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
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
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
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
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
exclusion of prophane scandalous persons from the passeover THat which Master Prynne in his Vindication pag. 15 16. pleadeth for his opinion from the Law of the passeover may be as I conceive with no great difficulty answered and I shall doe it very shortly being to insist further in answering Erastus who said much more for that point which deserveth â—n answer First in answer to our argument from the keeping back of the unclean Num. 9. he saith that all circumcised persons whatsoever had a right to eat the passeover c. being bound to eat the passeover in its season except in cases of necessity disability by reason of a journey or of legall uncleannesse onely not spirituall as is cleer by Exo. 12. 3. 43. to 50. Num. 9. 1. to 15. Deut. 16. 16 17. Ezra 6. 19 20 21. 2 Kings 23. 21 27 2. Chron. 35. 6 7. 13. 17. 18. where we read that all the people and all the males that were present received the passeover not one of them being excluded from eating it Answ. 1. If it was so doth not this make as much against himselfe as against us unlesse he will say that the Analogy must hold so farre that all Baptized persons whatsoever none excepted if it be not in cases of necessity or disability how scandâ—lous impenitent and obstinate soever they be ought to be admitted to the Lords Table so there shall be no excommunication at all which yet himselfe granteth for if any Baptized person though such as Master Prynne himselfe would have to be excommunicated shall be shut out from the Church and from all publike Ordinances and so from the Lords Supper because of his obstinacy and continuance in some foule scandall after previous admonitions in so doing we shall by his principles doe contrary to the Law of the passeover in the point of Analogy 2. The Texts cited by him prove that men were debarred for legall uncleannesse but there is not one of them which will prove that men were debarred onely for legall uncleannesse and no man for morall uncleannesse Yea one of those Texts Ezra 6. 21. tells us that those who were admitted to the passeover were such as had separated themselves from the silthynesse of the heathen of the Land to seeke the Lord God of Israel 3. That morall uncleannesse I meane known prophannesse or scandalous sinnes did render men uncapable of eating the passeover I shall prove anone by divers arguments unto which I remit Master Prynne That which hee objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. I am to answer also distinctly by it selfe His second reply is that those who were legally uncleane at the day appointed for the passeover so as they could not then receive it were yet peremptorily enjoyned to eat it the 14. day of the second moneth c. Num. 9. 11. 12. he must not be suspended from it above one moneth Answ. The Scripture cited proves no such thing except upon supposition that they be clean the 14. day of the following moneth And what if any of them were in the second moneth also uncleane by the touch of a deadbody or otherwise Were they not kept off in the second moneth as well as in the first Is it not plainly said of the second passeover vers 12. the very plaâ—e cited by himselfe according to all the Ordinances of the passeover they shall keep it and one of those Ordinances was the keeping back the uncleane Thirdly he saith that he who was legally uncleane was kept back neither by the Priest nor Magistrate but by those of the same Family as vers 6 7. imports And the true reason saith he in this Text why his uncleannesse did seclude him from eating the passeover was because it quite excluded him out of the camp for a time not Tabernacle or Temple and so by necessary consequence from the house wherein he was to eat the passeover c. and by like reason it debarred him from all other Ordinances Answ. 1 The Text Num. 9 6 7. tells us the unclean were kept back but by whom they were kept back it tells not That it was neither left free to the unclean person to eat of the passeover nor to the Family to admit him but that there was an authoritative restraint I prove by this argument He that was uncleane and before his cleasing did eat of the flesh of the Peace-offerings was cut off from among his people Lev. 7. 20. 21 Therefore he that in his uncleannesse did eat the passeover was to be cut off also No man will say that there was any lesse punishment intended for the pollution of the passeover than for the pollution of Peace-offerings And if the uncleane were not permitted under the Law to eat of the Flesh of the Sacrifices or if they did they were cut off shall not as great care be had to keep the body of Jesus Christ which was signified by the flesh of the sacrifices and the bloud of the Covenant from being trod under Foot by Dogges and Swine 2. Neither is there any such reason in that Text Num. 9. as the excluding quite out of the camp those who were uncleane by a dead body and so by consequence from the passeover Nay the Text rather intimateth that they were in the camp for they came before Moses and Aaron on that day when the passeover was kept and said We are defiled by the dead body of a man Wherefore are we kept back vers 6. 7. I hope Moses and Aaron were not without the camp I knew the Lepers and some other uncleane persons were put out of the camp but there is not one of the Texts cited by him which gives the least shadow of reason to prove that the uncleane by the dead body of a man were quite excluded out of the Camp except Num. 5. 2. And if he will beleive the Hebrew Doctors and others upon that place there were three Camps the Camp of Israel the Camp of the Levites and the Camp of Divine Majesty The uncleane by the dead were free say they to be in the first two Camps and were onely excluded from the third However it s agreed that some uncleane persons were excluded from the Sanctuary who were not excluded from the camp of the Chidren of Israel as is observed by Tostatus in Lev. 12. Quaest. 21. Menochius in Num. 5. 2. the English Annotations on Num. 5. 2. and others And if Master Prynne can prove that those uncleane persons who were excluded from the Sanctuary were not excluded from the Passeover let him try it That this thing may be yet better understood let us observe with Tostatus in Levit. 22. Quest. 7. a threefold separation of the uncleane under the Law some were separate onely from the Sanctuary and the holy things for he that had but touched a man or a woman who had an issue or had touched the Bed Clothes or any thing else which had been under him or her was not permitted to come unto the
in their right wits that limitation is as good as nothing when we speake of the suspending of any from the Lords Table But it was a confession of the particular individuall sinne which had been committed Levit. 5. 5. And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things that he shall confesse that he hath sinned in that thing Marke in that thing Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done Which Law is to be understood of all like sinnes and trespasses that is that other sinnes which were expiated by Sacrifice were first to be confessed All this maketh against Erastus Next whereas he saith that this confession or declaration of repentance for sinne in the old Testament had place onely in those sinnes for which the Law appointed no particular punishments and that there was no confession imposed where the Magistrate was to punish the crime This with a great deale of boldnesse and considence as his manner is he doth maintaine Intending thereby it seems to exempt from all manner of Church-discipline whatsoever is punishable by the civill Magistrate as adultery perjury and the like But that which he affirmeth so strongly is manifestly contrary to the expresse Law Levit. 6. from vers 1. to vers 8. where wilfull lying and perjury robbing and violence fraud and couzenage all these were to be confessed and expiated by Sacrifice notwithstanding that they were also to be severely punished by the civill Magistrate Nay in that very place it is commanded that what had been violently taken away or deceitfully gotten or fraudulently detained should be restored and moreover a fifth part added thereto for a mulct yet this did not exempt the sinner from making confession So Num. 5. 6 7 8. for one and the same offence the Law enjoyneth both that confession be made and expiation and moreover that recompence be made to the party injured or to his kinsman Yea the Law Num. 5. 6 7. speaketh universally When a man or woman shall commit any sinne that men commit c. then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done Which made the Hebrews extend this Law to criminall and capitall cases as M r. Ainsworth upon the place noteth out of these words of Maimony Likewise all condemned to death by the Magistrates or condemned to stripes no atonement is made for them by their death or by their stripes untill they have repented and confessed And so he that hurteth his neighbour or doth him dammage though he payeth him what ever he oweth him atonement is not made for him till he confesse Therfore Erastus is still a double loser in arguing from the Law of Moses It proves not what he would and it doth prove what he would not Thirdly men were kept from the Sanctuary of the Lord not onely for ceremoniall but for morall uncleannesse I meane for publique and scandalous sinnes against the morall Law Ezech. 44. 7 9. God was offended when such proselytes were brought into his Sanctuary as were either uncircumcised in flesh or uncircumcised in heart that is whose practise or conversation did declare them to be uncircumcised in heart else the Lord would not have challenged those who brought such proselytes into his Sanctuary if their uncircumcision of heart had not been externally manifested so that it might be perceived by his people according to that Psalm 36. 1. The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart that there is no feare of God before his eyes To the same purpose we read Ezra 6. 21. not that all proselytes nor all uncircumcised but onely all such as had seperate themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the Land to seeke the Lord God of Israel did eate of the Passeover Moreover we may argue by a necessary consequence from Scripture The ceremoniall uncleannesse was a cause of exclusion from the Sanctuary and from the holy things Therefore much more morall uncleannesse It was more sinfull in its selfe and more abominable in Gods sight for those who did steale murder commit adultery sweare falsely and burne Incense to Baal to come and tread in the Courts of the house of the Lord and to offer Sacrisices there as if Gods house had been a denne of robbers Isa. 1. 11 12 13 14. Ierem. 7. 9 10 11. This I say was more abominable to God then if he that had touched a dead body or had come into the tent where a man died should have come unto the Tabernacle in his legall uncleannesse Therefore when Christ casteth out the buyers and sellers out of the Temple it is not for ceremoniall but morall uncleannesse and he applieth to them the words of Ieremiah Ye have made it a denne of theeves Matth. 21. 13. with Ierem. 7. 11. And as it was more sinfull to the person and more hatefull to God so it was more hurtfull to the soules of others who were in greater danger of infection from the morall then from the ceremoniall uncleannesse This Erastus denieth indeed but his expression is unsavoury and unholy which I am ashamed to repeat Sure the Apostle speaketh farre othewise Heb. 13. 15 16. Lest any root of bitternesse spâ—…inging up trouble you and thereby many be defiled lest there be any fornicator or prophane person as Esan A prophane or scandalous person defileth you see many others and sinne was of a defiling nature under the old Testament as well as under the new I meane a root of bitternesse not plucked up a prophane person not censured doth defile others as well as himselfe Both Peter and Iude have told us that scandalous persons are spots and blemishes in the communion of Saints 2 Pet. 2. 13. Iude vers 12. So that as Erastus granteth that one legally uncleane could make others legally uncleane among whom he came and therefore was kept off from fellowship and company with the congregation of Gods people It must likewise be granted that scandalous persons are to be suspended from the sacred communion of the Christian Church because if they should be admitted the Church should be thereby sinfully defiled For if the saying God speed to a false teacher make us partakers of his evill deeds 2 Iohn 10. how much more doth the admitting of such or the like scandalous sinners to the Lords Table make I say not all who communicate then and there but all who consent to their admission to be partakers of their evill deeds Fourthly whereas Erastus holdeth that the exclusion of the uncleane under the Law did onely typyfie something which is to come to passe in the life to come that is the shutting forth of sinners from the Heavenly Paradice if they be not washed from their silthynesse by the blood of Jesus Christ and therefore ought not to be unto us any argument for the exclusion of scandalous sinners I answer If the shutting out from Heaven was the onely thing signified and if there be a fit analogy or
others lusters after evill things others fornicators others tempters of Christ others murmurers against God and Moses The same argument he hinteth pag. 9. to prove the like under the Gospell It 's one of Erastus his argments Confirm Thes. pag. 118. 119. and as colourable as any other yet not unanswerable as Master Prynne holds For 1. though he saith the Apostle cleerly determines that those who were tainted with grosse and scandalous sinnes were admitted to the Passeover yet I finde nothing of the Passeover neither in the Text nor in the sence of any Interpreter which I have looked upon Nay it did not so much as fall in the thoughts of Erastus himself for Beza having objected to him that he ought to have compared our Sacraments with the purely sacred Feasts in the old Testament rather than with the manna and with the water of the Rock which were for corporall nourishment Erastus replyeth nothing concerning the Passeover which had been his best answer if he had seen any probability for it onely he saith that he compareth our Sacraments with the manna and the water of the Rock as the Apostle doth before him 2. The Text it self seemeth rather to determine clearly that the Passeover is not there intended for all the other particulars there mentioned did agree to all the Israelites men women and Children all these were under the Cloud and all these passed through the Sea and all these drank of the water of the Rock and why shall we not understand that all these did also eat of the same spirituall meat that is of the Manna not of the Passeover of which women and Children under 13 yeares of age did not eat neither did all the males above 13 yeares eat of it for the unclean were excluded by the Law those that were in a journey did not eat of it nor the hired Servant the sick saith Erastus did not eat of it the Jewes exclude also the Dumbe and the Deaf If it be said that vers 1. speaketh onely of the Fathers and that therefore the Text is not to be understood of women and Children also I answer This is as inconsequent as if one would argue Paul saith Men Brethren and Fathers therefore no women were among that multitude of the people Act. 21. 35. 36. 39. 40. or thus the Apostle saith Brethren pray for us therefore he desires not beleeving Sisters to pray for him In this same Text in hand the Apostle speakes to the whole Church of Corinth to make them afraid of Gods judgements if they sinne as the Israelites did If he had argued onely from the sinne and judgement of the men and not also of the women in the wildernesse the women in Corinth had so much the lesse applyed it to themselves But if I should grant which will never be proved that by the Fathers are understood the men onely yet it cannot be said that as all the men of Israel were Baptized in the Cloud and Sea and all of them drank of the same spirituall drink which came out of the Rock so all of them did eat the Passeover for even of the males divers were excluded from the Passeover as the unclean the hired Servant the Child the sick c. so that this would make the Apostles argumentation running upon a five-fold all to hang ill together I had not insisted at all upon this but to shew the weak grounds of M r. Prynnes strong confidence 3. If this argument of his hold good he must grant by Analogy that all Baptized persons must be admitted to the Lords Table though they be Idolaters fornicators c. which as it is contrary to the Ordinance of Parliament so to his own professed Tenents for he professeth otherwhere he is not for the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament and that he would have them in case of obstinacy not onely suspended from the Sacrament but excommunicated from all other Ordinances till publike satisfaction given for the scandall and till externall symptomes of repentance appear So the Antidote animadverted tells us and his owne vindication pag. 50. If this be his minde then it is incumbent to him to loose his owne knot all circumcised persons though Tainted with grosse scandalous sinnes as Idolatry and Fornication were admitted to the Passeover and so it ought to be under the Gospell If he say that those scandalous sinners in the wildernesse had not been admonished were not obstinate or that they professed repentance and promised amendment and did not in the meane while persevere in their wickednesse but satisfied for the scandall first how proves he that next in so saying he will answer for us as well as for himself and his argument if all granted cannot prove that such scandalous sinners as have manifest symptoms of impenitency or doe not confesse and forsake their sinne may be admitted to the Lords Table 4. The Manna and the water out of the Rock though they had a spirituall and evangelicall signification and diâ— typifie Jesus Christ yet they were also the ordinary Food and Drink of the people in the wildernesse so that if scandalous sinners had been excluded from partaking of these they had been deprived of their ordinary daily corporall nourishment which makes a vast difference between their case in the wildernesse and ours at the Lords Table 5. The Apostle speakes of those scandalous sinnes as committed not before but after the eating of that spirituall meat and drinking of that spirituall drink first this is cleer of their Baptisme in the Cloud and in the Sea which was at their passing through the Red Sea Exod. 14. before any of the grosse and scandalous sinnes there mentioned were committed and therefore was not pertinent to be objected Immediately thereafter they did eat of the spirituall meat that is of the manna Exo. 16. and drank of the spirituall drink that is of the Water out of the Rock which followed them Exod. 17. to give drink to my people my chosen saith the Lord Isa. 43. 20. Now after those men had eaten of the spirituall meat and drunk of the spirituall drink they did fall into Idolatry Fornication c. and this is all which the Apostle saith thereby warning the Corinthians not to presume upon their partaking in the Ordinances nor to think all well with themselves because they were Baptized and had eaten and drunk at the Lords Table for after all this they had need to take heed lest they fall in foule sinnes and lust after evill things and so draw upon themselves the heavier judgements That which Master Prynne takes for granted upon a marvellous mistake of the Apostles words he hath yet to prove that is that after some of them had fallen into Idolatry others into fornication others into murmuring against God those who were known to have committed those grosse and scandalous sinnes were allowed and admitted as before to eat of the spirituall meat and drink of the spirituall drink I mean not onely
the Passeover which is not at all meant in this Text but even from the Manna and the water of the Rock those scandalous sinners were cut off by death except such of them as did repent and turn for whom atonement was made to God As soon as Moses came into the camp he gave a charge to slay every man his Brother and every man his companion which had committed the sinne of Idolatry and for the rest who survived Moses made atonement and got an answer of Peace from God concerning them Exo. 32. 33. We read also that the Lord plagued the people because of their Idolatry Exo. 32. 35. and the people did mourn and humble themselves and cast off their Ornaments Exo. 33. 4. So that I am sure the first case mentioned by the Apostle maketh much against our Opposites The second example is the matter of Peor where they did fall both into Idolatry and Fornication together but what came of it Moses gave a charge to the Judges of Israel to slay every one his men that were joyned to Baal Peor Numb 25. 5. and there died also of the Plague 24000. v. 9. But what was the peoples part in Repenting vers 6. tells us that all the congregation of the Children of Israel were weeping before the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and for those that remained alive Phinehes made atonement and the Lord smelled a savour of rest vers 11. 13. As for the third case instanced by the Apostle which is the tempting of Christ much people of Israel dyed for it and the remnant did repent and confesse that particular sinne that they had spoken against the Lord and against Moses and therefore did desire Moses to pray unto the Lord for them Num. 21. 6. 7. Lastly for that of murmuring those that had the chiefe hand in it died of the Plague Num. 14. 37. and the people mourned greatly and confessed We have sinned vers 34. 40. And thus by searching for an Answer to our Opposites argument we have found this argument against them If God himself did execute such Discipline upon those who were tainted with the grosse and scandalous sinnes of Idolatry Fornication c. That he would not permit them to enjoy their former liberty of eating of the Manna and drinking of the Water of the Rock being spirituall meat and spirituall drink as Typifying Christ though appointed of God also for ordinary daily food and drink to his people untill they mourned repented confessed and atonement was made for them It is much lesse the will of God that such scandalous sinners as are manifestly impenitent and manifestly not reconciled to God should be admitted and received to the Lords Supper which is an Ordinance purely spirituall But the former part is true Therefore so is the latter 6. Another Answer I shall adde though I need adde no more Those sinnes mentioned by the Apostle were not scandals given by a few persons nor yet by a few Families nor by a Tribe but they were common nationall sinnes and so fall not within the verge of our Controversie which is not concerning the suspending of a scandalous Nation from the Sacrament for some nationall sinne but concerning the suspension of scandalons persons for their personall publike offences If it be objected unto me that the Apostle saith that some of them were Idolaters and some of them did commit Fornication c. I answer when he saith some he saith so in reference to the All which had gone before that is all the Israelites who did eat of the Manna and drink of the water of the Rock during the 40 yeers in the wildernesse successively so that he makes a distribution of Israel in the wildernesse comparing one passage with another not distributing those that lived together at one and the same time And that it must needs be so understood I prove from Exo. 32. where we find all the people falling into Idolatry so Num. 14. 2. And all the Children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron The other two are also called the sinnes of the people and of Israel and the people were punished and for one of them all the Heads of the people commanded to be hanged Num. 21. 5. 6. 25. 3. 4. Peradventure every one did not act in each of these sinnes but yet they were nationall as we call nationall sinnes the generality of the Children of Israel either acting or partaking therein In such a case Augustine thought fit to suspend the exercising of Excommunication for the sinne of drunkennesse rather than to excommunicate all Africa These are my six answers to Master Prynnes unanswerable argument The end of the first Book AN APPENDIX To the First Booke Containing an additionall debate concerning the Jewish Church-Government and Censures I Have said enough as I suppose of a Church-Government and Church-Censures distinct from Magistracy and civill Justice among the Jewes whereby the seeming Old Testament strength of the Erastians is sufficiently yea abundantly broken And now it appeareth how ill grounded that Assertion is which did lately come abroad in the Discourse entituled The difference about Church-government ended Pag. 8. Moses was first the sole Ruler c. Afterwards when Kings reigned in Israel King Solomon put Abiathar the high Priest from his Office setting up Zadok and David distinguished the courses of the Priests and other godly Kings from time to time ruled in things Ecclesiasticall and Priests never till that after their returne from the Babylonish captivity c. And no better grounded are the first five questions in M r Prynne his Diotrephes catechised in which he doth intimate that there was no distinct Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction among the Jewes and that all scandalous sinnes and offences now pretended to be of Ecclesiasticall cognisance were by Gods owne institution throughout the old Testament inquireable examinable determinable and punishable onely by the temporall Magistrates or â—ivill powers not by any Ecclesiasticall persons or Officers But when he should prove that there was no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction distinct from the civill he brings many Scriptures to prove that there was a civill jurisdiction and civill or temporall punishments in the Old Testament How cold the consequence from hence will be against Church-Government the intelligent Reader cannot but perceive The most of that strength which doth militate against these Erastian Principles is presented and drawn up in this preceding Booke That which I now intend is onely an additionall debate And first of all it is to be observed that the same point of Controversie is debated with the Anabaptists they holding as the Erastians doe that in the old Testament there was but one kind of government one kind of jurisdiction one kind of punishment and that it was Civill or Temporall but an Ecclesiasticall Judicature or censure in the old Testament they deny Wherein they are contradicted by those that writ against them Secondly we must distinguish with great caution
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
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
of baptizing thus I baptize thee in the name of Iesus Christ. But I spake of the action not of the expression even as in the other instance I gave our assembling together is in the name of Christ though we do not say in terminis We are now assembled in the name of Christ. In baptisme Christ doth not command us to say either these words I baptize thee in the Name of Christ or these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost but we are commanded to do the thing both in the name of Christ as Mediator and in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost But in different respects A minister of Christ doth both preach and baptize in the name of Christ as Mediator that is vice Christi in Christs stead and having authority for that effect from Christ as Mediator for Christ as Mediator gave us our commission to preach and baptize by Mr. Husseys confession So that to preach and baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we find both of preaching Luk. 24 47. and of baptizing Act. 2. 38. comprehendeth a formall commission power and authority given and derived from Christ I say not that it comprehendeth no more but this it doth comprehend But when Christ biddeth us baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto or into or in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. this doth relate to the end and effect of baptisme or the good of the baptized if we understand the words properly not the authority of the baptizer as if a formall commission were there given him from the Father Son and holy Ghost So that to baptize one in or unto the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost is properly meant both of sealing the parties right and title to the enjoyment of God himself as their God by covenant and their interest in the love of God the grace of Christ and the communion of the holy Ghost and of dedicating the party to the knowledge profession saith love and obedience of God the Father Son and holy Ghost I return The next branch of my Argument was that we excommunicate in the name of Christ 1 Cor. 5 5. Mr. Hussey pag. 22. saith I make great hast here deliver to Sathan saith he is not to excommunicate c. But grant that it were excommunication c. the decree was Pauls and not the Corinthians What is meant by delivering to Sathan belongs to another debate Call it an Apostolicall act or call it an Ecclesiasticall act or both yet it was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the like whereof we find not in Scripture of any act of the civil Magistrate Why doth he not attend to the drift of the Argument And as to his exceptions they are no other then Prelats Papists and Socinians have made before him and which are answered long agoe That the Apostle commandeth to excommunicate the incestuous man is acknowledged by Mr. Prynne That he who is excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Sathan is undeniable for he that is cast out of the Church whose sins are retained on whom the Kingdom of heaven is shut and locked whom neither Christ nor his Church doth owne is delivered to Sathan who reignes without the Church That this censure or punishment of excommunication was a Church act and not an Apostolicall act onely may thus appear 1. The Apostle blameth the Corinthians that it was not sooner done he would not have blamed them that a miracle was not wrought 2. He writeth to them to do it when they were gathered together not to declare or witnesse what the Apostle had done but to joyne with him in the authoritative doing of it vers 4. 5. again he saith to them vers 7. Purge out therfore the old leaven vers 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within vers 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked person 3. It was a censure inflicted by many 2. Cor. 2. 6 not by the Apostle alone but by many 4. The Apostle doth not absolve the man but writeth to them to forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. Lastly the Syriack maketh for us which runneth thus vers 4. That in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you all may be gathered together and I with you in the Spirit with the power of our Lord Iesus Christ vers 5. That you may deliver him to Sathan c. But now at last Mr. Hussey comes home and gives this answer to my third Argument A thing may be said to be done in the name of Christ or of God when men do any thing in confidence that God will assist us so Psal. 20 5. In the name of our God will we set up our banners in confidence God will assist us Thus I hope the Parliament and other Christians may undertake the businesse in the name of Christ c. Secondly In the name of Christ a thing is said to be done that is done in the authority room and place of Christ c. So he pag. 24. seeking a knot in the rush In the first part of his distinction he saith nothing to my Argument neither saith he any more of the Parliament then agreeth to all Christians the poorest and meanest for every Christian servant every Christian Artificer is bound to do whatsoever he doth in the name of Christ Colos. 3. 17. But what is that to the Argument Come to the other member of his distinction The Ministers of Christ do act in the name of Christ that is in the authority room and place of Christ We are Ambassadors for Christ and we preach in Christs stead 2 Cor. 5. 20. This he doth not nor cannot denie which makes good my Argument Why did he not shew us the like concerning Magistracy I suppose he would if he could this is the very point which he had to speak to but hath not done it My fourth Argument against the Magistrates holding of his office of and under and for Christ that is in Christs room and stead as Mediator shall be that which was drawn from Luk. 12. 14. The Jewes were of the same opinion which Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hussey have followed namely that civil government should be put in the hands of Christ which they collected from Ier. 23. 5. He shall execute justice and judgement in the earth and such other Prophecies by them mis-understood And hence it was that one said to Christ Master Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me Our Lords answer was Man who made me a Judge or a divider over you Whatsoever act of authority is done by a Deputy or Vicegerent as representing his Master and Soveraigne may be done by the King himself when personally present If therefore the Magistrate judge civil causes and divide inheritances as the Vicegerent of Christ and of Christ as Mediator then Christ himself when present in the dayes of his flesh had power as Mediator to
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
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
suffer sinne upon him Where the Marginall paralell in the English Bibles is Mat. 18. 15. Yea Erastus himself lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 154. confesseth that Christ doth in Matth. 18. interpret that Law Lev. 19. So Prov. 28. 4. Such as keep the Law contend with the wicked We ought to hate and abhorre sinne by which God is dishonoured and consequently to expresse our zeale against it by rebukes when it is committed in our sight hearing presence privity or knowledge as much yea much more then if it were a private and personall injury against our selves Psal. 97. 10. Amos 5. 15. Rom. 12. 9. Psal. 139. 21 22. Hence it is that the Apostle exhorteth Christians to warne them that are unruly or disorderly 1 Thess. 5. 13. Wherefore it is justly and truly maintained by Augustine Regul 3 infine Tomi primi Durandus lib. 4. dist 19. Quaest. 3. Tostatus in Math. 18. Quaest. 29. and divers thers that to admonish and rebuke a Brother committing sinne is a necessary Christian duty commanded by the word of God whereunto Christians are obliged by the love of God and their Neighbour for which see also Aegidius de Coninck de actib supernat disp 28. dub 2. 4. And if the offender be not reduced by more private admonitions and rebukes the same Law of spirituall love bindeth his Brother that knoweth his sinne and impenitency to tell the Church as Ioseph told his Father of his Brethrens faults Gen. 37. 2. and Joseph brought unto their Father their evill report that is their scandalous sinnes which made them to have an evill report It is well noted by Pareus upon the place that the thing which Ioseph did complaine of to his Father was not his Brethrens hatred against himselfe nor any personall injury done to himself because their hatred of Ioseph was the effect not the cause of the information which he gave to his Father of their faults but it was their sinne and scandalous life by which they brought an evill name upon themselves and the family of their Father Wherein he doth upon good reason justifie what Ioseph did because he told not his Brethrens faults to an Enemy but to a Father nor for their evill but for their good It was also declared unto the Apostle by them of the house of Cloe that there were contentions among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. 11. So it is collected from 2 Thess. 3. 11. that some in the Church of Thessalonica gave notice to the Apostle of such as walked disorderly And as he that spares the Rod hates the Child so he that neglects to rebuke an offending Brother or when that cannot amend him neglects to tell the Church doth hate his Brothers soule in so farre as he suffers sinne upon him If these things be acknowledged for truths we will be easily induced to believe that the scope of Jesus Christ Math. 18. 15 16 17. is to teach us not what he permits the party injured to doe toward the party injuring but what he commands every one that loves the soule and salvation of his Neighbour to doe for reducing his Neighbour from a sinne wherewith he is overtaken Which fitly agreeth with that which Drusius praeter lib. 1. on Mat. 18. 15. citeth e libro Musar Besides both Fathers Schoole-men Casuists Commentators Popish and Protestant when they handle the Questions de correptione fraterna they make Brotherly rebukes to be a common duty of love which one neighbour oweth to another and ever and anon they cleare what they hold from Mat. 18. I verily believe it is one of the wiles yea depths of Sathan in perverting that Text with the Erastian Glosses to throw out of the Church and to drown in desuetude and oblivion a great and necessary duty which every Christian by the law of love oweth to the soule of his Brother with whom he converseth which were it conscionably practised I dare say it should be a most powerfull and effectuall meanes by the blessing of Christ upon his owne ordinance to purge the Church of scandals to gaine soules and to advance holinesse Now he that can neither be reduced by more private reprehensions nor by publike Ecclesiasticall conviction Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man saith Christ let him be esteemed as one that hath no part in the communion of the Saints in Church-Membership in the holy things in the common-wealth of Israel in the Covenants of promise more then an Heathen man Which is a spirituall not a civill separation according to that Gal. 2. 15. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles My second Argument shall be this That which Christ saith generally of any sinne whereby one Brother scandalizeth another Brother the Erastians restrict to private or personall injuries And whereas Christs rule tendeth to the rescuing and saving of a sinner their Glosse runnes upon a mans particular interest in the resarclating of a private injury If thy Brother trespasse against thee that is Cum quis coram aliquo peccaverit saith Munsterus when any brother sinneth in the presence of some other Are we not oblidged to rebuke an offending Brother in Christian love and to endeavour to bring him to repentance and to save his soule whether he hath done to us any particular injury or not May we suffer sinne upon his soule because that sinne is not an injury to us Let it be well observed the thing here aimed at is the salvation of the offending Brother and his turning from sinne as Grotius rightly noteth from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Erastus also confesseth from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for in that sence is the same word used 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. that I might gain them that are under the Law c. and 1 Pet. 3. 1. they may be wonne by the conversation of the wives This saith Grotius James doth explain Ch. 5. v. 20. he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soule from death and shall hide a multitude of sinnes If this then be the meaning of Christs words thou hast gained thy Brother then it concerneth all sinnes whereby we know our Brothers soule and salvation to be in hazard Wherefore though Grotius understand private injuries to be that case which the Text putteth yet saith he it is the manner of the Law of God by one particular and more remarkable kind of things to intimate what ought to be done in other things according to the rule of just proportion And it holds more true in other sinnes then in the case of private injuries This rebuking is necessary as well in sins which are committed against God as in those which are committed against man and by so much the more its necessary in sinnes which are committed against God by how much they are heavier then sinnes which are committed against man saith Tostatus in Mat. 18. quest 93. And Grotius himself citeth out of Mimus
was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or it was a white stone by which they did loose remit and absolve and that stone was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the thing that Tully calleth Solvere crimine So where it is said her iniquity is pardoned Isa. 40. 2. the 70 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her iniquity is loosed And because there is usually some kind of expiation before a loosing and remitting of sinnes which expiation being performed the loosing follows therefore the Graecians called such necessary and râ—quisit expiation by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is loosing and they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they expiatory Gods who did chiefly take care of those expiations That in Scripture the power of binding is judiciall and authoritative is cleared by my Reverend and Learned Colleague Maâ—er Rutherford in The Divine right of Church Government pag. 234. 235 I adde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto which Grotius sends â—s is â—sed for that binding or incarceration which is an act of 〈◊〉 authority as Gen. 40. 3. Gen. 42. 16. 19. 24. Num. 15. 34 Levit. 24. 12. 2 Kings 17. 4. Isa. 42. 7. Jer. 40. 1. Ezek. 3. 25. It is also used for an authoritative prohibition Num. 11. 28. my Lord Moses forbid them Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interdictum a decree forbidding somewhat Dan. 6 7 8 9. As binding and loosing are Acts of authority and power such as doth not belong to any single person or brother offended so the binding and loosing mentioned Matth. 18. 18. are Acts of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall authority belonging to the Kingdom and Government of Christ in his Church but not belonging to the civill Magistrate And as the authority is Ecclesiasticall and spirituall so it is more than Doctrinall it is a power of inflicting or taking off Church Censures These two things I will endeavour to prove 1. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers 2. That this power is juridicall or forensicall and not Doctrinall onely that is that Church-Officers are here authorised to bind with censures or to loose from censures as there shall be cause In both which we have Antiquity for us Which I doe the rather observe because Erastus and Grotius alledge some of the Antients for their exposition of Math. 18. 18. that this binding or loosing is by the offended brother That which Augustine Origen and Theophylact say of one brother his binding or loosing is but spoken tropologically and not as the literall sence of the Text yea Theophylact in that passage cited by Erastus and Grotius doth distinguish between the Ministeriall or Ecclesiasticall binding and loosing and the party offended his binding and loosing Non enim solùm quae solvunt sacerdotes sunt soluta sed quaecunque nos c. Theophylact doth also find excommunication in that Text Illam autem Ecclesiam si non audierit tunc abjiciatar ne suae malitiâ—… participes faciat alios I further appeal to Augustine himself Epist. 75. where speaking of Excommunication and Anathema he distinguisheth it from corporall punishment and after he hath spoken of the temporall sword he addeth Spiritualis autem paena qua fit quod scriptum est Quae ligaveris in terra erunt ligata in caelo animas obligat But the spirituall punishment by which that thing is done which is written What thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven doth bind soulâ—… Againe in his sixth Tome lib. 1. contra adversarium legis prophetarum â—…ap 17. he doth most plainly interpret Math. 18. 18. of Church discipline and binding by Censure Hierome both in his Commentary upon Matth. 18. and in his Epistle to Heliodorus speaketh of this power of binding as a judiciall forensicall power belonging to the Ministers or Officers of the Church by which they judge and censure offenders But to save my self the labour of more citations I take help from Bishop Bilson of the perpetuall Government of Christs Church cap. 4. where though he expound the binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. to be Acts of the Magistrate yet he acknowledgeth hat the Antient writers leane vere much another way and understand that Text of the ministeriall and spirituall power of Excommunication for which he citeth Chrysost. de sacerdotio lib. 3. Ambros. de paenitent lib. 1. c. 2. Hierom. in Matth. cap. 18. Hilar. in Mat. can 18. Vnto these I also adde Isidorus Polusiota in the third Book of his Epistles Epist. 260. where he applieth this Text Matth. 18 19. to this sence that impenitent finners are to be bound and penitent sinners loosed and thence argueth against the absolving of a perjured person who had not declared himself penitent but had purchased his absolution by a gift Nor can I passe Chrysostome upon this very Text where he tells that Christ will have such a one to be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both with a present Chastisement and with a future punishment or both in earth and in heaven and would have the offender to fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 casting out of the Church He addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cuts not off immediately but after admonitions I will now proceed to a further confirmation of the two propositions afore mentioned Touching the first That this binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. belongeth nei her to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers I clear it thus There are two things by which as Schoolemen observe mens soules and consciences are bound 1. They are bound by their sinnes Prov. 5. 22. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself he shall be holden with the cords of his sins Act. 8. 23. thou art in the bond of iniquity 2. Men are bound by precepts Matth. 23. 4. They bind heavy burthens and grievous to be born and lay them on mens shoulders This binding by precept or law some take to be meant Ezech. 3. 25. O Sonne of man behold they shal put bands upon thee shall bind thee with them that is thou shalt in vision see thy self bound with bands upon thee to signifie that I have forbidden thee to be a reprover to the rebellius house So the Chaldee paraphrase But thou a Sonne of man behold I have put my word upon thee as a band of cords with which they bind and thou shalt not goe forth into the midst of them Now in both these respects the Scripture elsewhere doth ascribe to Church-Officers a power of binding and loosing 1 In respect of sinne Io. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sin s ye retaine they are retained It is spoken to the Apostles and their successors in the Ministery of the Gospell Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalâ—… bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Where the power of binding and loosing is given to the Apostles Grotius upon the place cleareth it from 2. Cor. 5. 19. 20. God hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ. So that we find in Scripture Church Officers inabled and authorised ex officio as the Heraulds and Ambassadours of the King of Zion to loose from the bands of sinne all repenting and beleiving sinners and to bind over to eternall justice and wrath the impenitent and unbeleevers 2 They are also authorised dogmatically and authoritatively to declare and impose the will of Christ and to bind his precepts upon the shoulders of his peeple Matth. 28. 20. as likewise to loose them and pronounce them free from such burthens as men would impose upon them contrary or beside the word of God 1 Cor. 7. 23. An example of both we have Act. 15. 28. The Synod of the Apostles and Elders bindeth upon the Churches such Burthens as were necessary by the Law of love for the avoiding of scandall but did pronounce the Churches to be free and loosed from other burthens which the Judaizing Teachers would have bound upon them Now therefore if we will expound Matth. 18. 18. by other Scriptures it being the onely surest way to expound Scripture by Scripture it is manifest and undeniable that Church-Officers are by other Scriptures inabled and authorised to bind loose in both those respects afore-mentioned But we no where find in Scripture that Christ hath given either to all private Christians or to the civill Magistrate a Commission and Authority to bind or loose sinners I know a private Christian may and ought to convince an impenitent brother and to comfort a repenting brother ex charitate Christiana But the Scripture doth not say that God hath committed to every private Christian the word of reconciliation and that all Christians are Ambassadours for Christ nor is there a promise to ratifie in heaven the convictions or comforts given by a private Christian No more then a King doth ingage himself in verbo principis to pardon such as any of his good Subjects shall pardon or to condemne such as any of his good Subjects shall condemne but a King ingageth himself to ratifie what his Ambassadours Commissioners or Ministers shall doe in his name and according to the Commission which he hath given them to pardon or condemne Besides all this if Christ had meant here of the brother to whom the injury was don his private binding or loosing not condemning or forgiving then he had kept the phrase in the singular number which Erastus observeth diligently all along the Text vers 15 16 17. But he might have also observed that vers 18. carries the power of binding and loosing to a plurality VVhatsoever ye bind c. As for the Magistrate it belongeth to him to bind with the cords of corporall or civill punishments or to loose and liberat from the same as he shall see cause according to law and justice But this doth n t belong to the spirituall Kingdome of Jesus Christ for his Kingdome is not of this world neither are the weapons thereof carnall but spirituall And beside the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth bind on punishment when the soule is loosed in Heaven and the sinne remitted Again the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth loose and absolve from punishment when a mans soule is impenitent and sinne is still bound upon his conscience There is no such promise that God will forgive whom the Magistrate forgiveth or condemne whom the Magistrate condemneth Neither hath God any where in Scripture committed to the Magistrate the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven or the word of reconciliation as to the Ambassadours of Christ. Binding and loosing in the other sence by a dogmaticall authoritative declaration of the will of Christ is not so principally or directy intended Matth. 18. 18. as that other binding and loosing in respect of sinne Howbeit it is not to be excluded because the words preceding Vers. 17. mention not onely the execution of Excommunication Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican but also the Churches judgement and determination of the case if he neglect to heare the Church which words implie that the Church hath declared the will of Christ in such a case and required the offender to doe accordingly but he shewing himselfe unwilling and contumacious as it were saying in his heart I will breake their bands asunder and cast away their cords from me thereupon the promise reacheth to this also that what the Church hath determined or imposed according to the will of Christ shall be ratified and approved in Heaven Now Christ hath no where given a Commission either to every particular Christian or to the Magistrate to teach his people to observe all things which he hath commanded them and authoritatively to determine controversies of faith or cases of conscience As in the old Testament the Priests lips did preserve knowledge and they were to seeke the law at his mouth Mal. 2. 7. so in the new Testament the Ministers of Christ have the Commission to make known the counsell of God My second proposition that the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. is juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall Censures this I will make good in the next place against M r Prynne who to elude the argument for Excommunication from Matth. 18. answereth two things concerning the binding and loosing there spoken of 1. That these words have no coherence with or dependence upon the former 2. That this binding and loosing is meant onely of preaching the Gospell Touching the first of these I confesse if by the Church vers 17. be meant a civill Court of Justice and by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen c. be meant no more but keepe no civill fellowship with him which is his sence of the Text I cannot marvell that he could finde no coherence between vers 17. and vers 18. yet if there be no coherence between these verses the generality of Interpreters have gone upon a great mistake of the Text conceiving that Christ doth here anticipate a great objection and adde a great encouragement in point of Church discipline for when the offender is excommunicated that is all the Church can doe to humble and reduce him put the case he or others despise the censures of the Church What will your censure doe saith M r Hussey To that very thing Christ answereth It shall be ratified in Heaven and it shall doe more then the binding of the offenders in fetters of Iron could doe But let us heare what M r Prynne saith against the coherence of Text because saith he that of binding and loosing is spoken onely to and of Christs disciples as is evident by the parallel Text
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
〈◊〉 may very well be translated when supper was begun or when they were at Supper as I have before shewed by like instances in the New Testament Matth. 26. 6. 20. Things permanent as a house or the like are said to be factae when they are ended and compleate But things which are successive are said to be factae when they are begun as dies factus not when the day is ended but when it is begun So here there can be no more proved from the words but that supper was begun or they were at supper This sence is given by Osiander Erasmus â—…ossanus harm evang part 3. cap. 1. beside the Centuriâ—ts Salmeron and Lud. de Dieu before cited The other argument may be this Matthew Marke and Luke after they have told of the making ready of the Passeover adde that Christ sate 〈◊〉 with the Twelve Ans. 1. It cannot be proved that this is meant of sitting down to eate the Passeover nay it rather appeareth from the Text that it was to eate that other supper at which the sop was given to Iudas The same discourse and questioning concerning the Traytor which Iohn sets down before Iudas his getting of the sop and going out is recorded by Maâ—…thew and Marke to have been in that first supper unto which Christ sate down with the twelve when even was come Therefore Christs sitting down with the twelve Matth. 26. 20 21. Mark 14. 17 18. â—eing spoken of that supper at which Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him and every one asked Is it I which by M r Prynnes confession was not the Paschall but the ordinary supper It followeth that the sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Passeover but of an ordinary supper before the Passeover 2. The same words of Christs sitting down with the twelve are expounded though upon other considerations as spoken in reference not to the Paschall but the ordinary or common supper by Lorinus in Psal. 101. 6. following Maldonat and by Gerhard Harm Evang. cap 170. p. 403. Their reason is because according to the Law the Passeover was to be eaten standing not sitting but that is more then can be proved from the Law which doth not so much as speake of standing at the first Passeover It is no necessary consequence they had their stavâ—s in their hands ergo they were standing This by the way 3. Granting that Christs sitting downe with the twelve were spoken of the Paschall supper yet the paschall supper being after the other supper at which Iudas got the sop and went away which I now suppose for the reasons before-mentioned till I see better reasons to the contrary It might be said after Iudas was gone that Christ sate down with the twelve as well as 1 Cor. 15. 5. it is said of Christ risen from the dead he was seen of Cephas then of the twelve though he was seen onely of the eleven and Iudas was gone to his place Which answers all that can be said from Luke 22. 14 15. If I have not said so much as to put it out of all question that Iudas did not eate of the Passeover with Christ and his Apostles yet I am sure I have cleared so much as this that Master Prynne will not be able to prove convincingly that Iudas did eate of the Passeover that â—ight with Christ. I will conclude with the pious observation of M r Cartwright that it was not a vaine or idle question which the Disciples propounded being commanded to prepare the Passeover they aske where wilt thou that we prepare Luke 22. 8 9. for Christ having commanded them that into whatsoever City they entered they should enquire who were godly therein and turne in to such to lodge and to eate there They did thereby easily understand that if in common and ordinary eating together then much more in this sacred feast they must turne in to the families of the godly and avoyd the prophane especially considering that they who were of that houshold were to eate the Passeover with Christ and his Disciples according to the Law From this very example of the Passeover he drawes an argument for keeping off all ungodly and prophane persons from the Sacrament so farre as is possible Thus Cartwright Harm Evang. lib. 3. pag. 162. The like observation Chrysostome hath upon Matth. 26. 18. I will keepe the Passeover at thy house with my Disciples He bids us marke those words with my Disciples not with prophane or scandalous ones but with my Disciples To the like purpose Titus Bostrorum Episcopus in Luke 22. hath this observation Non manducat autem hoc pascha cum Judaeis sed tantum cum Discipulis suis Siquidem Judaei propter obstinatam incredulitatem hoc paschate indigni erant Yet he eateth not this Passeover with the Jewes but onely with his own Disciples for as much as the Jews because of their obstinate incredâ—…lity were unworthy of this Passeover 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 I Have now done with the first part of this Controversie concerning Iudas and have disproved that which M r Prynne hath said either for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper or for his eating of the Passeover In which particulars though learned and godly Divines who are against the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament are not all of one opinion yet all looke upon it as a matter of debate and I know none that ever cried downe with scorne and contempt the opinion of Iudas his not receiving of the Sacrament excepâ— M r Prynne whose grounds are oftimes weakest where his assertions are strongest I proceed to the second answer Granting that Iudâ—…s did receive the Sacrament that can make nothing for the admission of scandalons sinners whose prophannesse and ungodly conversation is knowne and maketh their name to stinke in the Church For Iudas his wickednesse was not publique nor knowne before he had got the sop and gone out and left the company of Christ and the Apostles And moreover he who argueth from Christs receiving of Iudas to the Sacrament when though his sinne was yet secret yet Christ knew him to be a divell to prove that the Eldership may and ought to admit one to the Sacrament whom they know to be a Iudas a Divell may as well argue from Christs choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle when he knew him to be a Divell to prove the lawfulnesse of the Elderships choosing of a Minister whom they know to be a divell But now for that point of the scandall or secresie of Iudas his sinne let us heare M r Prynnes reply pag. 26 27. He gives it foure feet to runne upon But the truth is it hath but two the same things being twice told and those how foundered you shall see by and by First he saith that
able to examine themselves 3. Are men of corrupt minds and erroneous yea prophane principles who call evill good and pervert Scripture to the defending of some grosse sinnes are these able to examine themselves 4. Are those who are known that they had never any worke of the law upon their consciences to convince or humble them for by the Law is the knowledge of sinne able to examine themselves If the answers be affirmative then surely this selfe-examination is not riâ—htly apprehended what it is If the answers be negative then those who in their addressâ—s to the Lords Table are found ignorant or drunke or defenders of sinne or presumptuous and unconvinced and doe manifestly appeare such though they be not excommunicated and being professed Christians and desiring the Sacrament yet ought not to be admitted I proceed to his second conclusion the strength whereof so farre as I am able to gather from his discourse may be drawn together into this Argument Such as in all ages yea by the very Apostles themselves have been deemed fit to receive and could not be denied the Sacrament of Baptisme ought to be being baptised and unexcommunicated and willing to communicate admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper But in all Churches from Christs time till this present all externall professors of Christ even carnall persons onely upon a bare externall profession of faith and repentance were deemed fit to receive and were never denied the Sacrament of Baptisme yea saith he we read in the very Apostles times that a meere externall sleight confession of sinne and profession of the Christian faith was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptized Ergo all externall professors of Christ c. ought to be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Answ. 1. I retort the Argument thus Such as have been deemed by the Apostles and by all well constituted Churches unworthy to be admitted to Baptisme ought also to be deemed unworthy though baptised to be admitted to the Lords Supper But all known wicked and prophane livers how able and willing so ever to make confession of the true Christian faith have been by the Apostles and all wâ—ll conâ—ituted Churches deemed unworthy to be admitted to Baptisme Ergo all known wicked c. More of this afterward Chap 13. and Chap 15. Secondly I answer directly I distinguish the Major I deny the Minor I distinguish the Major Those who have been admitted to Baptisme ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper caeteris paribus if the proportion hold in the particulars and if they be as free of scandalous sines now when they desire to receive the Lords Supper as they were when they desired to receive Baptisme He needed not make so great a matter of our suspending from the Sacrament a person formerly deemed fit to receive Baptisme For why the person is a scandalous person now which he was not thâ—n My limitation of caeteris paribus he himselfe must admit otherwise how will he defend his owne Principle that the flagicious abominable and obstinate sinners who cannot be reduced by Admonitions may and ought to be excommunicated and so to be cut off from the Lords Supper and all other publike Ordinances although formerly deemed sit to receive baptisme The Minor I utterly deny as most false and as a reproach caâ— upon the Apostles themselves M r Prynnes Rule is so large that Turkes or Pagans who practically live in Idolatry common swearing adultery drunkennesse murthering stealing or the like and are known to live in those abominable scandalous sinnes ought neverthelesse upâ—…n a meere externall sleight confession of sinne and profession of the Christian faith be baptised When I expected his proofe from the Apostles times he onely tels us that Philip baptized Simon Magus though he were in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity Acts 8. Yea saith he many other who turned Wolves Apostates Hereticks were baptised by the very Apostles Acts 20. 2. Tim. 3. If he had proved that Simon Magus was known to be in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity when Philip did baptize him or that the Apostles did baptise any upon a sleight externall profession who were then known to be Wolves Apostates and Hereticks he had said more for his cause then all his booke saith beside But to tell us that some persons baptized he might as well have said that some persons who received the Lords Supper did appeare afterward to be in the gall of bitternesse Wolves Apostates Heretickes is as much as to travell and to bring forth nothing For how shall ever this reach the admission of known prophane persons to the Lords Supper That which he had to prove was the admission not of hypocrites but of knowne scandalous profane persons to Baptisme His third conclusion that it is the Ministers bounden duty to administer the Sacraments to their people as well as to preach and pray no man will deny it so that the Ministers doe it debito modo and according to the rule of Christ they are stewards of the mysteries of God moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithfull 1 Cor. 4 1 2. It is the bounden duty of Stewards to give the childrens bread to children and not to dogges and swine It is not the duty of Ministers to preach peace to the wicked and much lesse to seale it to them who are knowne to be such The fourth conclusion that the Word and Sacraments are set accidentally for the fall and ruine as wel as for the salvation of men maketh nothing to the purpose in hand Whatever the secret intention of God be and his unsearchable judgement upon the soule of this or that man it is no rule of duty to the Minister or Eldership To the Law and to the Testimony Secret things belong to God The fifth that God onely infallibly knows the hearts and present state of all men is no whit neerer the point The Eldership â—udggeth of words and works professions and practises By their fruits ye shall know them The sixth that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to or suspending them from the Sacrament is also wide from the controversie in hand which is concerning the Elderships not the Ministers power Of the Ministers personall duty I have spoken before These six conclusions premised M r Prynne proceeds to prove that a Minister in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person who after admonition of the danger doth earnestly desire to receive it c. becomes no way guilty of his sinne or punishâ—…ent in case be eate or drinke judgement by his unworthy receiving of it His first reason because this receiver hath a true right to this Sacrament as a visible member of the visible Church is the same thing which I have already answered His second reason because â—…e the Minister hath no Commission from Christ to keep back such a person doth not conclude
guilty Ergo he that harboureth a knowne Traytor is not guilty Eighthly for he hath given his seventh already he tels us that the Minister onely 〈◊〉 the Sacrament and the unworthy receiving is the receivers own personall act and sinne alone Answ 1. He begges againe and againe what is in Queâ—ion 2. There is an unworthy giving as well as an unworthy receiving The unworthy giving is a sinâ—ull act of the Minister which makes him also accessary to the sinne of unworthy receiving and so partake of other mens â—innes The ninth concerning Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is answered before The tenth I have also answered before in his fourth conclusion The Minister is a sweet savour of Christ as well in those that perish by the Sacrament as in those that are benefited by it with this proviso that he hath done his duty as a faithfull Steward and that he hath not given that which is holy to dogs else God shall require it at his hands Finally he argueth from 1 Cor. 11. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh not condemnation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgement meaning some temporall judgement to himselfe not to the Minister or Communicants Answ. 1. Whatever be meant by judgement in this place certainly it is a punishment of sinne and such a thing as proceedeth from Gods displeasure and it is as certaine that unworthy receiving maketh a person lyable to a greater judgement then that which is temporall 2. If to himselfe be restrictive and exclusive in the case of close hypocrites such as are by Church-officers judging according to outward appearance admitted to the Sacrament yet how will it be made to appeare that the Apostle meant those words as restrictive and exclusive in the case of scandalous and knowne unworthy communicants 3. Such a scandalous person doth indeed eate and drink judgement to himselfe but this can neither in whole nor in part excuse but rather greatly aggravate the sinne of the Minister for when a wicked man dieth in his iniquity yet his blood God will require at the hands of the unfaithfull Minister who did strengthen his hands in his sinne CHAP. XII Whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a converting or regenerating Ordinance I Had in answer to Mr. Prynns third Quaere given this reason why prophane and scandalous persons are to be kept off from the Sacrament and yet not from hearing the Word because the word is not onely a confirming and comforting but a converting Ordinance and is a mean appointed of God to turn sinners from darknes to light and from the power of Sathan to God Whereas the Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming and sealing Ordinance which is not given to the Church for the conversion of Sinners but for the Communion of Saints It is not appointed to put a man in the state of grace but to seal unto a man that interest in Christ and in the Covenant of Grace which he already hath Mr. Prynne doth with much eagernesse contradict me in this and argue at length the contrary Which is the marrow and fatnesse if there be any in his debate concerning the eighth point of difference Whereby he doth not onely contradict me but himself too as shall appear yea and joyn not onely with the more rigid Lutherans but with the Papists themselves against the Writers of the Reformed Churches For the very same thing which is controverted between him and me is controverted between Papists and Protestants The Papists hold that the Sacraments are instrumentalâ— to confer give or work grace yea ex opere operato as the School-men speak Our Divines hold that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church as sealing Ordinances not to give but to testifie what is given not to make but confirm Saints And they do not onely oppose the Papists opus operatum but they simply deny this instrumentality of the Sacraments that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not This is so well known to all who have studied the Sacramentarian controversies that I should not need to prove it Yet that none may doubt of it take here some few insteed of many testimonies Calvin holds plainly against the Papists that the Sacraments do not give any grace but do declare and shew what God hath given He clearâ— it in that chapter thus the Sacraments are like seals appended to writs which of themselves are nothing if the paper or parchment to which they are appended be blank Again they are like pillars to a house which cannot be a foundation but a strengthening of a house that hath a foundation We are built upon the Word the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Again Sacraments are to us from God that which messengers are which bring good newes from men they declare what is but do not so much as instrumentally make it to be These are Calvins similes Bâ—…llinger confuteth the Popish doctrine concerning the Sacraments conferring of grace by this principle that the Saints are justified and sanctified before they are sealed and confirmed by the Sacraments Ursinus speaks so fully and plainly for us that none can say more He distinguisheth between the Word and Sacraments as between converting and confirming Ordinances and argueth that the Sacraments do not confer grace because we receive not the thing by receiving the signe but we get the signe because it is supposed we have the thing Yea he speaks of it as a principle known to children Wolfangus Musculus in his common places saith thus Who seeth not what manner of persons we must be when we approach to this mystical Table of the Lord to wit not such as do therein first of all seek the fruition of the body and blood of the Lord as if we were yet destitute thereof but such as being already before partakers thereof by faith do desire to corroborate more and more in our hearts the grace once received by the Sacramental communication of the body and blood of the Lord and by the remembrance of his death and to give thanks to our Redeâ—…mer Martin Bucer upon Matth. 18. 17. puts this difference between the Word preached and the Lords Supper that the Word may be preached to the unconverted but the Lords Supper may not be given to any who by their lives do declare that they are out of communion with Jesus Christ. Which is the very point now in controversie Festus Honnius Disp. 43. Thes. 3. confuting the Popish opinion of the Sacraments working or giving grace brings this reason against it They that receive the Sacraments have this grace before they receive them neither are any to be admitted to the Sacraments who may be justly supposed not to be justified and sanctified Aretius Coment in Mark 14. loc 3. observeth Qui admissi sint ad istam Coenam discipuli solum Who were admitted to that eucharistical
Supper the Disciples oâ—…ely Hence he inferreth Quare mysteria haec ad solos fideles pertinent Wherefore these mysteries do pertain to the faithful alone that is to those who are supposed to be converted and beleevers Vossius Disp. de Sacram. effic part poster After he hath observed two respects in which the Sacraments do excel the Word 1. That Infants who are not capable of hearing the Word are capable of the Sacrament of Baptisme and are brought to the laver of regeneration 2. That the Sacraments do visibly and clearly set before our eyes that which is invisible in the Word He adds Thes. 49. other two respects in which the Word doth far excel the Sacraments 1. That the Word can both beget confirm faith the Sacraments cannot beget faith in those that are come to age but onely conserve and increase it 2. That without the word we cannot be saved for he that beleeves not is condemned now faith commeth by hearing but the Sacraments though profitable means of grace yet are not simply necessary The confession of the faith of the Church of Scotland in the Article entituled to whom Sacraments appertain saith thus But the Supper of the Lord we confesse to appertain to such onely as be of the houshold of faith and can try and examine themselves as well in their faith as in thâ—…ir duty towards their neighbours The Belgick Confession Art 33. saith of the Sacraments in generall that God hath instituted them to seal his promises in us to be pledges of his love to us and to nourish and strengthen our Faith And Art 35. They plainly hold that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is intended and instituted by Christ for such as are already regenerate and are already quickned with the life of grace The Synod of Dort in their Judgement of the fifth Article of the Remonstrants Sect. 14. ascribeth both the inchoation and conservation of grace to the Word but ascribeth oâ—ely to the Sacraments the conserving continuing and perfecting of that begun grace In the Belgick form of the administration of the Lords Supper See Corpus Disciplinae lately published by the Ministers and Elders of the Dutch Church at London pag. 16. it is said thus Those which do not feel this Testimony in their hearts concerning their examining of themselves touching their repentance faith and purpose of true obedience they eat and drink judgement to themselves Wherefore we also according to the Commandement of Christ and the Apostle Paul do admonish all those who find themselves guilty of these ensuing sins to refrain from comming to the Lords Table and do denounce unto them that they have no part in the Kingdom of Christ. Here follows an enumeration of diverse scandalous sins concluded with this general and all those which lead a scandalous life All these as long as they continue in such sins shall refrain from this spiritual food which Christ onely ordained for his faithful people that so their â—…udgement and damnation may not be the greater Which plainly intimates that they hold this Sacrament to be a sealing not a converting Ordinance And this they also signifie Ibid. pag. 17. And to the end we may firmly beleeve that we do belong to this gracious Covenant the Lord Jesus in his last Supper took bread c. Paraeus puts this difference between the Word and Sacraments that the Word is a mean appointed both for beginning and confirming faith the Sacraments means of confirming it after it is begun That the Word belongs both to the converted and to the unconverted the Sacraments are intended for those who are converted and do beleeve and for none others And though the Lutherans make some controversie with us about the effect of the Sacraments yet Ioh. Gerhardus doth agree with us in this point that the Lords Supper is not a regenerating but a confirming and strengthening Ordinance and this difference he puts between it and Baptisme Walaeus asserteth both against Papists and against some of the Lutherans that Sacraments do instrumentally confirme and increase faith and regeneration but not begin nor work faith and regeneration where they are not Petrus Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo Disp. 9. cap. 1. Error 6. disputeth against this as a Tenent of the Calviâ—…ists Fideles habent Spiritum S. habent res signatas ante Sacramenta the faithful have the holy Spirit they have the things which are sealed before they receive the Sacraments Brochmand System Theol. Tom. 3. de Sacram. Cap. 2. Quaest. 1. condemneth this as one of the Calvinian errors Sacramenta non esse gratiae conferendae divinituâ—… ordinata media that Sacraments are not instituted and appointed of God to be means of conferring or giving grace Which he saith is the assertion of Zuinglius Beza Danaeus Musculus Piscator Vorstius The Lutheran opinion he propounds ibid. quaest 6. that the Sacraments are means appointed of God to confer grace to give faith and being given to increase it Esthius in Sent. lib. 4. dist 1. Sect. 9. stateth the opinion of the Calvinists as he calls us thus justificationem usu Sacramenti esse priorem obtentam nimirum per fidem quâ homo jam ante credidit sibi remitti peccata Sacramentum verò postea adhiberi ut verbo quidem promissionis fides confirmetur elemento verò ceu sigillo quodam diplomati appenso eadem fides obsignetur atque ita per Sacramentum declaretur testatumque fiat hominem jam prius esse per fidem justicatum This he saith is manifestly contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome from which saith he the Lutherans do not so far recede as the Calvinists Gregorius de Valentia in tertiam partem Thomae Disp. 3. Quaest. 3. punct 1. thus explaineth the Tenent which he holdeth against the Protestants concerning the Sacraments giving of grace Sacramenta esse veras causas qualitatis gratia non principales sed instrumentales hoc ipso videlicet quod Deus illis utitur ad productionem illius effectus qui 〈◊〉 gratia tamet si supra naturam seu efficacitatem naturaleâ—… ipsorum The Papists dispute indeed what manner of casuality or vertue it is by which the Sacraments work grace whether Phisica or Ethica whether infita or adsita In which questions they do not all go one way See Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Tho. Quest. 62. Cap. 5. But that the Sacraments do work or give grace to all such as do not ponere obicem they all hold against the Protestants They dispute also whether all the Sacraments give the first grace or whether Baptisme and Pennance onely give the first habitual grace and the other five Sacraments as they make the number give increase of grace But in this they all agree that habitual grace is given in all the Sacraments of the New-Testament the Thomists hold further that the very first grace is de facto given in any of the Sacraments See for the
Catechumene a Jew or a Pagan professing a resolution to turn Christian he being manifestly under the power of abominable reigning sins and being still a prophane and wicked liver although he were able to give a sound and Orthodox Confession of Faith then it is also a prophanation of the Lords Supper to admit unto it abominable and prophane livers But it were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme c. Augustine lib. de fide operibus cap. 18. tells us that the Church did not admit whores and such other scandalous persons to Baptisme Et nisi egerint ab his mortuis operibus poenitentiam accedere ad Baptismum non sinuntur And except they repent saith he from these dead works they are not suffered to come unto Baptisme Divers Arguments he brings in that Book for this thing as 1. That Peter saith Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized 2. That the Apostle Heb. 6. 1 2. joyneth repentance from dead works with Baptisme 3. That Iohn preached the Baptisme of Repentance 4. That fornicators adulterers theeves c. shall not inherit the Kingdom of God therefore such as are known to live in these sins without repentance ought not to be baptized 5. He argueth from 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16. c. Now I offer this Quaere Shall an abominable wicked life murther adultery swearing cursing lying or the like keep back a man from so much as entering into the visible Church by the door of Baptism and shall not the like abominations keep back a man from Fellowship with the Saints at the Lords Table Is there more evidencâ— of Saintship required in those who come to be baptized then in those who come to the Lords Table If there be let our Opposites speak it out and open up the riddle If there be not then how can their Tenent avoid the prophanation of the Lords Table Sixthly That Ordinance which is prophaned by admitting Infants and Idiots who can make no good use of it is much more prophaned by admitting abominable and known prophane persons who make a very bad use of it But the Lords Supper is prophaned by admitting Infants and Idiots who can make no good use of it Ergo. Mr. Prynn pag. 29. yeeldeth that children fools and distracted men are by a natural disability made uncapable of receiving the Lords Supper because unable to examine themselves to which saith he not withstanding they have been admitted in some Churches In what Churches fools and distracted men have been admitted to the Lords Supper I should have willingly learned from him for as yet I know not any such thing Children I know were somtime admitted by the Ancients who did afterward discover their own great error in that particular However He yeelds as I take it children and fools to be uncapable of the Lords Supper And why because unable to examine themselves in regard of natural disability But where there is no disability in the natural faculties may not a sinful disability which a man hath drawn upon himself as ignorance drunkennesse corrupt and atheistical opinions presumptuous excusing or defending of sin make him unable to examine himself Shall men that are unable to examine themselves be admitted to the Sacrament because not disabled by any natural disability Sure this was far from Pauls thoughts when he delivered that rule concerning examining our selves before the Sacrament Whoever they be who are unable to examine themselves whether naturally or sinfully much more they who manifâ—stly appear unwilling to examine themselves if they be admitted and allowed to come to the Lords Supper it is a high and haâ—nous prophanation of that Ordinance Wherefore to prosecute my Argument Why do we exclude Infants and Idiots because 〈◊〉 Apostle saith Let a man examine himself and so let him 〈◊〉 Bread and drink of that Cup but Infants and Idiots 〈◊〉 examine themselves Now a positive prophanation of the Sacrament is worse then a negative prophanation of it abuti is more then non bene uti We know that prophane impenitent sinners will not onely make no good use of the Sacrament nor examine themselves aright but will abuse it to the worst use that can be even to slatter themselves in their wickednesse and to harden themselves in sin and impenitency Mr. Prynn will tell us we know not but God may convert such at the Sacrament But there is not the least hint in all the Word of God of any impenitent sinner converted by the Sacrament And beside it is as easie for God to give an Idiot or distracted man his right wits and to illuminate him with a self-examining knowledge and light in the very instant of approaching to or sitting down at the Table And if a possibility a per adventure it may be and who knoweth but it may convert and do them good be a warrantable ground for Ministers to administer the Sacrament to prophane and scandalous persons as Mr. Prynn holds pag. 47. why shall not the same ground be as warrantable for admitting Idiots Seventhly If the Temple was polluted and prophaned by the comming of prophane and abominable persons into it then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper also profaned by such persons their participation of it But the Temple was polluted and prophaned c. The reason of the consequence in the Proposition is because as the Temple had a Sacramental signification of Christ and a certain Ceremonial holinesse as well as the Lords Table so it will be durâ—…s sermo and I presume none of our Opposites will adventure to say it that such prophanesse as did of old keep back men from the Temple cannot now exclude them from the Sacrament The Assumption is largely proved in the first Book both from Scripture and from Jewish writers That one place Ezek 23. 38. 39. beside divers others cleareth it Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths For when they had slain their children to their Idols then they came the same day into my Sanctuary to prophane it You see the Temple was prophaned and polluted not onely by those that were ceremonially unclean but by Idolaters and Murtherers when any such presumed to come into the Temple Eighthly I desire the scope of that place Hag. 2. 11 12 13 14. may be considered The Lord is teaching his people that a thing legally holy could not by the touch thereof sanctifie that which by the Law was common and not holy yet he which was legally unclean did defile whatsoever he touched yea though it were legally holy So is this people and so is this Nation before me saith the Lord and so is every work of their hands and that which they offer there is unclean The legal holinesse and uncleannesse were significant ceremonies to teach the people the hecessity of moral holinesse and the evil or danger of moral uncleannesse Hence God himself argues from the significant ceremony to the morality so
party in the point of Excommunication For in the vindication of his four Questions pag. 2. he readily yeeldeth that grosse notorious scandalous obstinate sinners who presumptuously persevere in their iniquities after private and publike admonitions without remorse of Conscience or AMENDMENT may be justly excommunicated from the Church the society of the faithful and all publike Ordinances after due proof and legal conviction of their scandalous lives and that 1. Cor. 5. 13. warrants thus much The Antidote animadverted by P. in the first page yeeldeth that excommunication is an Ordinance of God And indeed 1 Cor. 5. 13. doth not onely warrant excommunication as lawful but injoyn and command it as necessary for the Apostles words are praeceptive and peremptory Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked person The thing was not indifferent but necessary and such as could not without sin be omitted However Mr. Prynn his asserting from that place that it may be is a deserting of the Erastian party 2. In the 50. page of his vindication he professeth that his Antagonists do contend for that which he granteth them with advantage They would have scandalous sinners suspended from the Sacrament He will have them not onely suspended from the Sacrament but excommunicated from all other publike Ordinances 3. He confesseth ibid. that in some cases a person not excommunicated may be suspended from the Sacrament But whatever his Concessions may seem to be they are really as good as nothing For 1. He will have none to be suspended from the Sacrament except such as are ripe for excommunication and against whom the sentence of excommunication is ready to be pronounced as persons incorrigible 2. He admitteth no suspension from the Sacrament till after several solemn previous publike admonitions reprehensions rebukes contemned or neglected See both these pag. 50. Whence you see that with Mr. Prynns consent all the votes of Parliament concerning several causes of suspension from the Lords Table shall be of no use to Presbyteries until after a long processe of time and after many previous publike admonitions So that if one in the Congregation commit a notorious incest or murther a day or two or a week before the celebration of the Sacrament and the thing be undeniably certified and proved before the Eldership yet the Eldership cannot suspend such an abominable scandalous sinner from the Sacrament hac vice but must first go through all those preparatory steps which are necessary and requisite before excommunication Well but after all those publike previous admonitions shall the sentence of excommunication follow Nay here also he will have Presbyteries to go through a very narrow lane for in the same place he thus describeth the persons whom he would have to be excommunicated They are scandalous obstinate peremptory incorrigible notorious sinners who desperately and professedly persevere in their grosse scandalous sins c. But I beseech you what if they persevere in their grosse scandalous sins neither desperately nor professedly Must they not then be excommunicate Shall not the offender be cast out of the Church after clear proof of the offence and several previous publike admonitions contemned or neglected Must we wait till the adulterer professe that he will persevere in his adultery and till the blasphemer professe that he will persevere in his blasphemy Nay further What if the offender do neither 〈◊〉 nor actually persevere in his grosse scandalous sin Put case he that hath blasphemed once do not blaspheme the second time and that he who grossely and scandalously prophaned the Lords day did it but once and hath not done it again since he was reproved Must this hinder the sentence of excommunication when that one grosse scandal is not confessed nor any signe of repentance appearing in the offender Moreover whereas Mr. Prynn in his fourth Quare and in several places of his Vindication seemeth to allow none to be admitted to the Lords Table except such as professe sincere repentance for sins past and promise newnesse of life for time to come If we expound his meaning by his own expressions in other places that which he granteth bordereth upon nothing for pag. 13. speaking of scandalous sinners their admission to the Sacrament if they professe sincere repentance for their sins past and reformation of their lives for time to come he addeth as all do at least in their general confessions before the Sacrament if not in their private meditations prayers c. and a little after he saith that all who come to receive do alwaies make a general and joynt confession of their sins before God and the Congregation c. And then he addeth pag. 14. Yea I dare presume there is no receiver so desperate that dares professe when he comes to receive he is not heartily sorry for his sins past but resolves to persevere impenitently in them for the future though afterward he relapse into them as the best Saints do to their old infirmities c. I know the best Saints have their sinful infirmities but whether the BEST do relapse to their OLD infirmities may be a Question And however he doth open a wide door for receiving to the Sacrament all scandalous sinners not excommunicated if they do but tacitely joyn in the general Confession of sins made by the whole Church or do not contradict those general Confessions and professe impenitency and persevering in wickednesse though in the mean time there be manifest real symptomes of impenitency and no confession made of that particular sin which hath given publike scandal Wherefore I say plainly with the Professors of Leyden Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 48. Thes. 35. The administration of this censure of suspension from the Lords Table hath place in these two different cases either when one that is called a Brother hath given some hainous scandal of life or Doctrine who after admonition doth indeed by word of mouth professe repentance but yet doth not shâ—…w the fruits meet for repentance that so the scandal might be taken away from the Church or when he doth not so much as in words promise or professe repentance c. Martin Bucer hath a notable speech to this purpose de Regno Christi lib. 1. Cap. 9. To hold it enough that one do professe by Word onely repentance of sins and say that he is sorry for his sins and that he will amend his life the necessarie signes and works of Repentance not being joyned with such profession It is the part of Antichrists priests not of Christs In the next place it is to be taken notice of how palpably and grossely Mr. Prynn contradicteth himself in divers particulars Which being observed may peradventure make himself more attentive in writing and others more attentive in reading such subitane lucubrations The particulars are these which follow 1. Vindicat pag. 17. he saith the Confession of sin which was made at the Trespasse offerings was not to the Priest Classis or Congregation but to God alone 1. In
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