvin in Eph. 1. 21. Seculi autem futuri disertam facit mentionem ut significet non temporalem esse Christi excellentiam sed aeternam He makes expresse mention of the World to come that he may signifie Christs excellency not to be temporal but eternal This doth well agree to the dignity excellency glory and honour of Christ but it cannot be said that Christ shall for ever continue in his Kingly Office as Mediator The second reason which I fetcht from the Text was from vers 22. He hath put all things under his feet that is all things except the Church saith Zanchius But all things are not yet put under his feet except in respect of Gods decree It is not yet done actually Heb. 2. 8. Now Christ reignes as Mediator before all things be put under his feet not after all things are put under his feet which is clear 1 Cor. 15. 25. Act. 2. 34 35. Mr. Husseys reply pag. 41. 42. saith that the Church is not here to be excepted but Church and all is here put under Christs feet which he proveth by Heb. 2. 8. He left nothing that is not put under him But this cannot be understood to be actually done for the next words say But now we see not yet all things put under him and if not done actually but in respect of Gods decree and fore-knowledge according to the sence I gave out of Hierome on Eph. 1. 22. how can it strengthen him in this particular We see not yet This yet shall not expire till the end when Christ shall put down all authority and power And now when it is said He hath put all things under his feet Ephes. 1. 22. that the Church is not meant to be comprehended but to be excepted in that place as Zanchius saith may thus appear the Apostle distinguisheth the all things from the Church and calls the Church the body of Christ and him the head to that body but the all things are put under Christs feet his body is not under his feet but under the head and he over all things for so runs the Text and hath put all things under his feet and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church which is his body And whereas Mr. Hussey distinguisheth between Christs putting all his enemies under his feet 1 Cor. 15. 25. and the Fathers putting all things under his feet Ibid. vers 27. and maketh this latter to be an actual putting under him of friends foes Church and all whence it seems he would have it to follow that Christ reignes as Mediator even after all things are put under his feet He is herein easily confuted from Heb. 2. ◠Where God the Father his putting all things under Christs feet is plainly declared to be a thing to come and not yet actually done The next reason which I gave out of the Text was from those words And gave him to be the head over all thiags to the Church Christs headship and his Government as Mediator are commensurable Christ is a head to none but to his Church These words of mine Mr. Hussey changeth thus he is head over none saith Mr. Gilespie but his Church and then he addeth Is this to argue out of Scripture or rather to deny and outface the Scripture the Scripture saith he is over all See what unconscionable impudent boldnesse this is to cite my words yea in a different character too that his Reader may beleeve it the better and yet to change not onely my words but my meaning I purposely kept my self to the Text that Christ is a head to none but to his Church yet he that is the Churches head is over all things And since Mr. Hussey will needs hold that Christ as Mediator is head of all things which the Text saith not what were the consequence hereof The Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over all things not over all persons onely So Heb. 2 7 8. compared with Psal. 8. 6 7. Whence it followes by Mr. Husseys principles which I tremble to mention that Christ as Mediator is Head and King not onely of men but of sheep oxen fowles and fishes Behold how dangerous it is for men to be wise above that which is written The last reason which I brought from the last verse was this The Church is there called Christs fulnesse in reference to his Headship This Mr. Hussey saith seemeth to come tolerably from the Text but the next words that which makes him full and compleat so farre as he is a Head or King he calls a fallacy How commeth this word King in here saith he First here he yeelds that the Church makes Christ full and compleat so farre as he is a Head whence it followeth that as Mediator he is onely the Churches head and there is no other body of Christ but the Church for if the Church be his fulnesse his compleat body there can be no other body of Christ. Doth not this destroy what he hath been arguing for that Christ as Mediator is head of all Principality and Power And for the word King it may well come in where Head commeth for is not Christs Kingdom as Mediator commensurable with his Headship as Mediator Is he as Mediator King to any to whom he is not Head Surely this very answer as it is his last so it really yeeldeth the cause The tenth objection is that which I my self
from the one to the other for the Magistrate is no lesse subject to the operation of the Word from the mouth of the Minister then any other man whatsoever And the Minister again is as much subject to the authority of the Magistrate as any other Subject whatsoever And therefore though there be no subordination of Offices yet is there of Persons the Person of a Minister remaining a Subject but not the function of the Ministery He might have said the same of the exercise of Church-discipline which he saith of the preaching of the Word for the same Christ who gave the keyes of doctrine gave also the keys of discipline without any tye to make the use thereof subject to the pleasure of the civil Magistrate Let him prove that the ministery of the Word is not subordinate to nor dependant upon the Magistrate and I shall prove by the same medium that the ministery of Church-censures hath as little of that subordination in it And this I must adde that least of all others can our Independent brethren charge the Presbyterians with the setting up of an Ecclesiastical Government co-ordinate with and not subordinate unto the civil Government For themselves hold as much in this point if not more then we do Take for instance Mr. Cotton his kâ—…yes of the Kingdom of Heaven published by Mr. Goodwyn and Mr. Nye pag. 49. The first Subject of the ministeriall power of the keyes though it be independent in respect of derivation of power from the power of the sword to the performance of any spiritual administration c. Pag. 53. As the Church is subject to the sword of the Magistrate in things which concerne the civil peace so the Magistrate if Christian is subject to the keyes of the Church c. As for that collaterality which is objected I answer The Civil and Ecclesiastical power if we speak properly are not collateral 1. They have no footing upon the same ground there may be many subject to the Magistrate who are no Church-Members and so not under the Spiritual power and where the same persons are subject to both the powers there is no more collaterality in this case nay not so much as is betwixt the power of a Father in one man and the power of a Master in another man when both powers are exercised upon the same man who is both a son and a servant 2. Powers that are collateral are of the same eminency and altitude of the same kinde and nature but the civil Power is a Dominion and Lordship the Ecclesiastical power is Ministerial not Lordly 3. Collateral powers do mutually and alike exercise authority over each other respectively But though the Magistrate may exercise much authority in things Ecclesiastical Church-Officers can exercise no authority in things civil The Magistrates authority is Ecclesiastical objective though not formaliter but the Church-Officers authority is not civil so much as objective not being exercised about either civil criminal or capital cases 4. Collateral powers are subordinate to and derived from the Supreme and Original power like two branches growing out of the same stock two streams flowing from the same fountain two lines drawn from the same center two arms under the same head But the power of the Magistrate is subordinate unto and dependeth upon the Dominion of God the Creator of all the power of Church-Officers dependeth upon the Dominion of Christ the Mediator and King of the Church I shall conclude my answers to the present Objection with the Testimony of learned Salmasius who hath so overthrown the Papal and Prelatical Government from Scripture and antiquity that he hath withall preserved yea strengthened the distinction of civil Government and Church-government and holdeth that Church-censures and civil punishments do very well consist and sweetly agree together I have now done with the negative part of this present Controversie what the power of the Magistrate in Ecclesiasticis is not I proceed to the positive part what it is To this I wâ—ll speak first more generally then more particularly For the general I hold with the large Consession of Faith of the Church of Scotland Art 25. Moreover to Kings Princes Rulers and Magistrates we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and the purgation of the Religion appertains so that not onely they are appointed for civil Policy but also for maintenance of the true Religion and for suppressing of Idolatry and Superstition whatsoever To the same purpose Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 20. sect 9. Hoc nomine maximè laudantnr sancti Reges quòd Dei cultum corruptum vel eversum restituerint vel curam gesserint Religionis ut sub illis pura incolumis sâ—…oreret The like see in Zanchius in 4. praec pag. 791. and in Polanus Syntag. lib. 10. cap. 65. They hold that the Christian Magistrate his Office as concerning Religion is diligently to take care that in his Dominion or Kingdom Religion from the pure Word of God expounded by â—…he Word of God it self and understood according to the Principles of Faith which others call the Analogy of Faith be either instituted or being instituted kept pure or being corrupted be restored and reformed that false Doctrines Abuses Idolls and Superstitions be taken away to the glory of God and to his own and his Subjects salvation Unto these things I do assent as unto safe and undoubted truths But for the clearer unâ—erstanding and enodation of our present Question I will particularize and explain what I hold by these five following Distinctions 1. Distingue materiam subjectam There are two sorts of things belonging to the Church Some which are intrinsecal and belonging to the soul or inward man directly and primarily Such things are not to be dispensed and administred by the civil Magistrate I mean the Word and Sacraments the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven the Suspension or Excommunication of Church-Officers or Members the Ordination or Deposition of Officers the Determination and Resolution from Scripture of Controversies concerning the Faith the Worship of God the Government of the Church Cases of Conscience These being in their nature end and use meerly spiritual and belonging not to the outward man but to the inward man or soul are committed and intrusted to the Pastors and other ruling Officers of the Church and are not of civil and extrinsecal but of Ecclesiastical and intrinsecal cognizance and judgement There are other things belonging to the Church which are extrinsecal and do properly belong to the outward man and are common to the Church with other humane Societies or Corporations Things of this kinde fall within the civil Jurisdiction For the Churches of Christ being Societies of men and women and parts of Common-wealths are accountable unto and punishable by the civil Magistrate in their bodies lives civil Liberties and temporal Estates for trespasses against the Law of God or the Law of the Land By the Law of God I understand here Ius
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
super nos that is the light of thy c untenance is lifted up upon us examplarly or banner-wise so as it may be remarkeable to others The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations upon 2 Thess. 3. 14. tell us that this Greek word doth not properly signifie to present or represent one but to note one and mark him out putting some ignominy upon him or outing him from an honourable Congregation and marking or blotting out his name as one unworthy of that honour By which reason as likewise by that which followes they confute those who construe the word note with the Word Epistle as if the Apostle had said note or present me such a one by a letter 4. Have no company with him He speaks it to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may have no fellowship with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he will have those that walk orderly and by rule to have no company with those that walk disorderly Now this concerneth the whole Church equally and it is spoken to the Church for what reason can there be that some in the Church should have no company with one because of his scandalous and disorderly walking but the same reason will make the whole Church to have no company with him there may be divers civil respects and considerations which may make it unfit for some to keep familiar civil fellowship which respects and considerations do not concern others But the avoyding of the company of those who walk scandalously and disorderly and that because they walk in that manner and further adde obstinacy to their sin after publike admonition must needs belong to the whole Church 5. Note that man and have no company with him he must first be noted before he be avoyded and both these are publick Ecclesiastical acts for it was far from the Apostles meaning that every man should be herein left to his liberty he that pleaseth to note him and have no company with him well and good he that pleaseth not shall be free But unlesse there be an Ecclesiastical Judgement and censure past upon such a one every one had been left to his liberty 6. That he may be ashamed this as it is the end of Church-censures so it will be attained in a very small measure and perhaps not at all by one private man his avoyding the company of another which will not make the offender ashamed abased and humbled but when he is publikely noted and when the Church avoids his Company that is it which most covers a man with shame and confusion of face Tenthly The Apostle mentioneth Ecclesiastical Rulers Rom. 12. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praefectus or qui praeest he that ruleth that is the ruling Elder He is making an enumeration of Ecclesiastical offices and administrations and no other So Calvin Beza Piscator Martyr Tossanus Diodati all upon the place and Iunius Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. do conceive and the whole context and the allusion to the severall offices of severall members in the same body proveth it and if all the rest be Ecclesiastical why not the office of ruling also which is there mentioned for how should civil ruling come in among the Ecclesiastical administrations especially in those dayes when Magistrates were not Christian Musculus takes the Rulers here to be Elders Gualther and Bullinger though they make this Text applicable to civil Rulers yet they do not exclude Church-officers from ruling but expressely mention Church-Governours distinct from civil Governours to be there comprehended under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Hussey pag. 19. answering this argument can neither deny what I said of Gualther and Bullinger nor yet doth affirm that civil Rulers are there meant onely his reply is that my argument is drawn from the interpretation of the place but the Disputant may not interpret saith he that is the answerers part This calls to mind the Anabaptistical error Concionatores non retinent verba Textus sed interpretantur ea id quod non ferendum For which see Petrus Hiâ—…kolmannus de Anabaptismâ—… Disp. 9. cap. 1. My Argument was drawn from the Text for the Text rightly understood and interpreted is the Text. But see now what strange rules you may exspect when Mr. Hussey comes to School-disputes the disputant may not interpret he must keep close to termes if the thing be not in terminis in the Text it s no Argumâ—nt by which rule he will at one dash overthrow not onely the disputations of Protestants against Papists of the ancient Fathers against the Hereticks of their times for how is Justification by Faith ONELY the number of the Sacraments the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father and many other most materiall points proved but by Scripture rightly opened cleared and interpreted but also the disputations of the Apostles and of Jesus Christ himself against the Pharisees Sadduces and Jewes for there is nothing more ordinary with Christ and his Apostles in their disputes for the truth then to interpret Scripture and give the sence of it Eleventhly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not Civil but Ecclesiastical Governments as I have largely proved Chap. 6. and shall not need here to repeat it onely observe what Bullinger saith on the place whereunto add the Testimony of Hugo Grotius whom I suppose our opposites do not look upon as an adversary on Luke 12. 14. He acknowledgeth that in the Church of Corinth censura morum was penes Presbyterium the censure of mens manners was in the power of the Presbytery This Government the Church of Corinth had a Christian Magistrate they had not Twelfthly If in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Civil then in the Christian Church also there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Civil But in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Civil Ergo. The Proposition is proved thus There can be no reason given for an Ecclesiastical government among the Jews distinct from the Civil which will not hold as well and as strongly for an Ecclesiastical government among Christians distinct from the Civil for we speak not now of the particulars a high Priest or the like which were typical and proper to that time but we speak of a Church government distinct from the Civil look upon it under that notion and then see if any reason can be given for it among them which will not conclude the like among us yea much more among us for if the Priests had a great influence and interest into the Civil Government of the Jewes and yet there was a Church-government distinct from the Civil how much more now when Ministers have not neither ought to have any share in the Civil government The assumption hath been abundantly proved before in the first book I will not repeat but here note these Scriptures Ier. 5. 31. The Prophets bear rule It was their
office to bear rule It was their sin to support themselves in their ruling by the false Prophets 1 Chron. 9 11. Azariah the Ruler of the House of God 2 Chron. 31. 13. And Azariah the Ruler of the House of God 〈◊〉 11. 11. Serajah the Ruler of the House of God All the chief Priâ—sts or heads of the several Classes or Orders of Priests were called Principes Sanctuarii saith Matthias Martinius Lexic Philol. pag. 3268. So 2. Chron. 35. 8. Hilkiah and Zachariah and Jehiel Rulers of the House of God Act. 23. 5. Then said Paul I wist not brethren that he was the high Priest for it is written thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Finally Deut. 31. 28. where we find schoterim that is Officers Rulers or such as were set over the charge the 70. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome Doctores More plainly 2 Kings 11. 18. the Priest appointed Officers over the House of the Lord. Thirteenthly A corrective Ecclesiastical government in the Churches of Galatia seemeth to be intimated Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which trouble you Which many understand of Excommunication See Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Sect. 6. 7. Also Salmeron Menochius Vasquez Novarinus and of ours Bâ—…za Diodati Gomarus all upon the place beside diverse others Musculus upon the place doth paralell this cutting off with delivering to Sathan 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. and explaineth excindantur by abalienentur which best suteth to excommunication Certainly the words will easily admit this sence or rather invite to it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not properly perdo destruo consumo but amputo abscindo also minuo because that from which any thing is cut off is diminished and made lesse also repello abjungo separo ahstraho And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abscindor excindor separor abstraâ—…or Hunters and such as trace the Vestigies but cannot find them are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be cut off or abstracted Hâ—…sych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abscissus is not he who is cut off by death or destruction but he that hath his members cut off Which seems to have been the ground of Augustine his mistake of this Text conceiving the Apostles wish to be that those men should be made Eunuchs The Septuagints have sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circumcido and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demitto as synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now from the phrase to the purpose of the Text. That it is meant of Excommunication I have these reasons which confirme me 1. Because vers 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump are the very same words which he useth 1 Cor. 5. 6. where he presseth the excommunication of the incesâ—uous man as there one unclean person in life so here some few seducers especially that one who is singularly pointed at vers 10. is meant by the little leaven which was to be purged out lest it should leaven the whole Church 2. Interpreters do generally agree that the Apostle here alludeth to Circumcision which those Judaizing teachers pressed upon the Galatians as necessary wishing that they who would so fain have the Galatians circumcised were themselves cut off and cast out of the Church as rotten members or as a Gangren out of the body This allusion suteth best with excommunication 3. The words so understood will more fitly answer and be paralel unto the cutting off in the Law that soul shall be cut off from among his people which I have before proved to be meant of excommunication as likewise to that 1 Cor. 5. 14. Put away that wicked person from among you 4. Other Interpretations do not so well agree to the Text. This cutting off could not be expected nor any hopes had of it by the hand of Justice or of the Magistrate for the Magistrates of that time were themselves troublers of the Christians so far they were from cutting of those that troubled them Those that understand the words of an imprecation of eternal cutting off from God and being accursed from Christ draw themselves into thorny questions wherein they can hardly satisfie themselves or others To understand it of cutting off by death doth not well answer that allusion to Circumcision generally observed as hath been said by Interpreters which allusion doth intimate that it is not a cutting off out of the World but a cutting off from the body of the Church I would that they themselves were cut off as the praeputium from the Church that is cut off à consortio Ecclesiae saith Guâ—…lther If it be said why then doth the Apostle onely wish it Why doth he not prescribe or command to excommunicate them To this we may either answer as Bâ—…za The Apostle Pauls authority at that time was extreamly blasted and weakned in the Churches of Galatia Or thus the Apostle knew that as the Churches of Galatia then stood affected being bewitched with the Judaizing Zealots and in a manner moved away to another Gospel both Churches and Ministery were unwilling to excommunicate those that he means of for which cause he would not peremptorily command their excommunication renitente Ecclesiâ but forbeareth for that season wishing for better times Some think that the Apostle speaketh positively of excommunication vers 10. He shall bear his Judgement But others are of opinion the Apostle there speaks of the judgement of God which he certainly and positively denounces and that vers 12. he addeth this as a distinct purpose that he could wish them also cut off from the Church by excommunication It will be an Argument of more weight against Erastus his Interpretation of that Text if we object against him thus This cutting off which the Apostle wisheth to those that troubled the Galatians cannot be meant of a divine or miraculous judgement upon them such as he thinks to be meant 1 Cor. 5. which place he parallels with Gal. 5. 12. as to the punishment intended for if so why doth not the Apostle adjudge them positively to be cut off or destroyed as he did constitute and decree by his Apostolical power of miracles so thinks Erastus the incestuous Corinthian to be delivered to Satan To this Erastus replieth lib. 3. cap. 9 Because the Apostles had not power to work miracles quoties vellent as often as they would nor to afflictor stay any but when it seemed good in Gods eyes sed quando Deo visum fuit utile necessarium salutare But I ask Was it right and agreeable to the will of God that the Apostle should wish their cutting off Was it not profitable and necessary for the Churches good that they should be cut off Where shall we finde that the working of a miracle was profitable and necessary for the Churches good and that an Apostle did desire and thirst after the working of that miracle and yet had not power from God to work
consolatoria promissione nanâ—… dieitur Sunt quidam de hinc 〈◊〉 qui non gustabuâ—…t mortem donec videant regâ—…um Dei The very same words hath Bedâ—… on Mark. 9. 1. following it seemes Gregory Grotius on Matth. 16. 28. doth likewise understand the promulgation of the Gospel and the Scâ—pter of Christ that is his law going out of Zion to be here meant I conclude as the Church is not onely a mystical but a political body So Christ is not onely a mystical but a political Head But peradventure some men will be bold to give another answer that the Lord Jesus indeed reigneth over the Church even in a political respect but that the administration and influence of this his Kingly office is in by and through the Magistrate who is supreme Judge Governour and Head of the Church under Christ. To this I answer Hence it would follow 1. That Christs Kingdom is of this World and commeth with observation as the Kingdoms of this World do which himself denieth Luke 17 20 Iohn 18 36. Next It would follow that Christ doth not reigne nor exercise his Kingly office in the Government of his Church under Pagan Turkish or persecuting Princes but onely under the Christian Magistrate which no man dare say 3. The Civil Magistrate is Gods Vicegerent but not Christs that is the Magistrates power hath its rise origâ—nation institution and deputation not from that speciall dominion which Christ exerciseth over the Church as Mediator and Head thereof But from that Universal Lordship and Soveraignity which God exerciseth over all men by right of Creation In so much that there had been for orders sake Magistrates or superior Powers though man had not fallen but continued in his innocency and now by the Law of Nature and Nations there are Magistrates among those who know nothing of Christ and among whom Christ reigneth not as Mediator though God reigneth over them by the Kingdom of power 4. If the Magistrate be supreme Head and Governour of the Church under Christ then the Ministers of the Church are the Magistrates Ministers as well as Christs and must act in the Magistrates name and as subordinate to him and the Magistrate shall be Christs Minister and act in Christs Name The seventeeth Argument I draw from the institution of Excommunication by Christ Matth. 18. 17. Tell it unto the Church But if he neglect to hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a Publican In which Text 1. All is restricted to a brother or a Church-member and agreeth not to him who is no Church-member 2. His treâ—pasle is here lookt upon under the notion of scandal and of that which is also like to destroy his owne soule 3. The scope is not civil but spiritual to gain or save his soul. 4. The proceedings are not without witnesses 5. There is a publick complaint made to the Church 6. And that because he appeares impenitent after admonitions given privatly and before two or three 7. The Church speaks and gives a Judgement concerning him which he is bound to obey 8. If he obey not then he is to be esteemed and held as a heathen man and a Publican 9. And that for his not hearing the Church which is a publike scandal concerning the whole Church 10. Being as as an Heathen and Publican he is kept back from some ordinances 11. He is bound on earth by Church-Officers Whatsoever ye bind c. 12. He is also bound in Heaven More of this place else-where These hints will now serve The Erastians deny that either the case or the court or the censure there mentioned is Ecclesiastical or Spiritual But I prove all the three First Christ speaketh of the case of scandals not of personal or civil injuries whereof he would be no Judge Luk. 12. 14. and for which he would not permit Christians to go to Law before the Roman Emperor or his deputies 1 Cor. 6. 1. 6. 7. But if their interpretation stand they must grant that Christ giveth laws concerning civil injuries and that he permitteth one of his disciples to accuse another for a civil injury before an unbeleeving Judge Beside Christ saith not If he shall hear thee thou hast from him a voluntary reparation of the wrong or satisfaction for it which is the end why we deal with one who hath done us a civil injury But he saith If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother intimating that the offending brother is told and admonished of his fault onely for a spiritual end for the good of his soul and for gaining him to repentance All which proveth that our Saviour meaneth not there of private or civil injuries as the Erastians suppose but of scandals of which also he had spoken much before as appeareth by the preceding part of that chapter A civil injury done by one brother to another is a scandal but every scandal is not a civil injury The Jewes to whose custome Christ doth here allude did excommunicate for diverse scandals which were not civil injuries And Paul saith of a scandal which was not a civil injury when ye sin so against the brethren c. 1 Cor. 8. 12. 2. The court is Ecclesiastical not civil for when it is said Tell it unto the Church must we not expound Scripture by Scripture and not understand the Word Church to be meant of a civil Court for though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Act. 19. reoitative of a heathenish civil assembly called by that name among those heathens yet the pen-men of the holy Ghost have not made choice of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any place of the new Testament to expresse a civil court either of Jewes or Christians So that we cannot suppose that the holy Ghost speaking so as men may understand him would have put the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place to signifie such a thing as no where else in the new Testament it is found to signifie Nay this very place expoundeth it self for Christ directeth his speech to the Apostles and in them to their Successors in the government of the Church Whatsoever ye shall bind c. And if two of you shall agree c. So that the church which here bindeth or judgeth is an Assembly of the Apostles Ministers or Elders of the church 3. The censure is spirituall as appeareth both by these words Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican which relate to the Excommunication from the church of the Jewes and comprehendeth not onely an exclusion from private fellowship and company which was the condition of the Publicans with whom the Jewes would not eat but also an exclusion from the Temple Sacrifices and communion in the holy things which was the condition of heathens yea of prophane Publicans too of which elsewhere And further it appeareth by these words Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth c. The Apostles had no power to inflict any
civil punishment but they had power to bind the soul and to retain the sin Ioh. 20. 23. And this power of binding is not in all the Scripture ascribed to the civil Magistrate The eighteenth Argument shall be drawn from the example of excommunication 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. The Apostle writeth to the church of Corinth to deliver to Sathan for the delivery to Sathan was an act of the church of Corinth as the Syriack explaineth it the incestuous man which is called a censure inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. that is by the whole Presbytery of the Church of Corinth And whereas some understand by delivering to Sathan the putting forth of the extraordinary Apostolicall power to the working of a miracle upon the offender by giving him over into the hands of Sathan so as to be bodily tormented by him or to be killed and destroyed as Erastus takes it I answer 1. It cannot be meant of death for it is said that Hymeneus and Alexander were delivered to Sathan and to what end that they might learne not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20 which had been too late to learn after death 2. Nor is it at all meant of any miraculous tormenting of the body by the divel for beside that it is not likely this miracle could have been wrought Paul himself not being present to work it it is utterly incredible that the Apostle would have so sharply rebuked the Church of Corinth for that a miracle was not wrought upon the incestuous man it not being in their power to do or that he would seek the consent of that Church to the working of a miracle and as a joynt act proceeding from him and the Church by common counsell and deliberation for where read wee of any miracle wrought that way Therefore it is much more safe to understand by delivering to Sathan as Gualther himself doth Excommunication which is a shutting out of a Church-member from the Church whereby Sathan commeth to get dominion and power over him for he is the God of this World who reigneth at his pleasure in and over those who are not the Church and people of God 2 Cor. 4. 4. Eoh. 2. 2. And if any shall be so far unsatisfied as not to admit this sence which we put upon that phrase of delivering to Sathan Yet our Argument for Excommunication drawn from 1 Cor. 5. standeth strong the weight of it not being laid upon tradere Satanae onely but upon vers 6. 7. 11 12. compared with 2 Cor. 2. 6. which undeniably prove Excommunication from Church fellowship The nineteenth Argument shall be drawn from Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compared with 1 Pet. 5. 2. 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Texts as they hold forth a Bishop and a Presbyter to be one and the same Iure divino so they hold forth the ruling power of Presbyters or Elders First Because otherwise the simile so much made use of in these Scriptures of overseeing the flock mentioned and joyned together with the feeding thereof will fall short in a main and most materiall point for the overseers of flocks do not onely make them to lye down in green pastures and lead them beside the still waters but they have also rodds and staves for ruling the flocks and for correcting and reducing the wandring sheep which will not be brought home by the voice of the shepheard Psal. 23. 2. 4. The Pastorall rod there mentioned by David is corrective as Clemens Alexandrinus paedag lib. 1. cap. 7. who doth also paralel it with that 1 Cor. 4. Shall I comâ— unto you with a rod Secondly Paul requireth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to take heed unto and to oversee the whole flock which did consist of more then did or could then meet together ordinarily into one place for the worship of God as appeareth by the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla which was one but not the onely one Church assembly at Ephesus by the great and wonderfull increase of the Gospel at Ephesus and such other Arguments which I do but point at the full debate of them not being my present work Peter also writing to the Churches of the strangers in severall provinces calls them the flock not flocks and commends unto the Elders the feeding and oversight of that flock Now what is it that can denominate many particular visible Churches or Congregations to be one visible ministeriall flock or Church unlesse it be their union and association under one Ecclesiasticall Government No doubt they had the administration of the Word and Sacraments partitive or severally Nor do I deny but they had a partitive several Government but there was also an union or association of them under one common Government which did denominate them to be one visible Ecclesiastical flock Thirdly The very name given to the Elders of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name of authority rule and government especially in the Christian and Ecclesiasticall use of the Word H. Stephanus in Thes. ling. Gr. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that the Elders of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit saith he those qui verbo gubernationi praeeraâ—…t Where he tells us also that the Magistrate or Praetor who was sent with a Judiciall power into those Townes which were undâ—r the power of the Athenians was called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Septuagints use the word Nehem. 11. 9. Ioel the son of Ziâ—…hri was their overfeer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Judah the son of Senuah was second over the City He that had but the second place was a Ruler how much more he that was in the first place Loe here the head and chief Ruler of the Benjamites called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Numb 31. 14. 2 Kings 11. 15. the chief officers of the Host the Captains over thousands and captains over hundreds are called by the Septuâ—gints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Hebrew words which they render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praefectus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praepositus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princeps Yea the name of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render by this word Iob. 20. 29. This is the portion of a wicked man from God and the heritage appointed to him by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek by the overseer even as the same name of Bishop is given to Christ 1 Pet. 2. 25. Conradus Kirchâ—…rus in the word Pakad tells us also that Gen. 41. 34. Lâ—…t Pharaoh do this and let him appoint Officers over the Land where the 70. read
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek Scholia which he useth to cite hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly Peter addeth not as being Lords or over-ruling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might understand he condemneth the ruling power of the Lord Bishop not of the Lords Bishop of Episcopus Dominus not of Episcopus Domini Just as Ezek 34. 4. the shepheards of Israel are reproved for lording it over the flock with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them It was their duty to rule them but it was their sin to rule them with force and with cruelty The twentieth Argument I take from 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God Moreover it is required in Stewards that a man be found faithfull And Tit. 1. 7. a Bishop is the Steward of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This name doth exclude Lordship and dominion but withall it noteth a ministeriall rule or government as in the proper so in the metaphorical signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name diverse times given by Aristotle in his Politicks to the civil Magistrate The Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as fynonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esthâ—…r 8. 9. To the Lieutenants and the Deputies The 70. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy Ghost by the same word expresseth Government Gal. 4. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is under Tutors and Governors Rom. 16. 23. Erastus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact thinks he was Governour of the City Erasmus that he was praefectus aerario Town-Treasurer The English Translators call him the Chamberlain of the City Yea setting aside the metaphorical signification of this name often used for a name of rule the very literall and native signification of the word will serve to strengthen this Argument in hand Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is house-stewards or over the house but what house Aristotle at the beginning of the second book of his Oeconomicks distinguisheth a fourfold oeconomy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kingly noble civil private The Ministers of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the first sort They are stewards in the house of the great King He that is steward in a Kings house must needs have a ruling power in the house 1 Kings 4. 6. Ahishar was over Solomons houshold 1 Kings 18. 3. And Ahab called Obadiah which was the Governour of his house 2 Kings 18. 18. Eliakim which was over the houshold In all which places the 70. have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I hold therefore with Peter Martyr upon 1 Cor. 4. 1. that Ministers being by their calling and office stewards in the house of God ought to cast out prophane impure persons out of the house and receive them again upon their repentance And why are they called Stewards of the mysteries of God surely the Sacraments are part and a chief part of those mysteries and Christ hath made his Ministers not the civil Magistrates stewards of these mysteries to receive unto or to exclude from the Sacraments and as they may not keep back any of the children of the house so they may not suffer dogs to eat at the childrens Table The one and twentieth Argument which shall claudere agmen shall be drawn from Act. 15. where we find an Ecclesiastical Assembly or Synod of the Apostles Elders and other choice brethren snch as Iudas and Sylas These did so assemble themselves and proceed with authority in a businesse highly concerning the truth of the Gospel Christian liberty the healing of scandal and the preserving of peace in the Church as that it is manifest they had and executed a power of government distinct from Magistracy Mr. Selden de Jure natur Gent. lib. 7. cap. 12. hath sufficiently expressed that which is the ground of my present Argument and I rather choose to speak it in his words then in my owne Now a dispute being had of this thing at Antioch Paul and Barnabas who having used many Arguments against that Pharisaical opinion yet could not end the controversie are sent to Hierusalem that there the thing might be determined by the Apostles and Elders It is agitated in a Synod In it it is determined by the Apostles and Elders that the Gentiles who had given their names to Christ are not indeed bound by the Law of Moses or of the Hebrewes as it is Mosaicall and prescribed to the Church or Common-wealth of the Iewes but that they ought to enjoy their Christian liberty And so much for that which the Synod loosed them from But what dorh the Synod bind upon them The Synod doth also impose certain things namely abstinence from fornication and from things offered to Idols and from blood and things strangled VT QUAE NECESSARIO OBSERVANDA EX AUTHORITATE SYNODI saith Mr. Selden BEING SUCH AS WERE NECESSARILY TO BE OBSERVED IN REGARD OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SYNOD by those who giving their names to the Christian Religion should live with the Jewes they also giving their names to the Christian Religion and so enter into religious fellowship with them I shall adde two other Testimonies of Mr. Prynns The first I shall take out of his twelve considerable serious Questions concerning Church-Government pag. 5. where arguing against the Independency of particular Congregations he askes whether the Synodâ—…l Assembly of the Apostles Elders and Brethren at Hierusalem Act. 15. who MADE AND SENT BINDING DECREES to the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria and Cilicia and other Churches be 〈◊〉 an apparent subversion of Independency So that by Mr. Prynns confession the Scripture holds forth other Governours or Rulers in the Church beside Magistrates and the authority of these other Governours to be such as to make and send to the Churches BINDING DECREES in things and causes Ecclesiastical Another Testimony I take from his Independency examined pag. 10 11. where he argueth against the Independents and proveth from Act. 15. the authority of ordinary Ecclesiastical Synods bringing also six Arguments to prove that the Apostles did not there act in their extraordinary Apostolical capacity or as acted by a spirit of infallibility but in their ordinary capacity Thereafter he concludeth thus Therefore their assembling in this Councel not in their extraordinary capacity as Apostles onely buâ—… as Elders Ministers and the Elders Brethrens sitting together in Councell with them upon this Controversie and occasion is an undeniable Scripture authority for the lawfulnesse use of Parliaments Councels Synods under the Gospel upon all like necâ—…ssary occasions and FOR THEIR POWER TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES OF RELIGION TO MAKE CANONS IN THINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCHES PEACE AND GOVERNMENT Loe here Mr. Prynn gives us an undeniable Scripture authority for a diataktick governing power in the Church distinct from Magistracy How he will draw from Act. 15. the use of Parliaments or their authority I do not imagine It is enough
both of them it seemeth having read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however they understand the power related unto to be more then Doctrinall I conclude that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 4. must be more then Doctrinal declarations and that it is meant of binding decrees that I may use Mr. Prynns phrase especially when joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a Judgement passed and given upon the making and sending of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the judgement of one or two but the judgement of the Apostles and Elders Synodically assembled So Acts 21. 25. Iames and the Elders speaking of that Synodical judgement say we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing c. These four considerations being laid together concerning an intrinsecall Ecclesiastical power of assembling together Synodically of choosing and sending Commissioners with a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in other parts of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies scandals and schismes arising in the Church of making and imposing binding decrees on the Churches will infallibly prove from Scripture authority another Government in the Church beside Magistracy I might here adde other Arguments but so much for this time CHAP. X. Some Objections mâ—de against Ecclesiastical Government aâ—d Discipline answered MR. Hussey in his Epistle to my selfe objecteth thus What will your censure doe it will shame a few whores and knaves a great matter to shame them the Law of nature shameth All this in terminis might have been as justly objected against the Apostle Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians to put away from among themselves the incestuous man What will your censure do Paul a great matter to shame one whom the law of nature shameth The Lord save me from that Religion which will not shame Whores and Theeves and all other whom the Law of Nature shameth and that in a Church way as well as civilly if any such member fall into such impiety yet this is not all All Orthodox Writers that write of Church-censures will tell him that scandalls either of Doctrine or life either against the first or second Table fall under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure Secondly He argueth thus Ibid. Sure in the day of our Lord there will be as good a returne of the word preached as of the censure And in his plea pag. 1. If the Word be able to make the man of God perfect then nothing is wanting to him perfectum cui nihil deest and it is a wonder how that Conscience should be wrought upon by humane authority with whom divine cannot prevail Answ. 1. This also he might as well have objected against the Apostle Paul who did require the Corinthians to put away from among them the incestuous man and Titus to rejâ—ct an Heretick after once or twice admonishing of him 2. He might object the same thing against Magistracy Shall there not be a better account of the word preached then of Magistracy and if the Word be able to make the man of God perfect there is no need of Magistracy Perfectum est cui nihil deest Surely many Erastian Arguments do wound Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Government 3. Church-censures are not acts of humane authority for they are dispensed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and if clave non errante are ratified in heaven 4. Discipline is no addition to that Word which is able to make the man of God perfect for it is one of the directions of the Word 5. The comparison which some make between the efficacy of the Word preached and the efficacy of Church-discipline as to the point of converting and winning foules is a meer fallacy ab ignoratione â—…lenchi for Church discipline is not intended as a converting light-giving or life-giving Ordinance Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and the Word is the power of God for salvation to every one that beleeveth But Ecclesiastical Discipline hath a necessary use though it hath not that use Discipline and censures in the Church are intended 1. For the glory of God that his name may not be blasphemed nor the doctrine of the Gospel reproached by occasion of uncensured scandalls in the Church 2. For keeping the Ordinances of Christ from prophanation and pollution that signa gratiae divinae the signes of Gods favour and grace and the seales of his Covenant may be denied to unworthy scandalous persons 3. For preserving the Church from the infection of bad and scandalous examples it is fit to put a black mark upon them and to put away the wicked person as the Apostle saith for a rotten member if it be not cut off and a scabbed sheep if not separated from the flock may infect the rest 4. For the good also of the offender himself that he may be ashamed and humbled 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2. Cor. 2. 7. This afflicting of the sinner with shame and sorrow may and shall by the blessing of God be a means to the destruction of the flesh 1 Cor. 5. 5. that is to tame and mortifie his lusts and so far removere prohibens that he may be the better wrought upon by the Word I conclude Church-Government being instituted by Christ and having a necessary use in the Church the Erastians gain nothing by comparing it with the Word Because it is not so necessary as the Word Ergo it is not necessary at all Or because it is not efficacious in the same manner as the word is Ergo it is not efficacious at all The Apostle saith Christ sent me not to baptizâ—… but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. 1. 17. What if he had said Christ sent me not to rule but to preach the Gospel Then had the Erastians triumphed Yet this expression could not have proved that Church-government is not an Ordinance of Christ more then that can prove that Baptisme is not an Ordinance of Christ. A negative in the comparative will not inferre a negative in the positive 3. Object I could never yet see said Mr. Coleman how two co-ordinate governments exempt from Superiority and inferiority can be in one State Against this I instanced in the co-ordinate governments of a General and an Admiral of a Master and a Father of a Captain and a Master in one ship Mr. Hussey finding he can not make good Mr. Colemans word tells me pag. 7. that he meaneth two supreme co-ordinate Governments Where first he loseth ground and tacitely yeeldeth that Church-Government and Civil Government distinct each from other do well consist as long as they are not supreme but as two armes under one head No inconsistency therefore of Congregational and Classical Elderships and of Provinciall Assemblies with the subordinate Magistrates and civil Courts in Cities and Counties Next we shall find also in Scripture two co-ordinate supreme Governments for the civil and the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jewes were both supreme and co-ordinate and there was no appeal from the
of all such as may be satisfied this I avouch and averre It is Jure divino It is the will of God and of his Sonne Iesus Christ the King and Head of his Church that there be a Church-Government in the hands of Church-Officers distinct from the Civil Government It is de necessitate praecepti of the necessity of precept that it be sâ—… It is sin and a violation of Christâ—… Institution if it be not so I am confident the Arguments which I have brought Chap. 9. will reach this point and fully conclude it especially if the strength of them be put together Yet now to drive the nail to the head I adde these following Arguments directly inferring and proving an Institution First The Scripture speaks of Church Government in the same manner and with the same height fulnesse and peremptorinesse of expression as it speaketh of other things which are without controversie acknowledged even by the Erastians themselves to be Institutions of Christ. For instance Let the Erastians prove against the Socinians the necessity and perpetuity of the Ordinance of Baptisme that it ought to continue alwais in the Church and that by vertue of an Institution and precept of Christ I will undertake by the like medium to inferre the like conclusion concerning Church-Government Again let them prove the necessity perpetuity and institution I say not now of the Word it self or of preaching but of the ministery or of the Pastoral office I will bring the like Argument concerning Church-Government I do not now compare or paralel the Government with the Ministery of the Word quo ad necessitatem medii vel finis as being equally necessary to salvation nor yet as being equally excellent but this I say The one is by the Scripture language an Institution and Ordinance of Christ as well as the other One Ordinance may differ much from another and still both be Ordinances Secondly Church-Government is reckoned among such things as had an Institution and which God did set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. It is a good Argument for the Institution of Pastors and Teachers that God set them in the Church as we read in that place and Christ gave them to the Church Ephes. 4. 11. Will not this then hold as well for the Institution of a Government in the Church That the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are Ecclesiastical and distinct from civil is already proved Chap. 6. Thirdly If it be the will and commandement of God that we be subject and obedient to Church-Governors as those who are over us in the Lord as well as to civil Governors then it is the will of God that there be a rule and Government in the Church distinct from the civil For Relata se mutâ—…o ponunt vel tollunt If we be obliged by the fifth commandement to honour Magistrates as Fathers then it is the will of God that there be such Fathers So when we are commanded to know them which are over us in the Lord and to esteem them highly 1 Thess. 5. 12. to honour doubly Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. to be subject and obedlent unto Ecclesiasticall Rulers Heb. 13. 17. with verse 7. 24. doth not this intimate the will of God that Pastoâ—s and Elders be over us in the Lord and rule us Ecclesiastically Fourthly That which being administred is a praise and commendatiâ—n to a Church and being omitted is a ground of controversie to Christ against a Church can be no other then an Ordinance and necessary duty But Church-Government and Discipline is such a thing as being administred it is a praise and commendation to a Church 2 Cor. 2. 9. Revil 2. 2. and being omitted is a ground of Controversie to Christ against a Church 1 Cor. 5. 1. 2. 6. Revel 2. 14. 20. Ergo. Fifthly The rules and directions concerning an Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline are delivered preceptwise in Scripture 1 Cor. 5. 13. Put away that wicked person from among you 2 Thess. 3. 14. Note that man Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Augustine lib. contra Donatistas post Collationem Cap. 4. saith that Church-censurâ—s and discipline are exercised in thâ— Church secundum praeceptum Apostolicum according to the Apostolick precept for which he citeth 2 Thess. 3. 14. Sixthly There is an Institution and command Matth. 18 17. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican In which place there are three Acts of the Church that is of the Assembly of Church-Officers 1. They must be met together to receive complaints and accusations Tell the Church 2. They give sentence concerning the case if he neglect to hear the Church c. Where heareing is required and obedience there must needs be an authoritative speaking or judging So that they who would prove the Church here hath onely power to admonish doctrinally because it is said If he hear not the Church they may as well prove that the Judges of Israel had no more power but to admonish doctrinally because it is appointed Deut. 17. 12. that the man who will not hearken to the Judge shall die and it is not there expressed that the Judge shall put him to death more then it is expressed here that the Church shall declare the offender to be as a heathen and a publican 3. They must bind such a one by Excommunication Whatsoever ye bind on earth c. Neither could it ever enter in the thoughts of Jesus Christ to command one Church-member or private brother to esteem another brother as an heathen and a publican whom he would not have so esteemed by the whole Church and least of all can it be the will of Christ that one and the same person should be esteemed by one of the Church to be as a heathen and a publican and withall be esteemed by the whole Church as a brother a good Christian a Church-member and accordingly to be freely admitted to the Ordinances CHAP. XI The necessity of a distinct Church-Government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates SOme when they could not denie but there was a Church-Government in the Primitive and Apostolick Churches distinct from all civil Government and Churchcensures distinct from all civil punishments yet they have aledged though no such thing was alledged of old neither by Constantine and other Christian Emperors nor by others in their behalf that this was for want of Christian Magistrates and that there is not the same reason for such a Church-Government or censures where there is a Christian Magistracy See Mr. Husseys plea pag. 24. As likewise Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised Master Colemans re-examination pag. 16. calls for an instance where the State was Christian. For taking off this exception I shall observe First of all Grotius otherwise no good friend to Church-Government being poisoned with the Arminian Principles who have endeavoured to weaken extremely the authority of
Classical and Synodical Assemblies and to give a kind of Papal power to the Magistrate yet in this particular he argueth strongly for us and not against us Secondly Where is that Christian Magistracy which hath suppressed or punished all such offences as did fâ—ll under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure in the Primitive and Apostolick Churches Or where is that Christian Magistrate that will yet undertake to punish all those offences and scandals which were censured in the Apostolick Churches Till some such instance be given this exception against Church-discipline and censures under a Christian Magistrate hath not so much as colour enough Aliae sunt leges Caesarum aliâ—…e Christi aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit saith Hierome in Epitaph Fabiâ—…lae Caesars Lawes and Christs Lawes are not the same but different Papinianus commands one thing Paul another thing Chrysostome Homil. 12. in 1. Epist. ad Cor. tells us that the best and wisest Law-givers had appointed no punishment for fornication for consuming and trifling away of time with playing at dice for gluttony and drunkennesse for Stage-plaies and lascivious whorish gestures therein Is there not some cause to apply all this and much more of this kind even to Christian Law givers and Magistrates Put the case that he who is called a brother as the Apostle speaks that is a member of the visible Church be found grossely ignorant of the Principles of Religion and so far from growing in knowledge that he loseth the knowledge of the Scriptures and of the truth of God which he had for this hath been diverse times observed through neglect of the means or if he be known to neglect ordinaâ—lly prayer in and with his Family and to continue in that offence after admonition or if he live in known or scandalous malice and envie and refuse to be reconciled with his neighbour or if he be a known lyar and dissembler or if by his words and actions he do scandalously and manifestly shew himself covetous drowned in sensuality ambitious proud or if he give a foul scandal by filthy and obscene speeches by lascivious obscene whorish-like gestures or actions where the act it self of adultery or fornication cannot be proved I suppose that for these and such like scandals which are causes deserving not onely the Elderships enquiry and admonition but suspension from the Lords Table the Christian Magistrate neither doth nor by the civil or municipal Laws is bound to arraign and punish all such as are guilty thereof Thirdly whereas Arch-bishop Whitgift Answ. to the Admon pag. 114. did alledge that the Church may not be governed under a Christian Magistrate as it may under a Tyrant which he brings as an exception against ruling Elders and Elderships while he could not denie but such there were in the Primitive Church Mr. Cartwrigh in his Reply pag. 140. answereth that if these Elders under a Tyrant had medled with any office of a Magistrate then there had been some cause why a godly Magistrate being in the Church that office should cease but since they did onely assist the Pastor in matters Ecclesiastical there is no distinction between times of persecution and times of peace as touching the office of Elders The like say I of Church-censures and discipline If the Government of the Church by Presbyteries and Synods if suspension and excommunication in the Apostles times had been an usurping of any thing belonging to the Magistrate then there had been some reason to lay aside all Church-censures and Ecclesiastical Government when the Magistrate turned Christian and willing to do his duty But if not then the civil and Church-government may still remain distinct even where the State is Christian. Fourthly Every Institution or Ordinance of Christ must continue as a perpetual obligation unlesse we can find in the Word that Christ hath given us a dispensation or taken off the obligation and set a period to the Ordinance that it shall continue so long and no longer I mean every Ordinance of Christ must be perpetual which we cannot prove from the Word to be but temporal or extraordinary Now in the Word Christ hath not appointed the governing the Church and correcting scandals to be onely under a Tyrant and to cease under a Christian Magistrate neither is there any such thing held forth in Scripture which yet our opposites must shew if they will make good what they say But contrariwise what Christ delivered to the Apostles and they to the Churches is to be kept and continued till our Lord come again 1 Cor. 11. 23. 26. 1 Tim. 6. 14. and he himself saith Rev. 2. 24. 25. That which ye have already hold fast till I come These things were not spoken to the Apostles to Timothy to the Churches of that time personally for they were not to live till Christs comming again but the charge was given to them in name of and with respect unto all the Ministery and Churches of Christ. Fifthly This exception made against Church-censures under a Christian Magistrate supposeth that such censures will make an interfering and clashing between the civil and Ecclesiastical power But there is no cause for that fear these powers being so hugely differenced in their efficient causes matters formes ends effects objects adjuncts correlations and ultimate terminations as I have made it to appear in the particulars Chap. 4. Sixthly The Churches liberty and power is not to be infringed diminished nor taken away but preserved maintained enlarged and augmented under a Christian Magistrate Were it not a sad case if there should be cause to say that the Churches of Christ have not so much liberty under a Christian Magistrate to keep themselves and the Ordinances from pollution as they had under Pagan and Infidel Magistrates Seventhly Why may not Christian Church-government consist with Christian Magistracy as well as the Jewish Church government did consist with the Jewish Magistracy being of the same Religion Or if we please to look to later Presidents who can be ignorant that civil government and Church-discipline have rather strengthened then destroyed each other not onely in France where the Magistracy is not Protestant but in Scotland in the Low-Countries in Geneva and else-where Eightly We have covenanted to endeavour a Reformation of Church-Government and discipline according to the word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches Now both the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches leadeth us to a Church-government distinct from civil Government and the example of the best Reformed Churches doth undeniably lead us to a Church-discipline even where he Magistrate is Christian neither doth the word make any exception of Christian States but contrariwise chargeth us to keep the commandement and Ordinances till Christ come again Ninthly The Magistrate hath other work to do and such as will take up the whole man and if he should take upon him the whole burthen of Church-Government the enquiring into examining and correcting of all
have suffered in his person or estate all the punishment which he ought to suffer so that he hath now made a civil atonement as I may call it for his offence and the Christian Magistrate hath no further to charge him with Suppose also that he is by such corporal or civil punishments as by a bit and bridle over-awed and restrained from committing again the like extâ—rnal acts Notwithstanding he hath not the least signe of true repentance and godly sorrow for his former foul and scandalous sins and he is known to be not an accuser but an excuser of himself for those faults and scandals Such a one comes and desires to receive the Sacrament Must his poenal satisfaction to the Christian Magistrate be a sufficient poenitential satisfaction to the Church Here is a rock which the Erâ—…stians dash upon unlesse they admit of a distinct Ecclesiastical Judgement concerning the signes of repentance in a scandalous sinner according to which as these signes shall appear or not appear he is to be admitted or not admitted to the Sacrament Twelfthly the power of binding and loosing is not a temporary but a perpetual power that is appointed by Christ to continue in his Church alwaies unto the end Now this power is given onely to Church-officers and Christ hath not given the keyes of discipline and the power of binding and loosing of which else-where to the Magistrate nay not to the Christian Magistrate more then to the Infidel Magistrate Let the least hint be found in Scripture where Christ hath given any such power to the Christian Magistrate and I yeeld the cause Thirteenthly The new Testament holdeth out as little of the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments under a ChriÌ„stian Magistrate as it doth of a Church-government under a Christian Magistrate Shall this therefore strengthen the Socinian Tenent That Baptisme is not a perpetual Ordinance in the Church and that we are not obliged by that commission which the Apostles had to baptize God forbid Fourteenthly The German Anabaptists required an expresse warrant or example in the New Testament of a Christian Magistrate or of the sword and wars in a Christian State yet this hath been thought no good Argument against Magistracy and wars among Christians I cannot pretermit a passage of Gualther who may seem to be opposite to me in this present Question Even he in his Homily upon Iohn 9. 22. after he hath spoken of Excommunication in the Jewish Church and in the Apostolick Churches he addeth And this day also there is need of Ecclesiastical discipline which being instituted in the Reformed Churches ought to be diligently kept lest the indulgence of Magistrates which reignes almost every where should render the Doctrine of the Gospel suspected among those that are without and that themselves also may be contained in their office and may not think that any thing they will is lawful to them in the Church But after all this let me put Mr. Hussey and other Erastians in mind that if they do acknowledge that Jesus Christ hath instituted or commanded that there be a Church Government and power of censures distinct from the Civil Government when the Magistrate is Heathenish or Idolatrous let them speak it out and let us agree so far Otherwise if they do not agree in this it is but a blind for them to make use of this distinction that where the Magistrate is Christian there is no necessity of a distinct Church-Government I conclude with a passage of Mr. Prynne in his twelve considerable serious Questions touching Church-Government The ninth of those Questions runs thus Whether the Independents challenge of the Presbyterians to shew them any National Church professing Christ in our Saviours or the Apostles daies before any one Nation totally converted to the Christian Faith or any general open profession made of it by the Princes Magistrates and major part of any Nation Kingdom Republick who were then all generally Pagans and Persecutors of the Gospel not then universally imbraced be not a most irrational unjust demand Sure if this hold against the Independents it will hold as strongly yea more strongly against the Erastians to prove their demand to be most irrational and unjust while they challenge us to shew them in the New-Testament a distinct Church-Government under a Christian Magistrate or where the State was Christian though themselves know Magistrates and States were then generally Pagan and not Christian Yea there was in those daies much more of a national Church then of a Christian Magistrate An Appendix to the second Book containing a Collection of some Testimonies not cited before And first a Testimony of King Iames in a Declaration of his penned with his own hand signed and delivered to the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland at Linlithgow December 7. Anno 1585. I For my part shall never neither my posterity ought ever cite summon or apprehend any Pastor or preacher for matters of Doctrine in Religion Salvation Heresies or true Interpretation of the Scripture but according to my first act which confirmeth the liberty of preaching the Word ministration of the Sacraments I avouch the same to be a matter meer Ecclesiastical and altogether impertinent to my calling Therefore never shall I nor ever ought they I mean my posterity acclaim any power or Iurisdiction in the foresaids His Majesties meaning was that he ought not to do this in prima instantiâ that is before the person be accused convict or judged in any Ecclesiastical Court. which was the Question at that time occasioned by Mr. Andrew Melvill his Case Afterward in the same Declaration it followeth thus Christ saying Dic Ecclesiae and one onely man stealing that dint in a quiet hole the Act of Parliament reduceth the sentence for informality and nullity of processe not as Iudges whether the Excommunication was grounded on good and just causes or not but as witnesses that it was unformally proceeded against the warrant of Gods Word example of all Reformed Kiâ—ks and your owne particular custome in this Countrey A little after I mind not to cut off any liberty granted by God to his Kirk I acclaim not to my self to be judge of Doctrine in Religion salvation heresies or true Interpretation of Scripture And after My Intention is not to meddle with Excommunication neither acclaim I to my self or my Heires power in any thing that is meer Ecclesiastical and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor with any thing that Gods Word hath simply devolved in the hands of his Kirk And to conclude I confesse and acknowledge Christ Iesus to be Head and Law-giver to the same And what soever persons do attribute to themselves as Head of the Kirk and not as Member to suspend or alter any thing that the Word of God hath onely remitted to them that man I say committeth manifest Idolatry and sinneth against the Father in not trusting the Words of his Son against the Son in not obeying him and taking
his place against the holy Ghost the said holy Spirit bearing the contrary record to his Conscience Testimonies taken out of the Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the 〈◊〉 Churches Râ—printed at London 1643. Pag. 238. Out of the confession of Helvetia FUrthermore there is another power of duty or ministerial power limited out by him who hath full and absolute power and authority And this is more like a Ministry then Dominion For we see that some master doth give unto the steward of his house authority and power over his House and for that cause delivereth him his keyes that he may admit or exclude such as his master will have admitted or excluded According to this power doth the Minister by his office that which the Lord hath commanded him to do and the Lord doth ratifie and confirm that which he doth and will have the deeds of his ministers to be acknowledged and esteemed as his own deeds unto which end are those speeches in the Gospel I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest or loosest in earth shall be bound and loosed in heaven Again whose sins soever ye remit they shall be remitted and whose sins soever ye retain they shall be retained But if the minister deal not in all things as his Lord hath commanded him but passe the limits and bounds of Faith then the Lord doth make void that which he doth Wherefore the Ecclesiastical power of the Ministers of the Church is that function whereby they do indeed govern the Church of God but yet so as they do all things in the Church as he hath prescribed in his Word which thing being so done the faithful do esteem them as done of the Lord himself Pag. 250. Out of the confession of Bohemia THe 14th Chapter of Ecclesiastical doctrine is of the Lords keyes of which he saith to Peter I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and these keyes are the peculiar function or Ministery and administration of Christ his power and his holy Spirit which power is committed to the Church of Christ and to the Ministers thereof unto the end of the world that they should not onely by preaching publish the holy Gospel although they should do this especially that is should shew forth that Word of true comfort and the joyful message of peace and new tydings of that favour which God offereth but also that to the beleeving and unbeleeving they should publikely or privately denounce and make known to wit to them his favour to these his wrath and that to all in general or to every one in particular that they may wisely receive some into the house of God to the communion of Saints and drive some out from thence and may so through the performance of their Ministery hold in their hand the Scepter of Christ his Kingdom and use the same to the government of Christ his Sheep And after Moreover a manifest example of using the power of the keyes is laid out in that sinner of Corinth and others whom St. Paul together with the Church in that place by the power and authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Spirit threw out from thence and delivered to Sathan and contrariwise after that God had given him grace to repent he absolved him from his sins he took him again into the Church to the communion of Saints and Sacraments and so opened to him the Kingdom of Heaven again By this we may understand that these keyes or this divine function of the Lords is committed and granted to those that have charge of souls and to each several Ecclesiastical Societies whether they be smal or great Of which thing the Lord sayeth to the Churches Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven And straight after For where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the middest of them Pag. 253. Out of the French Confession VVE beleeve that this true Church ought to be governed by that regiment or discâ—pline which our Lord Jesus Christ hath established to wit so that there be Pastors Elders and Deacons that the purity of doctrine may be retained vices repressed c. Pag. 257. Out of the Confession of Belgia VVE beleeve that this Church ought to be ruled and governed by that spiritual Regiment which God himself hath delivered in his word so that there be placed in it Pastors and Ministers purely to preach and rightly to administer the holy Sacraments that there be also in it Seniors and Deacons of whom the Senate of the Church might consist that by these means true Religion might be preserved and sincere doctrine in every place retained and spread abroad that vicious and wicked men might after a spiritual manner be rebuked amended and as it were by the bridle of discipline kept within their compasse Pag. 260. Out of the Confession of Auspurge AGain by the Gospel or as they term it by Gods Law Bishops as they be Bishops that is such as have the administration of the Word and Sacraments committed to them have no jurisdiction at all but onely to forgive sin Also to know what is true doctrine and to reject such Doctrine as will not stand with the Gospel and to debarre from the communion of the Church such as are notoriously wicked not by humane force and violence but by the word of God And herein of necessity the Churches ought by the law of God to perform obedience unto them according to the saying of Christ He that heareth you heareth me Upon which place the Observation saith thus To debar the wicked c. To wit by the judgement and verdict of the Presbyterie lawfully gathered together c. A Testimony out of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France Cap. 5. Art 9. THe knowledge of scandals and the censure or judgement thereof belongeth to the Company of Pastors and Elders Art 15. If it befalleth that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistories to such as have done amisse there be some other punishment or more rigorous censure to be used It shall then be done either by suspension or privation of the holy communion for a time or by excommunication or cutting off from the Church In which cases the Consistories are to be advised to use all prudence and to make distinction betwixt the one and the other As likewise to ponder and carefully to examine the faults and scandals that are brought before them with all their circumstances to judge warily of the censure which may be required Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum Cap. 14. Art 7. 8. 9. PEccata sua natura publica aut per admonitionis privatae contemtum publicata ex Consistorii totius arbitrio modo formâ ad aedificationem maximè accomodatis sunt Corrigenda Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit à S. Coenae communione
out of the Church And for his antiquity he hath given here no small wound to the Reputation of his skill in Antiquities Which will more fully appear Chap. 17. Meane while how can any that hath read Tertullian or Cyprian not know that some failings and falls in time of persecution and other smaller offences were not punished by excommunication but by suspension from the Sacrament till after publike Declaration of Repentance and confession of the offence the offender was admitted to the Sacrament And for the places he citeth I find in Tertullians Book de poenitentia much of that Exomologesis and publike Declaration of Repentance but that all scandalous persons brought under Church-censures were wholly cast out of the Church I find not In the 39 Chapter of his Apologetick there is no such thing as is alledged but the contrary plainly intimated concerning severall degrees of Ecclesiasticall Discipline and that if any mans offence was so great as to deserve excommunication then he was excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church And as in the Antient Churches there were and in the reformed Churches there now are different degrees of censures according to the different degrees of offences so in the Jewish Church the like may be observed both concerning Ceremoniall uncleannesse and morall offences Touching the former that Law Num. 5. 2. command the children of Israel that they put out of the Camp every Leper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is desiled by the dead hath been understood by the Jewish Doctors respectivè that is that the Leper was put out of all the three Camps the Camp of Israel the Camp of the Levites and the Camp of divine Majesty which was the Tabernacle he that had an issue might be in the Camp of Israel but was put out of the other two He that was defiled by the dead was onely restrained from the Camp of divine Majesty for which also see before Book 1. Châ—…p 10. And touching morall offences there were severall Steps and degrees in the Jewish excommunication as Master Selden hath observed from the Talmudists for first a man was separate from the Congregation for 30 dayes and if thereafter he was found obstinate he was separate for other 30 dayes and if after 60 dayes he did not repent then they passed from the lesser excommunication to the greater that is from Niddui and Shammatha as he thinketh to Cherem or Anathema The Author of the Quaeries while he argueth in that first Quaere against the suspending from the Sacrament of a person not excommunicated nor whollâ— cast out of the Church closeth in this particular with them of the Separation which I beleeve he did it not intend to doe for they in one of their Letters in answer to the second Letter of Fr. Junius written to them where they bring eleven Exceptions against the Dutch Churches one of these Exceptions was that they use a new censure of Suspension which Christ hath not appointed They doe hold Excommunication to be an Ordinance of Christ but doe reject the distinction of Suspension and Excommunication as Master Prynne doth Tenthly the true state of the present Question is not whether the Parliament should establish the power of suspending scandalous persons from the Sacrament as Iure divino nay let Divines assert that and satisfie peoples consciences in it but let the Parliament speak in an authoritative and legislative way in adding their civill sanction Nor whether there ought to be any suspension from the Sacrament of scandalous persons not yet excommunicated and cast out of the Church and that the Elder-ship should doe it for the Ordinance of Parliament hath so farre satisfied the desires of the Reverend Assembly and of the generality of godly people that there is to be a suspension of scandalous persons not excommunicated from the Sacrament and power is granted to the Eldership to suspend from the Sacrament for such scandals as are enumerate in the Ordinances of Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. Which Ordinances doe appoint that All Persons Or any Person that shall commit such or such an offence shall be by the Eldership suspended from the Sacrament upon confession of the party or upon the Testimony of two credible witnesses So that in truth the stream of Master Prynnes exceptions runneth against that which is agreed and resolved upon in Parliament and his arguments if they prove any thing must necessarily conclude against that power already granted by Parliament to Elder-ships And now if he will speak to that point which is in present publike agitation he must lay aside his Querees and his Vindication thereof and write another Book to prove that the Assembly and other godly ministers and people ought to rest satisfied in point of conscience with the power granted to Elderships to suspend from the Sacrament in the enumerate cases and that there is not the like reason to keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament for other scandalls beside these enumerate in the Ordinance of Parliament Nay and he must confine himself within a nearower circle then so for the Parliament hath been pleased to think of some course for new emergent cases that the door may not be shut for the future upon the Remonstrances of Elderships concerning cases not expressed I know the Gentleman is free to choose his own Theme to treat of and he may handle what cases of Conscience he shall think fit for the Churches edification But since he professeth in the Conclusion of his foure Questions and in the Preface before his Vindication and in divers other passages that his scope is to expedite a regular settlement of Church Discipline without such a power of suspending the scandalous as is now desired to be setled in the new Elderships and manifestly reflecteth upon one of the Assemblies Petitions concerning that businesse as hath been said yea the first words of his Queres tell us he spoke to the point in present publike agitation the case standing thus I must put him in mind under favour that he hath not been a little out of the way nor a little wide from the mark And if the Question were which of these Tenents Master Prynnes or ours concerning Suspension doth best agree with the mind of the Parliament let us heare their own Ordinance dated March 14. 1645. the words are these yet were the fundamentalls and substantiall parts of that Government long since setled in persons by and over whom it was to be exercised and the nature extent and respective subordination of their power was limitted and defined onely concerning the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper how all such persons as were guilty of notorious and scandalous Offences might be suspended from it some difficulty arising not so much in the Matter it self as in the Manner how it should be done and who should be the Judges of the Offence The Lords and Commons having it alwayes in their purpose and
Intention and it being accordingly declared and Resolved by them That all sorts of notorious scandalous Offenders should be suspended from the Sacrament Which is the very point so much opposed by Master Prynne for the controversie moved by him is not so much concerning the manner or who should be the Judges as concerning the matter it selfe he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the Sacrament but onely such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the Word Prayer and all other publique Ordinances Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question that which is in controversie is plainly this Whether according to the word of God there ought to be in the Elderships of Churches a spirituall power and authority by which they that are called brethren that is Church members or Officers for the publique scandall of a prophane life or of pernicious doctrine or for a private offence obstinately continued in after admonitions and so growing to a publique scandall are upon proofe of such scandall to be suspended from the Lords Table untill signes of repentance appeare in them and if they continue contumacious are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the Church and their sinnes pronounced to be bound on earth and by consequence in Heaven untill by true and sincere repentance they turne to God and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the Church The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed Churches whereunto I adhere The first part of it concerning Suspension is utterly denyed by M r Prynne which breaketh the concatenation and order of Church discipline held forth in the question now stated Whether he denieth also Excommunication by Elderships to be an Ordinance and Institution of Christ and onely holdeth it to be lawfull and warrantable by the word of God I am not certaine If he do then he holds the totall negative of this present question However I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principall Scripturall foundations and pillars upon which Excommunication is builded As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated it is meant positively and exclusively that such a gradation not onely may but ought to be observed ordinarily which M r Prynne denieth although I deny not thaâ— for some publique enormous haynous abominations there may be without such degrees of proceeding a present cutting off by Excommunication But this belongs not to the present controversie CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15 16 17. prove Excommunication THe second point of difference is concerning Matth. 18. M r Prynne in the first of his foure questions told us that the words Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican are meant onely of personall private trespasses between man and man not publique scandalous sinnes against the Congregation and that t is not said Let him be to the whole Church but let him be to Thee c. This I did in my Sermon retort For if to thee for a personall private trespasse much more to the whole Church for a publique scandalous sinne whereby he trespasseth against the whole Congregation Yea it followeth upon his interpretation that he may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans if all the members of the Church doe him a personall injury whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding whether if a private man may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans for a personall injury done to himselfe alone it will not follow that much more the whole Church may account a man as a Heathen and Publican for a publique scandalous sinne against the whole Church M r Prynne in his Vindication pag. 3. glanceth at this objection but he takes notice onely of the halfe of it and he is so farre from turning off my retortion that he confirmeth it for pag. 4. he confesseth that every Christian hath free power by Gods word to esteeme not onely a particular brother but all the members of a Congregation as Heathens and Publicans if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries after admonition Now my exception against his Quere remains unanswered If I may esteem the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans when they doe me an injury and continue impenitent therein may not the whole Church esteem me as an Heathen man and a Publican when I commit a publique and scandalous trespasse against the whole Church and continues impenitent therein Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans and shall not the whole Church have power to cast off one man as an Heathen and Publican I know he understands those words Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican in another sence then either the reformed Churches doe or the ancient Churches did and takes the meaning to be of avoyding fellowship and familiarity with him before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender But however my argument from proportion will hold If civill fellowship must be refused because of obstinacy in a civill injury why shall not spirituall or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spirituall injury or trespasse against the Church If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury why shall not publique fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a publique scandall given to the Congregation Are the rules of Church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civill fellowship or are they straiter Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civill communion or is it narrower Peradventure he will say that the whole Church that is all the members of the Church have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother that is to have no fraternall converse or private Christian fellowship with him Well then If thus farre he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated how shall the whole Church together be bound to keepe fellowship with him till he be excommunicated Instead of loosing such knots M r Prynne undertakes to prove another thing that this Text of Matthew is not meane of Excommunication or Church censures and that the Church in this Text was not any Ecclesiasticall Consistory here he citeth Iosephus as if he had spoken of that Text but onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice But though all this were true which he saith yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this Text to prove Excommunication Which
his calling to minde those words in the rule of Prayer even as we forgive those who trespasse against us Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers 19. Againe I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth supposing that agreement and consequently forgiving of injuries is necessary to make our Prayers the more effectuall for my part I think it not improbable that whatever the occasion of the Question was vers 21 beginneth a new and distinct purpose Which I take to be the reason why the Arabik here makes an intercision and beginneth the eight and fiftieth Section of Matthew at those words Then came Peter and said Lord how oft c. 4. And if vers 21. have a dependence upon that which went before it may be conceived thus Christ had said If thy Brother trespasse against thee goe tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone which supposeth a continuance of the former Christian fellowship and fraternall familiarity and that we must not cast off a scandalous Brother as lost or as an Enemy but admonish him as a Brother This might give occasion to Peter to aske Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me that is scandalize me by his sinne against God for even in Luk. 17. 3. 4. that of forgiving one that trespasseth against us is added immediately after a Doctrine of scandals and I forgive him that is as Grotius expounds it restore him to the former degree of friendship and intimate familiarity to deale with him thus as with a Brother Which he well distinguisheth from that other forgiving which is a not revenging And so much of Master Prynnes first reason His second reason is because the Mention of two or three witnesses vers 16. relateth onely to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes as murders and the like before the civill Magistrates of the Jewes c. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories of which we find no president Answ. 1. If this hold then the Text must not be expounded indefinitely of civill injuries as he did before but of civill capitall injuries whereas Erastus takes the meaning to be of smaller offences onely and not of Capitall crimes 2. The Law concerning two or three witnesses is neither restricted to Capitall crimes nor to civill Judicatories I appeale to the Ordinance of Parliament dated Octo. 20. 1645. The Elder-ship of every Congregation shall judge the matter of scandall aforesaid being not Capitall upon the Testmiony of two credible Witnesses at the least That Law therefore of witnesses is alike applicable to all causes and Courts Ecclesiasticall and civill Deut. 19. 30. One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sinne in any sin that he sinneth at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established 3. And the same Law is in the new Testament clearly applied to proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Cor. 13. 1. again 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against the Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses which is not spoken to any civill Magistrate but to Timothy and others joyned with him in Church Government His third reason doth onely begge what is in Question that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiasticall but a civill Court of the Jewes He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jewes had civill Courts If he could but cite one place to prove that they had no Ecclesiasticall Courts this were to the purpose Not that I grant that at this time the Jewes had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin in the opinion of many learned men the Jewes had no more any civill Jurisdiction Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministery Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death How ever he cannot prove that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church the Jewes had any civill Court of Justice which did exercise either Criminall or Capitall Judgements I have in the first Book shewed out of Buxtorf L'Empereur Casauhon and I. Coch. who prove what they say from the Talmudicall writers that 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and so before Christ said Tell the Church the Court of civill Justice at Hierusalem did cease If Master Prynne make any thing of this Glosse of his he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes I have before proved that that Councell of the Jewes in Christs time was an Ecclesiasticall Court though he conceives it was meerely civill 2. That a private civill injury might not then nor may not now be brought before a civill Court except after severall previous admonitions despised 3. That Chists Rule Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased when a civill Court of Justice among the Jewes ceased If he say that the same rule continueth for telling the civill Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition then I aske â— how will he reconcile himself for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice among the Jewes 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of Ierusalem and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to goe to then the Pagan Magistracy must passe under the name of the Church for they had no other civill Court of Justice to goe to One thing I must needs take notice of that whereas he would prove here that Tell the Church is nothing but tell the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes commonly called the Councell saith he or Sanhedrin he doth hereby overthrow all that he hath been building for the Jewish Sanhedrin at that time had not power to judge civill nor criminall and least of all Capitall offences but onely causes Ecclesiasticall The Romans having taken from them their civill Government and left them no Government nor Jurisdiction except in matters of Religion I hope Master Prynne will not in this contradict Erastus And if so how shall his Glosse stand that this Text is to be understood of civill injuries yea and of these onely for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ sends his Disciples to the Jewish Sanhedrin How sweetly doe his Tenents agree together His fourth reason is that those words let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican cannot signifie excommunication because Heathen men being never members of the Church could never be excommunicated or cast out of it being uncapable of such a censure As for publicans those of them who were members of the Jewish Church though they were execrable to the Jewes by reason of their Tax-gatherings and oppressions yet we never read in Scripture that they were excommunicated or cast out of their Synagogues but
militate not onely against Erastus and Bilson but likewise against Sutlivius de Presb. Cap. 9. where he gives this sence of Matth. 18. 15 16 17. that we ought to take heed we give no scandall in the pursuing of injuries and for that end ought to give admonition first privately then before witnesses and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury to tell the Rulers of the Church meaning the Prelates and if he will not hear them then to go to Law with that Brother as with an Heathen or Publican The other Arguments which are to follow the last excepted strike not at his Interpretation but at those other Glosses of Erastus Bilson and Master Prynne Fourthly this Erastian exposition makes these words but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican to be applicable onely to such Christians as live under unbelieving Magistrates and not to all Christians This consequence Erastus foresaw that it would needs follow from his Interpretation therefore he plainly owneth it Thes. 47. He confesseth that the former part concerning rebuking and seeking to gaine the offending Brother belongs to all Christians What a boldnesse is here to rent asunder this passage of Scripture which was uttered as it were with one breath And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians Must Christians that live under an Infidell Magistrate have more effectuall meanes and wayes to use towards an offending Brother and may they go a step further in putting him to shame or in humbling him then those Christians can doe who live under a Christian Magistrate How well doth this hang together I should have thought the ballance must rather fall to this hand But to make the condition of those who live under a Christian Magistrate to be more privative and the condition of those who live under an Infidell Magistrate to be more cumulative is too great a paradoxe for me Sixthly Whereas they say that the way prescribed by Christ Matth. 18. is such as is agreeable to the Law of Moses and they understand by Tell the Church Tell the Magistrate I aske what Magistrate If the Judges and Magistrates of the Cities as Bishop Bilson thinkes then he who did not hearken to those Judges might appeale to the great Sanhedrin at Hierusalem or the Judges themselves might referre and transmit the case thither so that the man was not to be straight way accounted as an Heathen man and a Publican But if by the Church they understand the great Sanhedrin it self he that would not hearken to it was to be put to death by the Law Deut. 17. So that it had not been agreeable to the Law of Moses to teach that he who will not hearken to the great Sanhedrin is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican for this supposeth that he shall not dye but be suffered to live Seventhly the Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves For both Erastus Bishop Bilson and Master Prynne hold that he Jewish Sanhedrin in Christs time was a temporall Magistracy and a civill Court of justice which had power to scourge imprison torture and outlaw offenders yea to put to death as the first two doe positively averre How then can it be said If he neglect to heare the Church c. that is if he neglect to heare the civill Magistrate who hath power to imprison scourge torture outlaw yea to put him to death Surely if he neglect to heare the Church doth intimate that the Church hath not used nor cannot use any externall coercive power Erastus findes himselfe so mightily puzled with this difficulty that to make out his interpretation of Matth. 18. he confesseth Thes. 53. and confirm Thes. lib. 2. cap. 2. the Jewish Sanhedrin had no power under the Romans to judge of civill causes and injuries but of things pertaining to their religion onely so that at that time saith he a man might impune without punishment contemne the judgement of the Sanhedrin in civill things And thus while he seeketh a Salvo for his Glosse upon Matth. 18. he overthroweth the great argument by which he and his followers endeavour to prove that there was no other Sanhedrin in Christs time but a civill Court of justice because say they that Sanhedrin had the power of the Sword and other temporall punishments Eighthly observe the gradation in the Text 1. a private conviction or rebuke 2. Conviction before two or three witnesses 3. Conviction before the Church and the Churches declaring the thing to be an offence and commanding the offender to turn from his evill way 4. If he will not heare the Church which implieth that the Church hath spoken and required him to doe somewhat which he refuseth to doe then Let him be as an Heathen man and a Publican This last is heavier then all that went before and is the punishment of his not hearing the Church now this gradation is in consistent with the Interpretation which Erastus giveth for by his owne confession the Sanh drin of the Jewes at that time had not power to judge of civill causes nor to punish any man for a civill injury but for a matter of religion onely yet they are not matters of Religion but civill trespasses which he understands to be meant Matth. 18. Here is an intercision in the third step of the gradation And if it were an offence in the matter of religion it had not been a greater punishment but a greater ease to the offender to draw him before the Roman tribunals for the Romans cared for none of those things of which the Jewish Sanhedrin was most zealous The gradation in the Text is as inconsistent with M r Prynnes interpretation for imagine the offender to be after previous admonitions publiquely accused and convict before the Church that is in his opinion the civill Court of justice which had power to imprison scourge torture and outlaw offenders if not to condemne and put to death what should be done with such an one can we goe no higher yes thus it is in M r Prynnes sence He that will not submit to the Magistrate and cannot be reduced by stripes and imprisonment torturing and outlawing yea peradventure by condemnation to die the death let this be the last remedy for such an one Let him be unto thee as an beathen man and a Publican that is withdraw familiar civill company from him Ninthly that interpretation of Erastus leaneth to a false supposition namely that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Publican are meant universally of all Publicans good or bad or whatever they were To prove this he takes an argument pag. 189 190 195. from the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for with the Grecians saith he the Article being joyned to the predicate noteth the nature and consequently the universality of the thing whence he concludeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth
In the old Testament the originall giveth the name Kahal Church which is the word used in the Hebrew Evangel of Matthew published by Munsterus chap. 18. vers 17. and the Septuagints the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Elders and Rulers of Israel as 1 Chro. 13. 2. 4. 29. 1. 2 Chro. 1. 3. and in other places And that which is said of the Elders Deut. 19. 12. Iâ—…sh 20. â— is said of the Congregation or Church Num. 35. 24. Ios. 20. 6. So Exod. 12. 3. compared with vers 21. The Septuagints also render Kahal by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 26. 26. It was not therefore to any assembly but to an assembly of rulers that causes were brought in the old Testament If we turne to the Heathen Grecians among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had a power of jurisdiction to judge and determine causes as is manifest from Acts 19. 38. 39. There 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was of two sorts as Suidas Budaeus Stephanus and others have observed 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lawfull set fixed assembly which met at ordinary diets which is meant in that place of the Acts last cited It was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the jurisdiction and ruling power which was seated in it Wherein I am confirmed by this passage of Aristotle polit lib. 3. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the assembly saith he hath the government or arbitrement of all such things He is speaking of the choosing of Magistrates and of craving an account of their administration 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was indicted and called pro re nata upon some urgent extraordinary cause and it was concio magnatum sâ—…ve optimatum in which the people were not present as in the other It was therefore rightly noted by Passor that Demosthenes useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro concione magnatum Afterward the Roman Senate was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an adjection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore among the Heathen Grecians from whom the word came was not any assembly but an assembly which had a jurisdiction or ruling power It shall not be in vaine to adde that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appeale to a superiour Ruler commeth from the same originall verbe from which commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. The Church mentioned Matth. 18. 17. hath a forensicall or juridicall power as appeareth by that of the two or three witnesses vers 16. which relateth to a Juridicall proceeding in the trying and punishing of offences as M. Prynne hath observed Peradventure some man will say that the two or three witnesses here are brought in onely to be witnesses to the admonition or to make the admonition the more effectuall and the more to be regarded but not as if any use were to be made of these witnesses to prove the fact or offence it selfe before the Church if there be occasion I answer either it must be supposed here that the trespasse was seen or knowne onely by him that gives the first rebuke privately or that it was also seen or known by those two or three witnesses If the former it is much disputed among Schoolmen whether he that rebukes his offending brother be to proceed any further than a private rebuke for a private offence or whether he is to stop at private rebukes and not to take witnesses with him which divers thinke to be unfit and disallowed as being an officious and unnecessary irritation of the offending brother by the spreading of his shame a making of a private sinne to become scandalous to others as likewise an engaging of witnesses to assist in the admonition and rebuke by a blinde and implicite faith for my part I shall not need here to dispute this point for what ever ought to be done or ought not to be done in this case when the trespasse is known to one onely yet in the other case when besides him that rebukes there are two or three more which can be witnesses of the fact or trespasse committed the trespasse being yet not publiquely divulged it can not be denied that these witnesses of the fact are to be brought unto and confronted with the offender when he cannot be gained by private rebuke and if need be prove it afterward before the Church Which I have before noted out of Durand And Aegidius de Coninck tels us in whatsoever other case witnesses are to be taken or are not to be taken in this case all doe consent that witnesses are to be taken Concerning the taking of witnesses when the trespasse is known to me alone there are three different opinions 1. That when I have rebuked the offender privately and cannot gaine him I am to proceed no further but have done my duty and must leave the event to God 2. That when a secret admonition is not effectuall witnesses are to be taken in case the offender so admonished continue in his sinne or in case his relapse be feared and expected that the witnesses may observe such continuing or relapse in sinne and then assist and joyne in rebuking him and if need be that is in case of his contumacy to prove the fact before the Church 3. That even when his continuance or relapse in sinne can not be observed and so can not be afterward proved by witnesses yet the second admonition is to be given before witnâ—sses when the first admonition given privately hath not gained the offender Of these let the Reader judge T is enough for the point now in hand that when witnesses can be had to prove the trespasse committed they ought to be brought first before the offender and then if he continue obstinate before the Church to prove the fact and they must be three or two at the least which I doe not see how it can be thought necessary if we suppose that the sinne is not known to any but to me alone who give tho first rebuke for if there must be a witnesse of my second admonition why may not one witnesse joyn with me as well as two when I can not have two but one onely willing and ready to â—oyn with me But now a necessity of precept lies on me that I must have two witnesses at least which cannot be otherwise understood but in reference to a forensicall proceeding afterwards if need be 5. That interpretation which now I speak against while it goeth about to avoyd a power of Jurisdiction and Censure in this Text it doth subject him that is reproved by another to a heavier yoke and brings him into a greater servitude For though a man be not disobedient nor contumacious unto any Court Civill or Ecclesiasticall yet if he doth not hearken to such a number as the party offended shall declare the case unto being a greater number then two or three he must be by and by esteemed and avoyded as
an Heathen man and a Publican 6. This interpretation as it is fathered upon Grotius so it may be confuted out of Grotius upon the very place He expounds Tell it unto the Church by the same words which Drusius citeth è libro Musar declare it coram multis before many But is this any other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many spoken of 2 Cor 2. 6 a place cited by Grotius himselfe together with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. Now these were acts of Ecclesiasticall power and authority not simply the acts of a greater number He tels us also it was the manner among the Jewes to referre the businesse ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the assembly of those who were of the same way or followed the same rites the judgements of which multitude saith he seniores tanquam praesides moderabantur the Elders as Presidents did moderate He further cleares it out of Tertullian apol cap. 39. where speaking of the Churches or assemblies of Christians he saith ibidem etiam exhortationes castigationes censura divina c. praesident probati quique seniores Where there are also exhortations corrections and Divine censure c. all the approved Elders doe preside And is not this the very thing we contend for I hope I may now conclude that Tell the Church is neither meant of the civill Magistrate nor simply of a greater number but of the Elders or as others expresse it better of the Eldership or Assembly of Elders So Stephanus Scapula and Pasor in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin Bucerus Illyricus Beza Hunnius Tossanus Pareus Cartwright Camero Diodati the Dutch annotations all upon the place Marlorat in Thesauro in the word Ecclesia Zanchius in 4. Praec pag. 741. Iunius Animad in Bell. Contr. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6. Gerhard loc theol Tom. 6. pag. 137. Meisuerus Disput. de regim Eccles. quaest 1. Trelcatius Instit. Theol. lib. 1. pag. 291. Polanus Syntag. lib. 7. cap. 1. Bullinger in 1 Cor. 5. 4. Whittaker de Ecclesia quaest 1. cap. 2. Danaeus in 1 Tim. pag. 246. 394. These and many more understand that neither the Magistrate nor the multitude of the Church nor simply a great number is meant by the Church Matth. 18. but the Elders or Ecclesiasticall senate who have the name of the Church partly by a Synâ—cdoche because they are a chief part of the Church as otherwhere the people or flock distinct from the Elders is called the Church Act. 20. 28. partly because of their eminent station and principall function in the Church as we say we have seen such a mans Picture when haply t is but from the shoulders upward partly because the Elders act in all matters of importance so as they carry along with them the knowledge and consent of the Church And therefore according to Salmeron his observation Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 9. Christ would not say Tell the officers or Rulers of the Church but Tell the Church because an obstinate offender is not to be excommunicate secretly or in a corner but with the knowledge and consent of the whole Church so that for striking of the sinner with the greater fear and shame in regard of that knowledge and consent of the Church the telling of the officers is called the telling of the Church partly also because of the ordinary manner of speaking in the like cases that which is done by the Parliament is done by the Kingdom and that which is done by the common Councell is done by the City Among the Jewes with whom Christ and his Apostles were conversant this manner of speaking was usuall Danaeus where before cited citeth R. David Kimchi upon Ose. 5. noting that the name of the house of Israel is often put for the Sanhedrin in Scripture T is certaine the Sanhedrin hath divers times the name Kabal in the Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek of the old Testament Which is acknowledged even by those who have contended for a kind of popular Government in the Church See Guide unto Zion pag. 5. Ainsworth in his Counterpoison pag. 113. CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. THey that doe not understand Matth. 18. 17. of Excommunication are extreamely difficulted and scarce know what to make of that binding and loosing which is mentioned in the words immediately following v. 18. verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Erastus and Grotius understand it of a private brother or the party offended his binding or loosing of the offender Bishop Bilson understands it of a civill binding or loosing by the Magistrate whom he conceives to be meant by the Church vers 17. These doe acknowledge a coherence and dependance between vers 17. and 18. M r Prynne differing from them doth not acknowledge this coherence and expounds the binding and loosing to be ministeriall indeed but onely Doctrinall Some others dissenting from all these doe referre this binding and loosing not to a person but to a thing or Doctrine whatsoever ye shall bind that is whatsoever ye shall declare to be false erroneous impious c. Sutlivius though he differ much from us in the Interpretation of vers 15 16 17. yet he differeth as much if not more from the Erastians in the Interpretation of vers 18. for he will have the binding and loosing to be Ecclesiasticall and spirituall not civill to be Juridicall not Doctrinall onely to be Acts of Government committed to Apostles Bishops and Pastors he alloweth no share to ruling Elders yet he alloweth as little of the power of binding and loosing either to the Magistrate or to the party offended See him de Presbyteriâ—… Cap. 9. 10. So that they can neither satisfie themselves nor others concerning the meaning and the context For the confutation of all those Glosses and for the vindication of the true scope and sence of the Text I shall first of all observe whence this phrase of binding and loosing appeareth to have been borrowed namely both from the Hebrewes and from the Graecians The Hebrews did ascribe to the Interpreters of the Law Power authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to loose So Grotius tells us on Mat. 16. 19. The Hebrews had their loosing of an Excommunicated person which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Buxtorf Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 1410. The Grecians also had a binding and loosing which was judiciall Budaeus and Stephanus on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cite out of Aeschines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quum primo suffragio non absolutus fuerit reus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the stone by which the Senators did give their suffrage in judgement It was either a blacke stone by which they did bind the sinner and retaine his sinne and that stone
was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or it was a white stone by which they did loose remit and absolve and that stone was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the thing that Tully calleth Solvere crimine So where it is said her iniquity is pardoned Isa. 40. 2. the 70 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her iniquity is loosed And because there is usually some kind of expiation before a loosing and remitting of sinnes which expiation being performed the loosing follows therefore the Graecians called such necessary and râ—quisit expiation by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is loosing and they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they expiatory Gods who did chiefly take care of those expiations That in Scripture the power of binding is judiciall and authoritative is cleared by my Reverend and Learned Colleague Maâ—er Rutherford in The Divine right of Church Government pag. 234. 235 I adde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto which Grotius sends â—s is â—sed for that binding or incarceration which is an act of 〈◊〉 authority as Gen. 40. 3. Gen. 42. 16. 19. 24. Num. 15. 34 Levit. 24. 12. 2 Kings 17. 4. Isa. 42. 7. Jer. 40. 1. Ezek. 3. 25. It is also used for an authoritative prohibition Num. 11. 28. my Lord Moses forbid them Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interdictum a decree forbidding somewhat Dan. 6 7 8 9. As binding and loosing are Acts of authority and power such as doth not belong to any single person or brother offended so the binding and loosing mentioned Matth. 18. 18. are Acts of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall authority belonging to the Kingdom and Government of Christ in his Church but not belonging to the civill Magistrate And as the authority is Ecclesiasticall and spirituall so it is more than Doctrinall it is a power of inflicting or taking off Church Censures These two things I will endeavour to prove 1. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers 2. That this power is juridicall or forensicall and not Doctrinall onely that is that Church-Officers are here authorised to bind with censures or to loose from censures as there shall be cause In both which we have Antiquity for us Which I doe the rather observe because Erastus and Grotius alledge some of the Antients for their exposition of Math. 18. 18. that this binding or loosing is by the offended brother That which Augustine Origen and Theophylact say of one brother his binding or loosing is but spoken tropologically and not as the literall sence of the Text yea Theophylact in that passage cited by Erastus and Grotius doth distinguish between the Ministeriall or Ecclesiasticall binding and loosing and the party offended his binding and loosing Non enim solùm quae solvunt sacerdotes sunt soluta sed quaecunque nos c. Theophylact doth also find excommunication in that Text Illam autem Ecclesiam si non audierit tunc abjiciatar ne suae malitiâ—… participes faciat alios I further appeal to Augustine himself Epist. 75. where speaking of Excommunication and Anathema he distinguisheth it from corporall punishment and after he hath spoken of the temporall sword he addeth Spiritualis autem paena qua fit quod scriptum est Quae ligaveris in terra erunt ligata in caelo animas obligat But the spirituall punishment by which that thing is done which is written What thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven doth bind soulâ—… Againe in his sixth Tome lib. 1. contra adversarium legis prophetarum â—…ap 17. he doth most plainly interpret Math. 18. 18. of Church discipline and binding by Censure Hierome both in his Commentary upon Matth. 18. and in his Epistle to Heliodorus speaketh of this power of binding as a judiciall forensicall power belonging to the Ministers or Officers of the Church by which they judge and censure offenders But to save my self the labour of more citations I take help from Bishop Bilson of the perpetuall Government of Christs Church cap. 4. where though he expound the binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. to be Acts of the Magistrate yet he acknowledgeth hat the Antient writers leane vere much another way and understand that Text of the ministeriall and spirituall power of Excommunication for which he citeth Chrysost. de sacerdotio lib. 3. Ambros. de paenitent lib. 1. c. 2. Hierom. in Matth. cap. 18. Hilar. in Mat. can 18. Vnto these I also adde Isidorus Polusiota in the third Book of his Epistles Epist. 260. where he applieth this Text Matth. 18 19. to this sence that impenitent finners are to be bound and penitent sinners loosed and thence argueth against the absolving of a perjured person who had not declared himself penitent but had purchased his absolution by a gift Nor can I passe Chrysostome upon this very Text where he tells that Christ will have such a one to be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both with a present Chastisement and with a future punishment or both in earth and in heaven and would have the offender to fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 casting out of the Church He addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cuts not off immediately but after admonitions I will now proceed to a further confirmation of the two propositions afore mentioned Touching the first That this binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. belongeth nei her to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers I clear it thus There are two things by which as Schoolemen observe mens soules and consciences are bound 1. They are bound by their sinnes Prov. 5. 22. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself he shall be holden with the cords of his sins Act. 8. 23. thou art in the bond of iniquity 2. Men are bound by precepts Matth. 23. 4. They bind heavy burthens and grievous to be born and lay them on mens shoulders This binding by precept or law some take to be meant Ezech. 3. 25. O Sonne of man behold they shal put bands upon thee shall bind thee with them that is thou shalt in vision see thy self bound with bands upon thee to signifie that I have forbidden thee to be a reprover to the rebellius house So the Chaldee paraphrase But thou a Sonne of man behold I have put my word upon thee as a band of cords with which they bind and thou shalt not goe forth into the midst of them Now in both these respects the Scripture elsewhere doth ascribe to Church-Officers a power of binding and loosing 1 In respect of sinne Io. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sin s ye retaine they are retained It is spoken to the Apostles and their successors in the Ministery of the Gospell Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalâ—… bind on earth shall be
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
life His second exception is that they fall not bâ—…th under the self-same precept If this be a just exception against our argument then one cannot argue thus It s a sinne to steale a mans private goods how much more to steale that which is holy It s a sinne to reproach a mans name how much more to reproach Gods Name These doe not fall under the selfe-same precept shall such arguments be therefore inconcludent Whence comes all this new logick which the world never knew before His third condition let it be remembred he saith if either of these three conditions faile the argument is inconseqent is that it must be within the compasse of the same power If it be so how shall that hold universally true Hâ—…w much better is it to get wisdome then Gold and to get understanding rather to be chosen then Silver By M r Prynnes rule it must onely hold true in this case when it fals within the compasse of the same power to get both Wisdome and Gold However if he had apprehended out argument aright he had perceived that the Iesser thing and the greater thing are both within the compasse of the same power The Church of Corinth ought not to eate with such a one at common Tables therefore not at the Lords Table For this refusing to eate with such a one at common Tables was by vertue of a judiciall Ecclesiasticall sentence passed against the scandalous person So that when M r Prynne saith We have free power not to eate Bread with those at our own Tables with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Christ to refuse to eate with them at the Lords Table and thereupon supposeth that our argumentation from that Text is one principall cause and prop of Independency yea of separation not onely from Sacraments but from Churches he doth altogether misapprehend the businesse For 1. Separation from Churches is properly a renouncing of membership as unlawfull our argument concerneth the unlawfulnesse of a particular act not of a membership in such a Church 2. The causes and motives of separation suppose either an unlawfull constitution of Churches or an unlawfull government of Churches or both so farre that they who separate hold it unlawfnll to continue their membership in Churches so constituted and governed or so much as to communicate and partake in the Sacrament with such Churches though they know no scandalous person admitted to the Sacrament 3. The great mistake lieth in this that our present controversie is apprehended to be whether every particular Christian hath power or liberty from Christ to withdraw from the Sacrament because of the admission of a scandalous person Whereas our Question is onely of the Churches power to suspend a scandalous person from the Sacrament and when the Apostle vers 9. 10 11. forbiddeth to be mixed or so much as to eate with such and such scandalous members of the Church he meaneth of Church-discipline and Excommunication which he had begun to speak of and so he comes to shew them what kinde of persons he would have to be excommunicated and used like that incestuous man So Beza Bullinger Hunnius Gualther Martyr Tossanus and others upon the place And long before all these Augustine and Beda plainly expound the Apostles words of a publique Ecclesiasticall Judgement past upon one who hath either confessed his offence or is formally accused and convict thereof and as they conceive that Text doth not at all justifie but doth rather condemne private Christians their separating from the Church because of a mixture of scandalons persons I know we ought prudently and cautiously to endeavour the avoyding of the company and fellowship of scandalous brethren though not yet censured in the Church which may be proved from other Scriptures but that is not the point the Apostle is here upon he meanes by no not to eate synecdochically the whole casting off of an excommunicate person and all that separation or withdrawing which is commanded to be made from him or if you will by a metonimy of the effect for the cause he meanes excommunication it selfe and however the words immediately following prove that a publique judiciall act is intended as hath been said before These things considered I shall not need to be led out of my way by M r Prynnes descanting upon the meaning of 1 Cor. 5. 11. how farre it prohibits civill communion and eating with a scandalous Christian being a railer or fornicator or Idolater c. I confesse some of his limitations as namely that we may eate with such aâ—one in cases of expediency or when we can not avoyd it in civility nor without offence are very lubricke unsafe and ensnaring and at best it s but like that in Martials Epigramme Difficilis facilis jucundus acerbus es idem Nec tecum possum vivere nec sine te But to treat of that case of conscience in generall is not hujus loci for this Text speaks of not eating with an excommunicate person Neither yet shall I need here to examine M r Prynnes six considerations p. 12 13 14. which he wisheth to be pondered by Separatists and Independents misled as he thinks by our fallacious argument I hope he doth not mistake our Question so farre as to comprehend the sinfulnesse of any private Christian his receiving of the Sacrament when and where some scandalous sinners are admitted to the Sacrament that private Christian not being accessary to the sinne of the Minister and Eldership in admitting those scandalous sinners Wherefore I will adde eight counterballancing considerations to prove from 1 Cor. 5. the first twelve verses thereof all which M r Prynne conceiveth can not prove Excommunication compared with 2 Cor. 2. an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or power of censures and particularly of Excommunication 1. There was a censure inflicted upon the incestuous man by the Eldership of the Church of Corinth being assembled together 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. Where read we that ever the Church was intentionally gathered together to cooperate with an Apostle in the exercise of his miraculous apostolicall power But we doe read that this mans punishment or censure was inflicted upon him not by the Apostle alone but by Many 2 Cor. 2. 6. Erastus pag. 214 thinks that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our bookes rendered punishment and in the margent censure was not excommunication but onely sharpe objurgation or reproofe To this I have abundantly answered Book 2. chap. 9. and in Male audis pag. 12 13 14. And if it should be granted that the man was not then excommunicate but sharply and publiquely rebuked which indeed is the opinion of some yet the Church of Corinth had proceeded to excommunication had not written to disswade them if the Apostle and take them off with a Sufficit which he neither needed nor would have done if they had power to doe no more â—o the offender then to rebuke him sharply To conclude this point M Prynne granteth
that 1 Cor. 5. 13. proveth excommunication and why the gathering together vers 4. should not be intended for the same worke I cannot imagine Some question there was of old whether the Apostles meaning vers 13. were not that the Corinthians should put away every man out of himselfe the evill of sinne Which Augustine having somewhere left in medio doth in his Retractations correct and Beda upon the place out of him tels us the very same and expound it of the taking away of the evill man from the Church by Excommunication because saith he the Greeke can not be rendered hoc malum but hunc malum 2. They who had power to receive him and forgive him and to confirme their love towards him had power to cast him out and censure him but those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church officers of the Church of Corinth had power of the former Therefore of the latter See 2 Cor. 2. 7 8. The Apostle adviseth them to forgive the offender How to forgive him not as man forgives a private injury that was not the case Nor onely by the doctrine of remission of sinnes applied to him in foro conscientiae upon evidence of his repentance that any one Minister might doe But the Apostle will have those many who had censured him consistorially and judicially to forgive him in the same manner Which is yet further confirmed by that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confirming of their love towards him vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ratum facere thence commeth not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Apostle will expresse a ratified or confirmed testament Galat. 3. 15. he cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the same word Erasmus doth collect that the Apostle speaketh to them as the ordinary Judges who have power to confirme their love to that penitent sinner in an authoritative manner And why doth the Apostle choose a word which properly signifiâ—th an authoritative confirming or ratifying of a thing if he were not speaking of a jurisdiction and power of inflicting and taking off againe censures 3. The Apostle upon occasion of that offenders case puts the Corinthians in remembrance that they ought likewise to purge the Church from the mixture of other scandalous sinners 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11 12. The Chapter both begins and ends with the case of the incestuous man and his punishment which makes interpreters conceive that what is enterlaced concerning other scandalous sinners in the Church is to be understood of such as the Apostle would have to be censured in the same manner as that incestuous man 4. He instanceth in six cases not intending an enumeration of all the particular cases of Excommunication fornication covetousnesse meaning covetousnesse scandalously and grossely manifested or practicall covetousnesse for of the heart God onely judgeth idolatry railing drunkennesse extortion His instancing in these tels us he intends not the case of private civill injuries but of scandals yea though the scandall be without the mixture of any civill or private injury as in the case of an Idolater or a drunkard 5. And even where there is a private injury wrapt up in the bosome of the scandall as in railing and extortion yet the Apostle there looketh upon them not qua injuries but qua scandals and in that notion he will have not onely the party particularly interrested and injured but the other members of the Church also to withdraw communion from the offender for he writeth to the whole Church of Corinth not to keepe company with such 6. When he saith with such a one no not to â—…ate he intimates by No not some further and greater punishment than not eating with him as hath been said before If not so much as eating with him then muchlesse Church communion with him at the Lords Table 7. He meanes not of that withdrawing whereby each Christian may and ought to withdraw familiarity and fellowship from such a notorious scandalous sinner whose sinne is manifest before hand that he may keep himselfe pure and not partake of another mans sinne In which case a member of one Church may withdraw familiar conversing with a scandalous member of another Church But he speakes of such a withdrawing from and avoyding of the fellowship of a scandalous Brother as is done not by one or some few private Christians but by the whole Church for hee writeth to the whole Church of Corinth not to company nor eate with such a one I say by the whole Church whereof the offender was a member and that not without a judiciall or consistoriall sentence vers 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within which can not be restricted to the judgement of Christian discretion and prudence for so both the Apostles and they did judge those that were without to walke circumspectly toward them Col. 4. 5. and to beware of their evill But t is meant of censures and punishments inflicted by many that is by the Presbyters of that Church 2 Cor. 2. 6. 8. And so I have touched upon the last consideration which is this That as the fault was a scandall given to the Church and the judgement and censure was Ecclesiasticall not civill so that censure for that offence was inflicted onely upon Church members not upon unbelievers If an unbeliever did a civill injury to a Christian the Christian was free to accuse the unbeliever if he saw it good before the civill Magistrate and there to seeke judgement and justice Or the Christian was free to withdraw civill fellowship from the unbeliever which did him a civill injury which I suppose M r Prynne will easily grant But this way of censuring and punishing a scandalous Church member did not agree to an Heathen who was an Idolater or drunkard or extortioner c. Vers. 10 11 12 13. Thus I have proved Church censure from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2 Cor. 2. without laying the weight of any argument upon Tradere Sathanae Which I would not have to be understood as if I yeelded to our opposites that the delivering to Satan is not meant of Excommunication My meaning is onely to make the shorter worke of the Erastian Antithesis The weight of their arguments not of ours is laid upon Tradere Sathanae But for my sence of the word I am of their opinion who interpret it of Excommunication and so doth Gualther himselfe So doth the Syriack which readeth That you Corinthians may deliver such a one to Satan If it was an an act of the Church of Corinth then it was a Church censure not a miracle The Greeke doth also carry it to be an act of the Church of Corinth assembled together We have also some though not all of the Ancients for us in this particular as Balsamon in Canon epist. Basilii ad Amphiloâ—… Câ—…n â— observeth Basil speaketh of some who at that time had been delivered to Satan for 30 yeeres that they might learn not to
from the Sacrament now in publike agitation is a matter of great moment much difficulty and very circumspectly to be handled established to prevent proâ—anation and scandal on the one hand and arbitrary tyrannical papal domineering power over the Consciences the spiritual priviledges of Christians on the other These are his own words in the preface of his Quaeries whether hath he gone in an even path to avoid both these evills Or whether hath he not declined to the left hand while he shunned the error of the right hand Whether hath he not so gone about to cure the heat of the liver as to leave a cold and phlegmatick stomack uncured And whether doth he not trespasse against that rule of his owne last cited when he adviseth this as the best and onely way to suppresse all kind of sins and to reform and purge the Churches of this Kingdom that the sword of excommunication and suspension be not drawn but onely the sword of the spirit and the sword of the Magistrate Vindic. pag. 57. Finally Whether in this Kingdom there be more cause to fear and apprehend an arbitrary tyrannical papal domineering power over the Consciences of Christians where Church discipline is to be so bounded by authority of Parliament that it be not promiscuously put in the hands of all but of such against whom there shall be no just exception found yea are or shall be chosen by the Congregations themselves who have also lately abjured by a solemn Covenant the Popish and Preâ—atical Government Or whether we ought not to be more afraid and apprehensive that the Ordinances of Christ shall hardly be kept from pollution and the Churches hardly purged from scandals there being many thousands both grossely ignorant and grossely scandalous 4. I desire it may be upon a review seriously considered how little truth wisdom or charity there is in that suggestion of Mr Prynn pag. 57. that the lives of the generality of the people are more strict pious lesse scandalous and licentious in our English Congregations where there hath been powerful preaching without the practice of Excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament then in the Reformed Churches of France Germany Denmark or Scotland for which I appeal to all Travellers c. I confesse it is a matter of great humiliation to the servants of Christ that there is occasion to exercise Church discipline and censures in the Reformed Churches yet this is no other then what was the condition of the Apostolique Churches 2 Cor. 12. 21. I fear saith the Apostle lâ—…st when I come again my God will humble me among you and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already and have not repented of the uncleannesse and fornication and lasciviousnesse which they have committed And this is not the onely Testimony concerning scandals and disorderly walking in those primitive Churches But as for those who are so rigid in their censures against the government of the Reformed Churches I answer to them as Hierome did of the Montanists They are rigid not to the end that themselves also might not commit worse sins but this difference there is between them and us that they are ashamed to confesse their sins as if they were righteous We while we repent do the more easily obtain mercy Mr. Prynn and others of his profession are not very willing that such an Ecclesiastical discipline be established in England as is received and setled in Scotland and other Reformed Churches But if once the like sin-searching sin-discovering and sin-censuring discipline were received and duely executed in England then and not till then such comparisons may if at all they must be made between the lives of the generality of the people in England with those in other Reformed Churches which of them is more or lesse licentious and scandalous A Testimony of Mr. Foxe the Author of the Book of Martyrs taken out of a treatise of his printed at London 1551. entituled De Censura Ecclesiastica Interpellatio J. Foxi the eighth Chapter of which Treatise is here translated out of Latin into English What the are chief obstacles hindering Excommunication THat the thought and care of excommunication hath now so far waxed cold almost in all the Churches is to be ascribed as appeareth unto three sorts of men The first is of those whose minds the wealth of this world and high advancement of dignity do so lift up that they are ashamed to submit the neck to the obedience of Christ. What say these shall that poor fellow lay a yoke on me What should I be subject to this naughty and rude Pastor But let go good Sir your vain swelling empty words how rude soever he be yet if he be your Pastor you must needs be a sheep of the flock whom if he doth rightly instruct so much the more dutifully you must submit But if otherwise it is the fault of the man not of the Ministry To those at least yeeld thy self to be ruled whom thou knowest to be more learned But go to thou which canst not suffer a man to be thy Pastor to whom then wilt thou submit thy self unto Christ himself thou sayest very well forsooth This then is of such importance that Christ for thy cause must again leave the heavens or by his Angels or Arch-Angels feed and govern thee whom these mean men the Pastors do not satisfie But what if it so pleased the Lord by these mean Pastors as thou callest them to cast down and confâ—und all the highest statelynesse and pride of this World even as of old by a few and comtemptible Fishers he subdued not onely the high and conceited opinion of Philosophers but even the Scepters of Kings also Now what will thy boasting magnificence say But hear what Christ himself saith of them whom thou from thy high loftinesse lookâ—st down upon as unworthy He that despiseth you despiseth me saith he And moreover who so despiseth Christ despiseth him from whom he is sent and who said unto him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Ask of me and I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the utmost ends of the earth for thy possission Thou shalt rule them with a rod of yron and break them in peâ—…ces like a pâ—…tters vessel Wherefore seeing thou dost acknowledge so great a Lord so many wayes above all Maiesty whatsoever can be named let it not be grievous to thee my brother whosoever thou art or with how great power soever thou art highly advanced laying aside thy high looks and pride to be humbled under his mighty hand And do not think it a light matter whereas thou entertainest with so great applause and honourable respect an earthly Kings Ambassadors that thou shouldest disdain the Ambassadors of him who alone hath power over all Kings and Lords If thou yeeldest unto a mortal Physitian thy wounds to be handled yea to be cut also and to be burned and seared if need be how commeth