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
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
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
not to be made use of till all other meanes have been essayed ante tentanda omnia saith Munsterus first a private admonition then before witnesses then the matter is brought to the Church the Church declareth and judgeth the offender neglecteth to heare the Church then after all this commeth the binding which must needs be a binding with censures for that binding which Master Prynne speakes of the denouncing of the wrath of God against the impenitent by the preaching of the Gospell is not neither ought to be suspended or delayed upon such degrees of proceeding Sixthly this binding and loosing is not without two or three witnesses vers 16. But that of two or three witnesses relateth to a forensicall or judiciall proceeding as M r Prynne himselfe tels us These witnesses may be brought before the Ecclesiasticall court either to prove the offenders contumacy being admonished or to prove the scandalous fact it selfe which was from the beginning knowne to two or three witnesses according to the sence of Schoolmen expressed in the precedent Chapter Seventhly this phrase of binding and loosing is taken both from the Hebrews and from the Grecians But both the Hebrews and the Grecians used these words in a juridicall sence as I observed in the beginning Eighthly that the binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. is juridicall not doctrinall belonging to the power of jurisdiction not of order is the sence of the ancients above cited as likewise of Scotus lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Quaest. 1. art 5. Tostatus in Matth. 18. Quest. 113. yea the current both of Schoolmen and of Interpreters as well Protestant as Popish runneth that way It were too long to cite all Yea further Salmasius in appar ad lib. de primatu pâ—…p 296. understands the binding and loosing Matth. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 23. of Discipline So Walaeus Tom. 1. pag. 92. So divers others From the same places Aretius Theol. probl loc 133. de excom draws Excommunication as an Ordinance of Christ. From the same two Texts Ioh. 20. 23. and Matth. 16. 19. Dionysius Areop agita de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 7. sect 7. doth prove that Christ hath committed unto the Ministers of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His ancient Scholiast Maximus upon that place tels us that he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of excommunications and separations or as he there further explaineth the judging and separating between the righteous and the wicked Salmeron upon Matth. 16. 19. thinks that the latter part of that verse And whatsoever thou shalt binde on Earth c. doth belong to the power of jurisdiction and censure Hugo de S. Victore de Sacramentis lib. 1. cap. 26. doth also expound Matth. 16. 19. of the forensicall power of Excommunication Now if in these places binding and loosing remitting and retaining sinnes comprehend a juridicall power of laying on or taking off Church censures how much more must this Juridicall power be comprehended Matth. 18. 18. where the context and circumstances will much more enforce this sence then in the other two places this binding and loosing being also in the plurall number Whatsoever ye bind c. not in the singular as the phrase is Matth. 16. 19. Whatsoever thou shalt bind c. One Minister may bind doctrinally but one alone can not bind juridically Ninthly the very doctrinall or concionall binding which is yeelded by M r Prynne is voyded and contradicted by the admission of known scandalous impenitent sinners to the Sacrament for he that is admitted to the Sacrament is loosed not bound remission not condemnation is supposed to be sealed up to him as is manifest by the words of the Institution Matth. 26. 27 28. Drinke ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes So that without a power of binding by censures and namely by suspension from the Sacrament one and the same scandalous impenitent person shall be bound by the word and loosed by the Sacrament Surely he that is to be bound by the word ought also to be bound by suspension from the Sacrament unlesse we make one publique Ordinance to contradict another Tenthly doth M r Prynne believe that Jesus Christ hath any where given to Church-officers a forensicall or juridicall power of binding by Excommunication and loosing by Absolution or receiving againe into the communion of the Church If he doth believe it then I aske where hath Christ committed that power unto them if not Matth. 18 If he doth not believe that Christ hath given any such power then why doth he hold Excommunication to be lawfull and warrantable by the Word of God Most certaine it is that neither King nor Parliament nor Eldership nor Synod nor any power on earth may or ought to prohibite or keepe backe from the Sacrament such as Christ hath not commanded to be kept backe or to bind sinners by Excommunication if Christ hath given no such commission to bind in that kind Eleventhly it may give us some light in this present Question to compare the phrase of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 19. with Psalm 149. 6 7 8 9. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth and a two-edged Sword in their hand to execute vengeance upon the Heathen and pnnishments upon the people To bind their Kings with chaines and their Nobles with fetters of Iron To execute upon them the judgement written This honour have all his Saints Which both Jewish and Christian Interpreters referre to the Kingdome of Christ out of whose mouth proceedeth a two-edged Sword Revel 1. 16. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the phrase used in the Greeke version of Psalm 149. If it should be understood of temporall or externall victories and conquests of the Nations and their Kings so it was not fulfilled to the Jews in the old Testament and the Jewes doe now but in vaine flatter themselves with the expectation of such a thing to come There are but two expositions which are most received and confirmed The first is that the Saints shall judge the world together with Christ 1 Cor. 6. 2. and then vengeance shall be executed on the wicked and all they who would not have Christ to reigne over them shall be bound hand and foot and cast into utter darknesse This is the sence of Arnobius upon the place and the Jesuits of Doway Emmanuel Sa Jansenius Lorinus Menochius goe that way The other Exposition holds an accomplishment of the thing in this same world and this in a Spirituall sence concerning the Kingdome of Christ in this world is holden by Calvin Bucer VVestmeherus Heshusius Gesuerus Fabritius and others So the Dutch Annotations Augustine and Hierome both of them upon the place take the sword and the chaine and fetters to be meant of the word of God conquering and overcomming aliens and Hereticks and the mightiest enemies which others cleare from Isa. 45. 14. Men of stature shall come over unto thee
bondage Grotius his Interpretation of the word Church not inconsistent with ours Divers Authors of the best note for our Interpretation that is that by the Church here is meant the Elders of the Church assembled The name of the Church given to the Elders for four considerations CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. OUr Opposites extreamly difficulted and divided in this point Binding and loosing both among Hebrews Grecians authoritative forensicall words Antiquity for us which is proved out of Augustine Hierome Ambrose Chrysostome Isidorus Pelusiota Hilary Theophylact. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private persons nor to civill Magistrates but to Church officers and that in reference 1. to the bonds of sinne and iniquity 2. To the dogmaticall decision of controversies concerning the will of Christ. That this power of binding and loosing is not meerely doctrinall but juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall censure This cleared by the coherence and dependency between verse 17. and 18 which is asserted against M. Prynne and further confirmed by eleven reasons In which the agreement of two on earth verse 19. the restriction of the rule to a brother or Church-member also Matth 16. 19. John 20. 23. Psalm 149. 6 7 8 9. are explained Another Interpretation of the binding and loosing that it is not exercised about persons but about things or Doctrines confuted by â—ive reasons How binding and loosing are acts of the power of the Keys as well as shutting and opening CHAP. VII That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication and bâ— a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation Suspension from the Sacrament of a person un excommunicated THe weight of our proofs not laid upon the phrase of delivering to Sathan Which phrase being set aside that Chapter will prove Excommunication verse 8. Let us keepe the Passeover c. applied to the Lords Supper even by M. Prynne himselfe Master Prynnes first exception from 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 20 21. concerning the admission of all the visible members of the Church of Corinth even drunken persons to the Sacrament answered His second a reflection upon the persons of men His third concerning these words No not to eate confuted Hence Suspension by necessary consequence His fourth exception taken off His three conditions which he requireth in Arguments from the lesser to the greater are false and doe not hold Our Argument from this Text doth not touch upon the rock of separation Eight considerations to prove an Ecclesiasticall censure and namely excommunication from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2 Cor. 2. More of that phrase to deliver such a one to Sathan CHAP. VIII Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper THe Question between M. Prynne me concerning Iudas much like unto that between Papists and Protestants concerning Peter Two things premised 1. That Matthew and Marke mentioning Christs discourse at Table concerning the Traytor before the Institution and distribution of the Lords Supper place it in its proper order and that Luke placeth it after the Sacrament by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or recapitulation which is proved by â—ive reasons 2. That the story Iohn 13. concerning Iudas and the sop was neither acted in Bethany two daies before the Passeover nor yet after the Institution of the Lords Supper The first Argument to prove that Iudas received not the Lords Supper from Ioh. 13. 30. he went out immediately after the sop Mr Prynnes foure answers confuted His opinion that Christ gave the Sacrament before the common supper is against both Scripture and Antiquity Of the word immediately The second Argument from Christs words at the Sacrament That which M. Prynne holds viz. that at that time when Christ infallibly knew Iudas to be lost he meant conditionally that his body was broken and his blood shed for Iudas confuted by three reasons The third Argument from the different expressions of Love to the Apostles with an exception while Iudas was present without an exception at the Sacrament M. Prynnes Arguments from Scripture to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament answered That Iudas received the Sacrament is no indubitable verity as Mr. Prynne cals it but hath been much controverted both among Fathers Papists and Protestants That the Lutherans who are much of M. Prynnes opinion in the point of Iudas his receiving of the Lords Supper that they may the better uphold their Doctrine of the wicked their eating of the true body of Christ yet are much against his opinion in the point of admitting scandalous persons not Excommunicated to the Sacrament M. Prynnes bold assertion that all the Ancients except Hilary onely doe unanimously accord that Iudas received the Lords Supper without one dissenting voyce disproved as most false and confuted by the testimonies of Clemens Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachymeres Ammonius Alexandrinus Tacianus Innocentius 3. Rupertus Tuitiensis yea by those very passages of Theophylact and Victor Antiochenus cited by himselfe Many moderne writters also against his opinion as of the Papists Salmeron Turrianus Barradius of Protestants Danaeus Kleinwitzius Piscator Beza Tossanus Musculus Zanchius Gomarus Diodati Grotius The testimonies cited by M. Prynne for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament examined some of them found false others prove not his point others who thinke that Iudas did receive the Sacrament are cleare against the admission of known prophane persons The confession of Bohemia and Belgia not against us but against Master Prynne CHAP. IX Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed THat Christ and his Apostles did eate the Passeover not before but after that Supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet and give the sop to Iudas These words before the Feast of the Passeover Joh. 13. 1. scanned The Jewes did eate the Passeover after meale but they had no meale after the Paschall supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 13. 2. needeth not be turned supper being ended but may suffer two other readings Christs sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Paschall supper and if it were it proves not that Iudas did eate of that Passeover more than 1 Cor. 15. 5. proves that Iudas did see Christ after his resurrection A pious observation of Cartwright Another of Chrysostome CHAP. X. That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lords Supper it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wicked persons from the Sacrament CHrists admitting of Iudas to the Sacrament when he knew him to be a divell could no more be a president to us then his choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle when he knew also that he was a divell Iudas his sinne was not scandalous but secret at that time when it is supposed that he did receive the Sacrament The same thing which M. Prynne makes to have been after the Sacrament to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament
is misapplied by him His tenth concerning the ends of the Sacrament yeeldeth the cause and mireth himselfe His eleventh a grosse petitio principii His twelfth appealing to the experience of Christians rectified in the state and repelled for the weight That this debate concerning the nature end use and effect of the Sacrament doth clearely cast the ballance of the wholecontroversie concerning Suspension Lucas Osiander cited by M. Prynne against us is more against himselfe CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a pollution and prophanation of that holy Ordinance And in what respects it may be so called THe true state of this Question cleared by five distinâ—ions Nine Arguments to prove the affirmative That the admitting of the scandalous and prophane to the Sacrament gives the lie to the word preached and looseth those whom the word binddeth That it is a strengthning of the hands of the wicked T is a prophanation of Baptisme to baptise a Catechumene Jew or a Pagan being of a known prophane life although he were able to make confession of the true faith by word of mouth That such as are found unable to examine themselves whether through naturall or sinfull disability or manifestly unwilling to it ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper The reason for keeping backe children and fooles holds stronger for keeping back known prophane persons Hag. 2. 11 12 13 14. explained A debate upon Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs c wherein M. Prynne is confuted from Scripture from Antiquity from Erastus also and Grotius CHAP. XVI An Argument of Erastus drawn from the Baptisme of John against the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper examined THat Iohn baptised none but such as confessed their sinnes and did outwardly appeare penitent T is a great question whether those Pharisees who came to his Baptisme Matth. 3. were baptised The coincidency of that story Matth. 3. with the message of the Pharisees to Iohn Baptist Ioh. 1. The Argument retorted CHAP. XVII Antiquity for the Suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament even such as were admitted to other publique Ordinances Oâ— the foure degrees of Penitents in the ancient Church and of the Suspension of some unexcommunicated persons from the Lords Supper who did joyn with the Church in the hearing of the word and prayer Proved out of the ancient Canons of the Councels of Ancyra Nice Arles the sixth and eighth General Councels out of Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Basilius Magnus confirmed also out of Zonaras Balsamon Albaspinâ—…us The Suspension of all sorts of scandalous sinners in the Church from the Sacrament further confirmed out of Isidorus Pelusiota Dionysius Areopagita with his Scholiast Maximus and his paraphrast Pachimeres Also out of Cyprian Justin Martyr Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine Gregorius Magnus Walafridus Strabo CHAP. XVIII A discovery of the instability and loosenesse of M. Prynne his principles even to the contradicting of himselfe in twelve particulars AN Argument hinted by M. Prynne from the gathering together all guests to the wedding Supper both bad and good examined and foure answers made to it That M. Prynne doth professe and pretend to yeeld the thing for which his Antagonists contend with him but indeed doth not yeeld it his Concessions being clogged with such things as do evacuate and frustrate all Church Discipline That M. Prynne contradicteth himselfe in twelve particulars Foure Counter-quaerees to him A discourse of M. Fox the Author of the Booke of Martyrs concerning three sorts of persons who are unwilling that there should be a Discipline or power of Censures in the Church The Names of Writers or Workes cited and made use of in this Tractate IS Abrabanel Melchier Adamus Ainsworth Aeschines Albaspinaeus Albinus Flaccus Alcuinus Alex. Alensis Algerus Ambrosius Ambrose the Monke Ammonius Alexandrinus Ampsinâ—ius Dutch Annotations English Annotations Apollâ—nius Aquinas Arabick N. T. Aretius Arias Montanus Aristótle Arnobius Irish Articles of faith Augustinus Azorius B BAlsamon Io. Baptista derubcis Baronius Basilius Magnus M r Bayne Becanus Becmanus Beda Bellarmine Bertramus Beza Bilson Brentius Brochmand Brughton Mart. Bucerus Gers. Bucerus Budoeus Bullingâ—r Buxtorff C CAbeljavius Cajetanus Calvin I. Camero Camerarius Canons of the African Church L. Capellus D. Carthusianus Cartwright I. Casaubon The Magdeburgian Centurists Chaldee Paraphrase Chamiâ—rus Chemnitius Chrysostomus D. Chytraeus Is. Clarus Fr. à S. Clara Clemens Clemens Alexandrinus Nic. de Clemangis Iudocus Clichtoveus I. Cloppenburgius I. Coch M r Coleman Aâ—gid de Coninck Barthol Coppen Balthasar â—orderius Corpus Disciplinae M r Cotoon Tomes of Councels Richardus Cowsin Cyprian Cyrill D DAnâ—us R. David Ganz Demosâ—henes M. David Dickson Didoclavius Lud. de Dieu Mich. Dilherrus Diâ—dati The Directory of both Kingdomes Dioâ—yfins 〈◊〉 Synâ—d of Dort Iesuits of Doway I. Drusius Duâ—renus Durandus Duranâ—s E ELias R. Eliâ—ser C â— Empereur Erastus Erasmus C. Espenâ—us Esâ—ius Euthymius Aben Ezra F FAâ—ritius M r Fox Ch. Francken Hist. of the troubles at Franckeford The Disciplin of the reformed Churches of Franâ— D r Fulkâ— G P. Galatinus Phil. Gamachaeus Gelenius Laws and Statuâ—es of Genevah Genebrardus Geo. Genzius I. â—rhardus Gesnerus Sâ—l Glassius Godwyn Gomarus Gorranus Gregorius Magnus Gregorius Thaumaturgus Professors of Groning Grotius Gualther H HArmony of confessions Harmonia Synoderâ—n Belgicarum Haymo Helmichius Hemmiugius Heshusius Hesychius Hierâ— Hilarius M. Hildersham P. Hinkelmannus Fraâ— Holy-Oke 〈◊〉 Honnius Hâ—go de S. Uictâ—re Hugâ— Cardiâ—lis L. Humfredus Aegid Hâ—ius M. Hussey Hutterus I KIng Iames Iansenâ—us I'lyricus Iâ—nocentius 3. Iosephus Iosuae levitae Halichoth Olam Isidorus Hispâ—lensis Isidorus 〈◊〉 Iulius Caesar Fr. Iunius Iustinus Martyr K KEâ—erm â—nnus D r Kâ—llet C. Kirâ—erus L COrn a Lapide Lavater Laurentius de la barre M r Leigh Nieolaus Lambardus Lorinus Lutheâ—us Lyrâ— M MAccovius Maimonides Maldonat Manâ—sseh Ben. Israel Conciliaâ—or Marianae Marlorat Martial M. Martinius P. Martyr Maximus Medina Meisnerus Menochius Mercerus P. Maulin Munsterus Musculus N G. Nazianzen I. Newenklaius Nonnus Novarinus O OEcumenius Origen Luc. Osiander P PAchymeres M r Paget Pagnin Paraeus Parker Pasor Pelargus Pellicanus Pemble Philo the Iew Piscator Plato Polanus M r Prynne R RAbanus Maurus Raynolds The Remonstranâ—s Revius Rittangelius D. Rivetus Rupertus Tuitiensis M. Rutherfurd S EManuel Sa Salmasius Salmeron M. Salâ—marsh Sanctius Saravia I. Scaliger Scapula Schindlerus Ionas Schlichtingius The Booke of Discipline of Scotland Scotus Subtilis M. Selden The 〈◊〉 â—eius F. Socinâ—s â—ipingius Fr. Spanbemiâ—t Spelman Stegmannus Strigelius Suarez Suidas Suâ—livius Syariacâ— N. T. T TAcianus The Talmud Tannerus Tertullian Theodoretus Theophylactus Tilenus Tirinus Titus Bostrorum Episcapus Toletus Tostatus Tossanus Trelcatius Triglandius Tully W WAlaeus Walafridus Strabo M r Io. Welsh Mr Iohn Weyâ—es of Craigton Mr Iohn Weimes of Lathoâ—ker Westhemerus Whitgift Whittakerus Willet I. Winkelmannus Wolphius V GR. de Valentia Vatablus Uazquez Uedelius Uictor Antiochenus
but publique and penitentiall was made in the Temple before and in the hearing of the Priest I prove from Philo the Jew In his booke de sacr Abelis Caini at the close speaking of the Levites ministery he saith that he did execute and performe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all those services which belong to a perfect Priesthood and to the bringing of man to God whether by burnt-offerings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut pro peccatis quorum paenitet saith Gelenius the Interpreter meaning the trespasse-offerings But observe further he speaks of the penitentiall part as a publique thing or rather of the publique declaration of repentance Repentance of sinnes that is repentance declared or professed which was in the confession joyned with the trespasse-offerings was one of the chiefe things about which the Leviticall ministery was exercised which is the cleare sence of the place More plainly the same Philo lib. de victimis towards the close where he tels that certaine parts of the trespasse-offerings were eaten by the Priests and that these must be eaten in the Temple he gives this reason for it lest the penitents sinne and shame should be divulged and punished more then needs must which intimateth that the particular offence was so confessed that it was made knowne to such as were within the Temple The third Scripturall proofe is Num. 5. 6 7. When a man or a woman shall commit any sinne that men commit to doe a trespasse against the Lord and that person be guilty Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done and he shall recompence his trespasse c. The Hebrews expound it thus All the precepts in the Law whether they command or forbid a thing if a man transgresse against any one of them either presumptuously or ignorantly when he maketh repentance and turneth from his sinne he is bound to confesse before the blessed God as in Numb 5. 7. This confession is with words and it is commanded to be done How doe they confesse He saith Oh God I have sinned I have done perversely I have trespassed before thee and have done thus and thus and loe I repent and am ashamed of my doings and I will never doe this thing againe And this is the foundation of confession And who so maketh a large confession and is long in this thing he is to be commended And so the owners of sinne and trespasse-offerings when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sinnes atonement is not made for them by their oblation untill they have made Repentance and Confession by word of mouth 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 pay him whatsoever he oweth him atonement is not made for him tell he confesse and turne away from doing so againe for ever as it is written in Num. 5. 6. Any of all the sinnes of men All this Ainsworth transcribeth out of Maimony in Misn. treat of Repentance Chap. 1. Sect. 1. See also the Latin Edition of the Jewish Canons of Repentance Printed at Cambridge Ann. 1631. Where beside that passage in the first Chapter concerning the necessity of confessing by word of mouth that sinne for which the Trespasse offering was brought you have another plaine passage cap. 2. for publike confession not of private sinnes known to God onely but of known sinnes by which others were scandalized In which passage I nnderstand by sinnes against God sinnes known to God onely 1. Because its forbidden to reveale those sinnes therefore they were secret 2. Because otherwise those Canons shall contradict themselves for cap. 1. it 's told us that all who brought trepasse offerings were bound to confesse by word of mouth the sinne which they had done without which confession they got not leave to make atonement by the trespasse-offering Now trespasse offerings were for sinnes against God as well as for sinnes against man 3. It should otherwise contradict the Law Num. 5. 6. which appointeth any sinne or trespasse against the Lord to be confessed 4. Those trespasses were to be publikely confessed for which in case of impenitency and obstinacy a man was excommunicated with Cherem or the greater Excommunication But a man was excommunicated for divers sinnes against God which did not at all wrong his Neighbour setting a side the scandall Which I have proved before These four reasons will prove either that the meaning of that Canon must be of private sinnes and not of publike and scandalous sinnes against the first Table or otherwise that the Canon is contrary to and inconsistent with both Scripture Reason and other Rabbinnicall writings From the Law Num. 5. thus explained observe concerning the Confession of sinne 1. It was for any scandalous sinne of commission or omission against the first or second Table 2. It was not free and voluntary to the offender I doe not say that he wâ—s compelled to it by any externall Force or coercive power but he was commanded and obliged by the Law to confesse Vatablus on Num. 5. 7. Fatebuntur 1. â— tâ—…nebuntur fateri they shall confesse that is they shall be bound to confesse and a man was not admitted with his trespasse offering except he confessed 3. It was done by word of mouth 4. And publikely before the Congregation that were present 5. The particular trespasse was named in the Confession 6. Sinnes both of Ignorance and Malice when scandalous were to be confessed 7. The sinner was not slinted to a Prescript forme of words in Confession but was to enlarge his confession as his heart was enlarged 8. In Criminall and Capitall cases beside the civill or corporall punishment confession was to be made because of the scandall which had been given Which doth further appeare from the Talmud it selfe in Sanhedrin cap. 6. Sect. 2. for that is observed in all who are put to death that they must confesse for whoever doth confesse he hath part in the world to come and namely it is recorded of Achan that Joshua said to him my Sonne give now Glory to the Lord God of Israel and make confession unto him And Achan answered Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel and thus and thus c. Whence is it collected that his confession did expiate his sinne And Joshua said why hast thou troubled us God shall trouble thee this day This day thou shalt be troubled not in the world to come The like you read of Achan in Pirke R. Elieser cap. 38. I know Achans confession was not in the Sanctuary nor at a Trespasse offering But I make mention of it because Erastus holdeth that under the Law confession was onely required in such cases where the sinne was not criminall or capitall Which is confuted by the afore-mentioned passages in Maimonides and
might not eat the Passeover Whether it were the coming into the house of Pilate he being a man uncircumcised or whether it were which I rather think a litigious action upon a Holy-day which might have defiled them this is plaine that they thought there was a morall uncleannesse signified by the ceremoniall uncleanesse which might keep men from the Passeover The fifth animadversion shall be this whereas Erastus holdeth pag. 106. that under the law every one was judged cleane or uncleane according to his owne judgement and conscience aud not according to the Priests the Lepers onely excepted Also that when a man had committed any sinne it was in the free will of the sinner to expiate his sinne when he pleased and he was no way compelled to it I answer If every uncleane person except the Leper was allowed to judge and pronounce himself cleane when he pleased then to what purpose did that Law serve Lev. 7. 20. 21. or that whoever was uncleane and had not purified himself was not to be admitted to come into the Tabernacle and if he presumed to come he was to be cut off from the congregation Num. 19 By Erastus his principles no man should have been cut off if he had pleaded himself not to be uncleane and how many would doe so if that could save them from being cut off Is it not also plaine from Levit. 15. 15. 30. 31. that both men and women who were uncleane by their issues not by Leprosie were to bring an offering to the Priest for their cleansing otherwise were not to be accounted cleane but lookt upon as defilers of the Tabernacle in their uncleannesse whatever they might thinke of themselves So women that were unclean after Child-Birth had not power to pronounce themselves cleane and were not free to come to the Sanctuary when they pleased but they were first to bring a sinne offering and the Priest was to make atonement for them Lev. 12. 6. 7. 8. There was a certaine number of dayes appointed for the cleansing both of women after Child-Birth and of men who had an issue yea when the dayes of the cleansing were full-filled they were not free to come unto the Tabernacle except they brought their offering for atonement Lev. 12. 6. 7. 15. v. 13. 14. 15. Philo the Jew de vita Mosis lib. 3. pag. 531. tells us there was a certaine definit time till the expiring whereof those that were uncleane by a dead body were excluded from the Temple Iosephus antiq Iud. lib. 3. cap. 10. records the like not onely of Lepers but of those that had an issue or were defiled by the dead that till the set time was fulfilled all these were kept back from the congregration The other thing which Erastus saith that it was left free to the sinner to expiate his sinne when he pleased doth no better agree with the Word for it was commanded that upon the very knowledge of the sinne the trespasse offering should be brought and the sinne confessed Levit. 4. 14. 28. 5. 3. 4. 5. Sixthly whereas Erastus pag. 105. urgeth the universall Law by which all are commanded to keep the Passeover except the uncleane and those in a journey therefore all others how flagitious or scandalous soever in their lives were bound to keep it I answer Who knows not that many universalls in Scripture are to be restricted and not to be understood as the words at first sound as Io. 2. 10. every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine that is every Master of a feast Luk. 13. 15. doth not each one of you on the Sabbath lose his Oxe or his Asse that is each one that hath an Oxe or an Asse Io. 10. 8. all that ever came before me were Theeves and Robbers meaning whoever before him did make himself the true doore by which the sheep must enter in So Ioel. 2. 28. I will poure out my spirit upon all flesh yet not upon all and every one but upon those onely whom he receiveth in Covenant Rev. 13. 8. and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him the Beast whose names are not written in the Booke of life yet there have been many reprobates who neither worshipped the Pope nor knew him but it is meant of all under the power of the Beast So when all are commanded to keep the Passeover it must be understood of all sit persons and such as were not to be excepted You will say the Law excepteth none but the unclean and those in a journey therefore all others not excepted were to keep it for where an exception is made from an universall Rule that Rule is the more sure and certaine concerning all other particulars not excepted To that I answer Erastus himself addeth another exception and that is of the sick who could not be present The Hebrewes make divers other exceptions for they say Women and Servants are not bound to appear but all men are bound except the deaf and the Dumb and the Foole and the little-Child and the Blinde and the Lame and the defiled and the uncircumcised and the old man and the sick and the tender and weake which are not able to goe up on their Feet All these eleven are discharged c. See Ainsworth on Exo. 23. 17. And compare this with Maimonides de Idolol châ—o 11. Sect. 18. where he that hearkens to Sooth-sayers Wizards Charmers and the like is said to be reckoned among Fooles and Children whose reason is imperfect Therefore these were to be excepted as well as Fools and Children and so were other scandalous persons which I shall prove anon A Seventh Animadversion shall be this Erastus in these Arguments of his from the Law doth confound Sacraments with Sacrifices as I touched in the beginning yea he argueth expressely that whoever were admitted to expiate their Sinne by Sacrifices were thereby admitted to Sacraments because saith he all these Sacrifices were true Sacraments So he speaketh in other places that he might seeme to dispute the more appositely for promiscuous admission to the Sacrament of the Lord Supper But Sacrifices and Sacraments are as different as Giving and Receiving In Sacrifices man is the giver God is the Receiver In Sacraments God is the Giver Man is the Receiver In Sacrifices Peace is made with God In Sacraments it is sealed and supposed to be made They therefore that hold the Passeover was a Sacrifice an opinion partly grounded on Deut. 16. 2. and partly taken from the Jewes dispersed who though they observe divers paschall rites yet they doe not kill the Paschall Lambe nor keep the Passeover according to the Law it being to them unlawfull to offer Sacrifices except in the Land of Canaan have the shorter evasion from Erastus his Argument touching the admission to the Passeover But I have given other answers And this much shall suffice for answer to the Erastian Arguments drawn from the Law of Moses which some suppose
it How had the false Apostles insulted at this Is this the great Apostle of the Gentiles who hath not power from God to work a miracle when himself professeth he would gladly have it wrought Fourteenthly that passage 2 Cor. 10. 6. is by some brought not without very considerable Reasons for the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical censures And have in readinâ—…sse saith the Apostle or as the Syriack we are ready to revenge all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled Novarinus in 2 Cor. 10. 6. plerique de excommunicandi potestate haec verba interpretantur In this sence was the Text understood a thousand yeers ago by Gegroâ—…y Epist. lib. 2. cap. 37. The Dutch Annotations upon the place say that the Apostles meaning is of declaring the vengeance of God against the obstinate and of exercising the Ecclesiastical Banne or Discipline against those who professing themselves members of the Congregation do yet teach or lead unchristian lives or doctrine Others also among whom is Master David Dickson understand Church-censures to be here meant The Apostle is in that Chapter confuting the calumny of such as said of him His Epistles were weighty and powerful and did speak of great things but when he himself is bodily present he doth but little he assumes no great authority he is weak and almost contemptible In answer hereunto he tells them The weapons of our warfare speaking not onely in his own name but in the name of all the Ministers of Christ though they be not carnal yet they are mighty through God to conquer and captivate souls to the obedience of Christ. And as for the stubborn and unruly we are armed with a power of corrective government which shall be more fully executed in due time There is but one of two Interpretations which can with any probability seem to agree to this Text namely that it is meant either of the extraordinary Apostolical power by which they did miraculously punish some offenders as Peter did Ananias and Sapphira and as Paul did Eâ—…ymas or of a corrective Church-government and Excommunication The Reasons which induce me to believe that the Apostle meaneth here of Church-censures especially Excommunication and not of that extraordinary miraculous power are these 1. The reason added When your obedience is fulfilled cannot suit to the power of working miracles for it had been the more seasonable to work such miracles while the obedience of the Corinthians was not yet fulfilled Miracles are not for them that believe but for them that believe not saith the same Apostle But it suits very well to the power of Church-censures for as Esthius and Novarinus explain the Apostles reason it is in vain to excommunicate all such as are worthy of Excommunication when there is a general reâ—itency and unwillingnesse in the Church or to cut off a member when the same evil hath infected either the whole or the greatest part of the body which Augustine also tells us in divers places And this by the way confirms the reason which I gave why the Apostle onely wisheth those that troubled the Galatians to be cut off but doth not command it in regard of the present unwillingnesse and disaffection of those Churches 2. We may have a great deal of light to this place by comparing it with Chaâ—… 12. verse 20 21. and Chap. 13. verse 2. Many among the Corinthians had sinned foul and â—eandalous sins whereof they had not repented and for which they were not censured or cast out of the Church The Apostle certifieth them that if he come he will not spare What was it his meaning to work a miracle upon every fornicator and each other scandalous person in the Church of Corinth No sure mark his words Now I write to them which heretofore have sinned and to ALL OTHER that if I come again I will not spare Who can imagine his meaning to be that he would work a miracle upon them and all other So â—ere when it is said having in readinessâ—… to 〈◊〉 ALL 〈◊〉 let it be remembred that the Apostolical power of miracles was never appointed to be executed against ALL disobedience Thirdly that which the Apostle saith of the Spiritual weapons mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds c. was not proper or peculiar to the Apostles but is rightly applied to all the Ministers of the Gospel the more hardly can it be supposed that what is immediately added and as it were with one breath uttered And having in readinesse to 〈◊〉 all disobedience is meant of the extraordinary Apostolical power Fourthly such as the weapons are for conquering and subduing souls to the obedience of Christ such is the corrective or punitive part there spoken of But the weapons for conquering are meerly Spiritual not corporal Therefore the corrective or punitive part there spoken of is also Spiritual and so doth not concern the inflicting of corporal punishment such as the Erastians understand by delivering to Satan Fifteenthly an Ecclesiastical ruling power may be proved from 2 Cor. 2. 8. I beseech you that you would confirm your love towards him Here is a Juridical power of loosing and consequently of binding for it belongeth to the same power to binde and loose to excommunicate and to absolve An authoritative juridical loosing I prove from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifieth the making a thing sure or firm by a decisive suffrage authoritative judgement or ratificatory and obligatory sentence past upon it Hen. Stephanus in Thes. linguae Gr. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that this Text 2 Cor. 2. 8. is more rightly read Ut ratam faciatis in illum charitatem then as the vulgar Latin hath it Ut confirmetis The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he expoundeth thus Auctoritatem do auctoritate mea comprobo vel ratum habeo ratum facio Pasor renders the same Verb sancio ratum facio and citeth for that sence 2 Cor. 2. 6. So Erasmus likewise upon the place So Cartwright upon the same place against the Rhemists So Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trident. part 4. de Indulg pag. 53. The force of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was urged against the opinion of Erastus in a publike Dispute at Heydelberg the narration whereof is left by Ursinus in his Catechetical explications That the word signifieth an authoritative act and supposeth a ruling power may be thus further confirmed First who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No doubt the Apostle borroweth the word from the language and customs of the Heathen Greeks Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a fixed or set lawful Assembly which met with a judicial ruling power and ratified a thing by decisive suffrages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stephanus and Scapula in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus in 2 Cor. 2. 8. Arias Montanus in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us that to the
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
pray and worship This also he hath to prove not that religious publicans of whom Christ means not but that impious infamous Publicans came to the Temple 6. That passage Luke 18. 10. concerning the Publicans goe ing up to the Temple to pray first it is expressely declared to be a parable Vers. 9. and therefore can not prove the reality of the thing according to the letter no more than an audible conference between Abraham and the rich man in Hell can be proved from Luke 16. 24. to the end of the Chapter though I believe that be a History related parabolically as Vâ—…ssius proveth in his Theses farre lesse can a parable properly so called prove an historicall narration The meaning may be no other but this that if such a Publican and such a Pharisee should goe up to the Temple to pray then the one should depart justified and the other not 7. I can also grant without any prejudice to the businesse of Excommunication that the Publican yea an execrable Publican did goe up to the Temple to pray For an excommunicate person among the Jewes as many thinke so long as there was hope of his repentance had leave to come into the utter Court of the Temple yet so that they came in at the gate of the mourners and excommunicate persons were known by all that saw them to be excommunicate persons More of this Booke 1. cap. 4. 8. This very Text Luke 18. helpes us For t is said Vers. 13. The Publican stood afarre off that is in the opinion of Diodati in some remote part of the first Court of the Temple 1 Kings 8. 41. It is very probable whereof see Book 1. chap. 9. that the Intermurale or atrium Gentium is meant which sometime hath the name of the Temple To the Publicans standing afarre off is opposed the Pharisees standing by himselfe Vers. 11. where I construct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Camero doth So Camerarius and Beza following the Syriack and some old Greek copies he stood apart by himselfe the very custome making it so that the Publican should not come neere him but stand in atrio Gentium 9. The reason why Publicans are named as hatefull and execrable persons was not for civill respects nor because Publicans for the Jewes themselves did not refuse to keep company with good and just Publicans as I shall prove afterwards particularly it was not for their Tax-gathering a particular mentioned by M r Prynne it seems to strengthen his exposition of civill injuries but for divers scandalous sinnes and abominable prophanesse therefore publicans and sinners publicans and harlots publicans and gluttons and wine-bibbers are almost synonyma's in the Gospell Matth. 9. 11. 11. 19. 21. 32. Murke 2. 16. Luke 5. 30. and Publicans are named as the worst of men Matth. 5. 46 47. the most of them being so reputed From all this which hath been said in answer to his fourth reason it appeareth that let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican is more than he would make it keepe not any familar company or have no civill fellowship with him And whereas page 4. he saith that Paul expresly interprets it so 1 Cor. 5. 10 11 12. 2 Thess 3. 4. Ephes. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. I answer out of himselfe in that same place and pag. 5. Let him be to thee as an Heathen c. is a phrase never used elsewhere in Scripture How then saith he that Paul doth expresly interpret it Paul commandeth to withdraw fellowship and that for any scandalous sin in a Church-member although it be no private injury to us as the places quoted by himselfe make it manifest Therefore Paul doth expresly interpret that phrase Mat. 18. to be meant of withdrawing civill fellowship only What consequence is there here I come to his fifth and last reason the words runue only Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican not to the whole Church Answ. 1. This is the very thing he said in his first Quaere which is answered before I shall onely adde here another answer out of Erastus who argueth thus One brother should forgive another seventy times in a day if the offending brother doe so oft turn againe and crave pardon Therefore so should the Church doe to a sinner that craveth pardon even as often as he doth crave pardon For saith he there can be no just reason given wherefore the whole Church ought not to doe herein what Church members ought to doe severally If this be a good argument when Christ saith If thy brother repent forgive him Luke 17. 334. by which place M r Prynne expoundeth Matth. 18. 15. will it not be as good an argument Let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican therefore let him be such to the whole Church when the whole Church is offended by his obstinacy and impenitency 2. Those words Let him be to thee cannot be restrictive It must be at least extended to all such as are commanded to rebuke their brother and if he continue obstinate to tell the Church Now the commandement for rebuking our brother that fals into a scandalous sinne is not restricted to him that is personally or particularly wronged but it is a common Law of spirituall love Levit. 19. 17. Yea saith M r Hildersham lect 36. on Psal. 51. Every man hath received â—… commandement from Christ to informâ—… the governours of the Church of such a brother as cannot otherwise be reformed Matth. 18. 17. Tell the Church If it belong to every Church member to reprove a scandalous sinne which his brother committeth in his â—ight or hearing or to his knowledge and if he repent not to tell the Church then it also belongs to every Church member to esteeme him as an Heathen man and a Publican if he heare not the Church 3. The next words Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Hraven being spoken to the Apo les and in them to other Miniâ—ers of Jesus Christ doe expound the former words Let him be unto thee c. to be meant not of private withdrawing of fellowship but of a publique Church censure 4. The reason why Chriâ— will have such an offender to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican is not the offence and fault first committed but his obstinacy and contumacy in that offence and his neglecting to heare the Church So that suppose the offence had been a private or personall injury yet that for which theÌ„ offender is to be esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican toucheth the whole Church and is a generall scandall to them all namely his contumacy and not hearing the Church How can it then be imagined that Christ would onely have one Church member to esteem a man as an Heathen and a Publican for that which is a common generall scandall to the whole Church Munsterus in his Annotations upon Matth. 18. doth
the people were inclined to hearken to doctrine by miracles which moveth natural men to flock together to see strange things saith Mr. Hussey Plea for Christian Magistracy pag. 30. which he is pleased to clear by peoples flocking to a Mountebank Other Texts which he citeth speak of miracles but not a syllable of conversion or regeneration wrought by miracles as Act. 15. 12. Act. 19. 11. 12. Among the rest of the Texts he citeth Iohn 6. 26. Ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled And hence forsooth he will prove that miracles did convert and regenerate men I had not touched these particulars were it not that I desire Mr. Prynn himself in the fear of God may be convinced of his making too bold with the Scripture in citing and applying it very far amisse and that for the future his Reader may be wary and not take from him upon trust a heap of Scriptural quotations such as often he bringeth In the fourth place he tells us That the things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts then the things we hear He means I think do more effectually convert for so he makes the Application that the very beholding of Christs Person passion without the Word were the most effectual means of working contrition conversion c. Well What is his proof He citeth Christs words to his Disciples Blessed are your eyes for they see without adding the rest and your ears for they hear and Simeons words Mine eyes have seen thy salvation as if forsooth either Simeon or the Apostles had been converted and regenerated by the seeing of Christs person He cites also Luk. 23. 46 47 48. as if all who beholding Christs passion and death smote upon their breasts had been by that sight converted and regenerated That the things we behold with our eyes if they be great or strange things work deep impressions there can be no doubt of it But that the hearing of great things may not work as deep impressions or that seeing without hearing doth convert and regenerate hath been strongly affirmed by Mr. Prynn but not yet proved I proceed to his seventh Argument which is this The most melting soul-changing meditation is the serious contemplation of Christs death and Passion No meditation comparable to this to regenerate and convert a carnal heart And is not this effectually represented to our eyes hearts in this very Sacrament in a more powerful prevailing manner then in the Word alone Answ. That which he had to subsume and prove is that this Sacrament worketh in a unregenerate carnal heart such soul changing meditations of the death and passion of Christ as it never had before the soul having never before been regenerate Which being the point to be proved why did he not prove it if he could No doubt the Sacrament is a most powerful mean to beget in the hearts of beleevers and regenerate persons most humbling and melting meditations concerning the death of Christ. But that it begetteth any soul changing or regenerating meditations in those in whom the Word hath never yet begun the work of regeneration and conversion I do as much disagree in this as I agree in the other The eighth Argument which he brings is from comparing the Sacrament with afflictions Our own corporal external afflictions are many times without the Word the means of our repentance and conversion unto God c. Then much more the Sacrament wherein the afflictions of Christ himself are so visibly set forth before our eyes Answ. 1. It is a very bad consequence for the strength resolves into this principle an unregenerate carnal man will be more affected and moved with the representation of Christs afflictions than with the feeling of his own corporal afflictions 2. Affliction doth not convert without the Word either going before or accompanying it unlesse we say that Pagans or Turks may be converted savingly by affliction before ever they hear the Word Psal. 94. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest and teachest him out of thy Law Job 36. 9. 10. 11. And if they be bound in fetters and holden in cords of affliction Then he sheweth them their work and their transgression that they have exceeded He openeth also their ear to Discipline and commandeth that they return from iniquity Behold conversion by afflictions but not without the Word While Mr. Prynn goeth about to prove that afflictions convert without the Word the first Text he citeth is Psal. 119. 67. 71. where expresse mention is made of the Word 3 As for Manasseh his conversion 2 Chron. 33. 11. 12. it was wrought by the means of affliction setting home upon his Conscience that Word of God mentioned in the verse imediatly preceding which saith and the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people but they would not hearken Let him shew the like instance of the conversion by the Sacrament of such as would not hearken to the Word and I shall yeeld the cause The Word is expresse that affliction is one special powerful mean of conversion but it no where saith any such thing of the Sacrament 4. It was also incumbent to him to prove that afflictions do convert without the Word not onely at such times and in such places as do sequester a person from the liberty of hearing the Word preached but also when and where the Word is freely enjoyed Otherwise how far is he from concluding by Analogy the point he had to prove which is that an unregenerate person living under the Ministery of the Gospel and being an ordinary hearer never converted by the Word may neverthelesse according to the dispensation of the grace of God revealed in Scripture be converted by the Sacrament received His ninth Argument is this That Ordinance whose unworthy participation is a means of our spiritual obduration must by the rule of contraries when worthily received be the instrument of our mortification conversion salvation But the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is a means c. Answ. 1. This Argument doth necessarily suppose that an unconverted unmortified unworthy person while such may yet worthily receive and so by that means be converted the contrary whereof I have demonstrated in my tenth Argument 2. If the Sacrament be not worthily received without repentance faith and self-examination for which cause men are dehorted to come except they repent c. then there is perfect non-sence in the Argument for to say that the Sacrament when worthily received is the instrument of conversion is as much as this The Sacrament is an instrument of conversion to those who are already converted 3. That rule of Contraries is extremely mis-applyed The rule is Oppositorum quatenus talia opposita sunt attributa Contraries have contrary attributes The comparison must be made secundum differentias quibus dissident Otherwise that old fallacy were a good Argument A single life is good
as the place holds forth by necessary plain consequence these three propositions 1. The ceremonial uncleannesse did signifie the moral uncleannesse and the effect of the former did signifie the effect of the latter 2. Unholy persons are not sanctified by their approaching to or joyning in holy Ordinances but he that is filthy will be filthy still and he that is unjust unjust still If God do not give them his Spirit to sanctifie them the Ordinances cannot do it 3. Yet unholy persons while such do defile holy Ordinances and that by moral as well as by ceremonial uncleannesse therefore the people themselves and every work of their hands being evil the Lord for that cause reckoneth their sacrifices to be unclean Did prophane persons defile the Sacrifices of old and do they not defile our Sacraments Nay I should think this much more then that there being more of the communion of Saints in our Sacraments then in their Sacrifices The ninth Argument which alone may conclude the point shall be taken from Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs neither cast ye your pearls before swine If the Sacrament be a holy thing and if prophane scandalous impenitent sinners be dogs and swyne then to give the Sacrament to such is to prophane and pollute the Sacrament and indeed no better but worse then to give pearls to swine Mr. Prynns reply vindic pag. 39. doth not take off this Argument For without any proof he restricteth to certain particulars that which the Text saith generally both of the things and of the persons First for the things He saith the Text is principally intended of not preaching the Gospel to such so that we must seclude them from the Word as well as from the Sacrament But I ask is it meant onely of the Word He hath not said so nor will I think say so Erastus himself pag. 207. confesseth it is meant also of the Sacraments The Text saith not the holy thing and the pearl but holy things pearls It must therefore be understood respective Some are so vile and so abominably prodigiously prophane blaspheâ—ous mockers persecuters that I ought not to preach to such but to turn away from them to others according to Christs direction and the Apostles example Others are such as I may preach unto yet ought not to pray or give thanks with them nor to admonish them and much lesse give them the Sacrament Others I may admonish and pray with them yet ought not to give them the Sacrament And all these by reason of that rule Give not that which is holy to dogs c. So that we are not bound up by this Text either to seclude men from the Word or otherwise from no holy thing Next The Argument holds à fortiori from the Word to the Sacrament For saith Pareus If Christ said this of the Word which is common to the converted and to the unconverted how much more must it be said of the Sacraments which are instituted onely for such as are converted As for that sort of persons which the Text speaks of Master Prynne following Erastus lib. 3. cap. 3. saith that these doggs and swine are onely such Infidels and Heathens who refused to embrace the Gospel and harbour the Preachers of it Or persâ—cutors of the Gospel and of the Ministers of it Or open Apostates from the Christian faith which they once embraced And he citeth divers Scriptures which he saith do expresly determine it But he observes not that the most which those Scriptures prove is that such men as he speaks of are doggs and swine which is not the Question That which he had to prove is that the doggs and swine which Christ speaks of are onely Infidels or persecutors or apostates from the Christian faith This ONELY he hath boldly averred but shall never prove it It is one thing to prove that Infidels persecutors and apostates are doggs and swine another thing to prove that there are no other doggs and swine That which the Apostle Peter saith of such as having escaped the pollutions of the world and known the way of righteousnesse do afterward turn aside from the holy Commandment namely that such do with the dog â—eturn to the vomit and with the sow that was washed to the wallowing in the mire 2 Pet. 2. 18 20 22. doth belong to all scandalous and backsliding Christians whether they be such in doctrine or in life onely and is generally so applied by Divines Erastus himself pag. 207. understandeth that vomit and puddle 2. Pet. 2. to be the sinful pleasures of the world relabuntur saith he glossing upon the place ad voluptates moresque hujus seculi And Solomon saith the same thing generally of an ungodly wicked person Prov. 26. 11. As a dog returneth to his vomit so a fool returneth to his folly Nor is it to be forgotten that the Apostle using the words of Epimenides calls the Cretians evil beasts Tit. 1. 12. because they professed to know God but in their works denied him being impure disobedient and unto every good work reprobate Wherefore the precept Matth. 7. 6. is rightly applied by Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist. 143. to the denying of the Sacrament to all persons of an unclean conversation as well as to Jews and Hereticks So Chrysostome doth apply this Text to the excluding of known unworthy men from the Sacrament and this he doth Homil. 1. de compunctione cordis as I remember And Hom. 83 in Matth. he hath these words to the same purpose If thou hadst a clear fountain committed to thy keeping to be kept clean by thee wouldst thou let filthy swine come and puddle in it how much more the fountain of the Blood of Christ Where by filthy swine he understandeth all unworthy and scandalous persons whatsoever as is evident by that which follows and by that also which went before where he gives instance of the scandals in life and conversation And upon the Text it self Matth. 7. he applieth it to a suspension of all such as were not acknowledged for visible Saints not onely from receiving but from beholding the Sacrament Hence was that in the ancient Church Sancta Sanctis at which word all others were dismissed before the receiving of the Sacrament who were not accounted visible Saints Hence came the distinction of duplex missa that is duplex dimissio Missa catechumenorum missa fidâ—…lium When the Catechumens were dismissed then also together with them were dismissed all scandalous persons who had scandalized the Church except such Penitents as having now in a great measure satisfied the Church-discipline and manifested their repentance publikely according to certain usual degrees of publike declaration of repentance were permitted to behold the giving and receiving of the Sacrament after the Catechumens were gone which yet themselves were not admitted to partake of till they had gone thorow all the degrees and finished the whole course of publikely manifesting Repentance onely