prescribed how far some rites of Moses were dispensable We have then three expositions of the words of Christ whatsoever ye shall bind c. none of which make for a presbyterian excommunication but contrarily they destroy it for all these three expositions are sutable to the literall and mysticall meaning which is absolute and without condition Christ promising to bind and loose in heaven whatsoever shall be bound and loosed on earth whereas those that expound that place of binding and loosing of excommunication are forced to put a condition to the absolute words of Christ telling us that they must be understood clave non errante in case there is no errour in him that excommunicates And therefore Beza against Erastus and some others fearing the many inconveniences and absurdities that follow upon the literall sense that Gods binding and loosing in heaven should steer according to the binding and loosing on earth by excommunication and absolution expounds the words of Christ as if he had said whatsoever shall be bound and loosed in heaven shall also be bound and loosed on earth that is the minister excommunicating on earth doth but declare what God hath already done in heaven which is the opinion of some schoolmen namely of Dominicus à Soto lib. 4. dist 14. qu. 1. art 3. saying that the words ego te ligo I excommunicate thee are equivalent to these I declare that God hath already excommunicated thee But I think this exposition is cumbered with more absurdities then the vulgar 1. Who knoweth the mind of God 2. and whether he hath excommunicated from the inward or from the outward communion surely not from the inward for then excommunication should not be a soul-saving ordinance as the Rever Assembly tell us nor from the outward this being an act of man not of God except one say that the minister outwardly acted what in his secret counsell he hath decreed but still the difficulty will be how the minister is acquainted with Gods secret and not revealed will and if he be acquainted with it how can an outward action in which the pastor may erre be a consequent of an unerring sentence of God But however the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing is to be understood the new Testament speaketh of governments in the church and of ruling and rulers and it enjoyneth the faithfull to obey those that rule over them and St. Paul biddeth Timothy not to receive lightly an accusation against an elder So farre then the word of God alloweth a government distinct from that of the magistrate and endoweth the ministers of the Gospell with a power of ruling and governing But this power is neither of the nature of the magistrates power nor of that they call ecclesiasticall which we have proved to be wholly the same with the magistrates power This power of the ministers ruling and governing is something like that power that Princes and masters of heathen schools had over their disciples scholars and auditors as Plato Zeno Aristotle who had a great power over their minds but no jurisdiction over their bodies estates and outward liberties it is true they kept them in awe respect and obedience but it was a voluntary submission to their precepts like that of Alexander the great to the commands of the Physitians This being the ministeriall power in a shadow it is more expressely set down in the Scripture and no doubt that power is the noblest power and greatest power in the universe next to that of creating and redeeming the world a power that the Son of God had and managed in this world none have such warrant of authority as to be Ambassadours from Christ none have such an errand there is no tye of obedience like that to their commands But still this ministeriall power commands and authority and the obedience due to them are not of the nature of the power and obedience observed in churches or magistrates judicatories For 1. The magistrates and churches judicatories do not only enjoyn the commands of God but also their own but the ministers of the Gospells power is only to deliver what they have received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. even Moses Deut. 4. v. 5. acknowledgeth that he taught nothing but what God enjoyned him 2. Accordingly a member of a church doth not obey the word of his Pastor but of God Col. 2. v. 22. Marc. 7. v. 7. 1 John 3. v. 24. chap. 5. v. 3. When the pastor hath no command of the Lord as 1 Cor. 7. v. 25. then he delivers his own judgement and counsell and that counsell a church-member hath no command to obey though he ought to have discretion and condescension enough to follow it if he conceiveth it tends to mutuall edification Yet in a church constituted there being need of a power of magistracy either delegated or assumed by a confederate discipline and a magistrate-like jurisdiction being set up in his congregation he ought as every church-member even when he apprehendeth no tye to obey the pastors command as Gods command to obey by an obedience either active or passive the commands of that magistrate which himself hath elected when by a joint consent they all agreed upon a form of discipline 3. Church-judicatories if they make any lawes decrees or resolve upon a censure to be inflicted upon a church-member they require obedience and submission without arguing or disputing the case or having the liberty either to yield to them or to decline them if they list But the true pastorall power commandeth only understanding free and wise men that are able to judge 1 Cor. 10 v. 15. like those of Beroea who so hearkened to the voice of St. Paul that ere they obeyed it they consulted the Scripture to know whether it were so as he taught them 4. The ecclesiasticall presbyteriall power like that of the magistrate requireth obedience to its lawes ordinances and decrees not because they are good just and equitable but because it so pleased the law-givers for a man excommunicated never so unjustly is to submit to the validity of the sentence not to the equity which as our brethren and Mr. Gillespie teach us is not in the breast of the party judged but of the judge But the true ministeriall power requireth no obedience to its commands but of such as are perswaded or convinced of the goodnesse truth and equity of the law and sentence The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both to believe be perswaded to obey which intimateth that he truly performeth the pastorall commands who believeth in the name of the Lord Jesus for this is the main commandement of Christ as the next is that we should love one another Such commands are not obeyed by the motion of the body but by that of the heart and affections The power of magistracy commandeth the hand to give almes to the poor but the power of the minister commandeth to give them with a ready mind one
in severall acts of theirs as when they convert others which otherwise is the work of the publick ministery and when a brother forgiveth heartily a brother and beseecheth God to forgive him or a wronged party complaineth to God in secret of a notable injurie received openly for which he cannot have satisfaction by men And of this kind of binding and loosing by private men may be understood the words Matth. 18. v. 18. as Theophylactus Erastus and Gualterus expound them But this private men do not by any duty inherent in their outward calling and office but by a dispensation of God whose spirit bloweth where it listeth employing the ministery of a weak simple woman or artificer either to confound or convert the great and wise ones of the world sometimes binding and loosing without any intervention of private mens prayers and complaints but only at the sight of some great oppression sustained even when the party oppressed is taken away or of blood shed which as it doth cry to heaven so may it be said to bind in heaven Therefore ministers being by vertue of their office and calling to bind and to loose I do not understand how any other persons as lay-elders and members of presbyteries and synods should have an ordinary power to bind and to loose and have the keyes of heaven committed to them and yet not be entrusted with the word of reconciliation and with the preaching of the Gospell Hath the Lord Jesus Christ given a commission by halves so as that some church-officers shall have a power of binding and loosing for the Rever Assembly ascribeth to all church-officers indifferently that power who are not to have the power of preaching and of administring the sacraments I further acknowledge that the church hath had from the time of the Apostles helps of government of which Ambrose speaketh and such as the Jewish synagogues had but that they had one part of the power of the keyes which they will have to be the government had not the other part which is of preaching the Gospell and converting men to Christ I read no where neither in Scripture nor in antiquity for as the power of the keyes cannot be severed from the power of binding and loosing so neither of these two qualifications will admit a division as that lay-elders should have but a share in the handling of the keyes and ministers should have them entirely Whosoever readeth the outlandish divines all presbyterians will find that they ascribe no power of the keyes to other church-officers then ministers of the Gospell that what power other officers as lay-elders have is meerly by concession of the pastors and as Maresius saith by communication Loco 15. § 75. these be his words sic residet penes senatum ecclesiasticum omnis jurisdictio ecclesiastica ut illa proprie sit radicaliter in pastoribus in senioribus vero qui illis assident communicative So Capellus the sium parte priore dividing the church-officers thes 32. gives the whole power of the keyes and of excommunicating to the pastors not the rectors Pastores habent potestatem docendi arguendi increpandi si opus sit à sacris arcendi atque submovendi quod excommunicare dicitur So that they do but claw the other church-officers with the key of discipline which as Maresius speaketh is radically in the pastors and to that purpose speaketh a great Divine whom I alledge Paraenes p. 600. when lay-men sit in councills and there deliver their opinions as judges about articles of faith and the use of the keyes this is done more by the concession of pastors then by any right or ancient custome Here by the way it is observable that as the power of binding and loosing and the power of the keyes are convertible and equivalent terms in a proposition so one of them is not more divisible then the other Now sure it is there can be no such thing as a lesse measure of power of the keyes committed to lay-elders and a greater to ministers for this power of the keyes being a power of introducing men into the church either visible or invisible specially that power by which God opens the hearts of men by the preaching of the Gospell it cannot be conceived that it ought to be or is performed by halves as that the lay-elders should have one half of that power committed to them and that Jesus Christ had given them the keyes of heaven but not the main operation of the keyes as if one should give the keeping of his keyes to his steward but not the power to open the doors with them Since then it is not likely that the Lord Jesus Christ hath committed the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven by halves the like also must be thought of the power of binding loosing which are by all divines taken for one and the same It is the opinion both of the rever dissenting brethren and of the Rever Assembly in a book called reasons of the dissenting c. p. 6. and 58. that both keyes are given together and not one without the other though as the Rever Assembly saith one may be abler to exercise one then the other which sheweth that no church-officer can albeit abler to rule then to preach be endowed with a power of ruling without the power of preaching But the Rever Assembly saith both keyes are given together but neither to be exercised without a call and sometimes one may be called to exercise the one and not the other It is not possible for me to apprehend what weight this hath for since they acknowledge that no church-officer doth receive one key without the other it is not possible he can be called to the handling of one key only except they will say he is called to keep the other key idle hung by his side It being thus made evident that the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing are committed solely to the ministers of the Gospell who are entrusted with the word of reconciliation it is likewise of necessary consequence if there be any such thing as a power of excommunication and inflicting church-censures as a consequent of binding and loosing that this said power should appertain to the ministers of the Gospell only and that neither lay-elders deacons nor members of churches be enabled to excommunicate by any warrant of binding and loosing from Christ None of these things being as I hope deniable and the power of excommunication being thus restrained to the ministers of the Gospell alone if it be made good that excommunication is no law of Christ it will follow necessarily either that excommunication is not an act of the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing committed to the ministers of the Gospell or that their power is none of the power of the keyes but exorbitant transcending the limits set by Christ and bringing forth acts which are none of Christs CHAPTER XV. That God hath not given to the
magistrate Since then an irreconcilable brother ought to be esteemed as an heathen is it any whit against Christian charity for the party offended to sue him before an heathen magistrate This exposition is very naturall having nothing strained but most like to be the sense of Jesus Christ As for the 18. verse concerning binding and loosing we have examined what strength can be in it for excommunication not discussing whether it may not be as well applyed as Chrysostome Austin Theophy lact thought to every private man as to the operation of the word in the ministry or whether this verse hath any coherence with the precedent discourse of Christ Neither will I enter into the controversy whether Iudas was partaker of the Eucharist for it is not much materiall to know it all agreeing he was not removed by any excommunication or casting out and that he did eat of the passeover which eating was equivalent to that of the Lords Supper Now lest more heads of objection of this Hydra of excommunication should arise if all should not be cut off we must examine what strength the example of the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. hath for excommunication But this extract being already too much lengthened and the drift of it all along being to prove that the casting out of any member of a church being the same with the putting out of the synagogue is no act of ministry or of church members as such but an act of magistracy I need not to speak of it at all besides that these 3. or 4. observations will take off all hold for excommunication 1. It is granted by Calvin Beza Walaeus Apollonius Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gillespie that St. Paul mentioneth but one censure inflicted upon the incestuous person viz. excommunication and that the delivering of him to Satan was the casting him out of the congregation 2. Now it being evident that this delivering to Satan was no excommunication but a judgement quite of another nature it is likewise equally evident that the putting away of the incestuous person being the same with delivering him to Satan was no excommunication 3. This casting out of the incestuous person makes nothing for that excommunication which is only a putting a man by from partaking of the Eucharist for though examples may be brought out of the Scriptures of men cast out or kept from the temple or synagogues yet there is no one example nor any reason for it that a man admitted to enter either into the temple or the synagogue should not be partaker of the same mystery or ordinances celebrated with the rest 4. Calvin thinks that St. Paul by these words put away the wicked from among you did not point particularly at the incestuous person but rather at the devil or the wicked one indefinitely as the plotter and contriver of all evil which St. Paul saith was put away from them by that delivery of the incestuous person to Satan 5. Wendelinus in his common places of excommunication saith that the putting away of the incestuous person from among the Cormthians was not only an exclusion from godly converse as praying hearing and receiving the â—ucharist with him but also from civil commerce in eating trading and talking with him Which exposition is the most naturall I know and proveth that this putting away was no act of ecclesiasticall power distinct from the civil for alwayes every court punisheth according to its kind a court of Exchequer doth not summon men for causes that are of the cognizance of a court-Martiall so neither should an ecclesiasticall court impose penalties that are to be inflicted by a civil court such as is the depriving of a man of civil liberty 6. Learned Mr. Lightfoot saith that all the power of the church of Corinth in delivering the incestuous person to Satan was by the strength of Paul's spirit that went along with them so that the people of Corinth acting by no power of their own no church ought to do as that church then did except they be sure of the assistance of the same spirit Next in order followeth the necessity of self-examination 1 Cor. 11. made an argument to prove that ministers must examine every communicant and judge of mens worthinesse For Beza Walaeus Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gillespie thus argue If it be the duty of every man to examine himself much more is it the duty of a minister to examine him Never was an argument more inconsequent and lesse concludent by which the Papists may as well prove auricular confession If men must confesse their sins to God much more must ministers require every man to confesse their sins to them For quite on the contrary from this Text these or the like inferences should be drawn If all men must examine themselves much more ought ministers to examine themselves or this If every church-member ought to examine himself then ought the ministers to exhort them to that self-examination or this If every church-member ought to prepare himself for the word and Sacraments then ministers are not to prepare them otherwise then by shewing them and giving them directions for their due preparation leaving every one to do the work himself CHAPTER XXIX That excommunication is contrary to common sexse and reason THere being no Scripture for excommunication in the next place we shall see that there is no reason for it I do not deny but that a private church as well as any other society by vertue of a power of magistracy seated in them may expell a member out of their society but that this is done in obedience to a pâ—sitive command of Christ by a jurisdiction independent from the magistrate and by warrant from those words whatsoever ye shall bind on carth c. I conceive to be absurd impertinent a yoke laid upon Christians necks which is none of Christs as if whomsoever pastors do bind or excommunicate on earth Christ also doth bind or excommunicate in Heaven and whomsoever they absolve or loose on earth Christ also doth absolve and loose in Heaven 1. Since the words Matth. 16. and 18. be the very same words it is absurd to understand them in the 16. chapter absolutely but in the 18. conditionally Now they would have the words Matth. 16. whatsoever ye shall bind c. spoken to Peter to be without condition and absolute that God should approve of and ratify whatever opening loosing and binding should ensue upon Peters preaching and converting of souls for Calvin Pareus and most Divines will not have in that place any thing understood of church-censures but only of the operation of the word by the preaching of Peter But though it were granted that in the 18. chapter Christ spake of church censures by excommunication what reason is there why they should not be understood as absolute and without condition in one chapter as well as in the other For in the 18. chapter they put a condition to the absolute words of Christ saying that
all that is bound on earth by excommunication is not alwaies ratified and approved of in Heaven for were not as they say a modification put to the words of Christ all the judgements and sentences on earth had need be infallible It is true that parallel places of Scripture may admit various senses as it may be these very words of Christ or that something more may be implyed in one place then in the other But yet whether both places or either of them be meant of the operation of the word or of the miraculous power granted unto the Apostles and particularly as Mr. Lightfoot expoundeth them of a power to dispense with the Christian church in something that was to be retained or quitted of the Mosaicall laws and rites yet it must be acknowledged that both places are alike to be understood absolutely and without condition that whatever should be bound or loosed by them on earth should also infallibly be either bound or loosed in Heaven For to understand one place absolutely and the other conditionally and clave non errante when no errour can intervene I conceive ought not to be admitted in Divinity In short either the words Matth. 16. absolutely spoken must be false and admit some exception which cannot be said without blasphemy or the same words repeated in the 18. chapter must not be understood of excommunication nor of any church-censure 2. Since it is evident that the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing are equivalent expressions and those both equally committed to ministers if by the keyes are not meant the power of excommunicating absolving neither can the power of binding and loosing mean excommunication For sure these keyes cannot be understood of an outward admission or exclusion but only of the conversion of a sinner by the preaching of the word But suppose that these keyes were also to admit into the visible church yet they can not be employed to put out of the church a key being an instrument either to let in or keep out but not to expell those that are in 3. Who can conceive that those words Matth. 18. whatsoever ye shall bind c. being uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ with such a prefatory asseveration verily I say unto you should not be true without a condition and an exception put to them and yet that the same words Matth. 16. without such a preface should be perpetually absolutely true And who would believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had pronounced in such an emphaticall way vertily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind c. only to signify an externall admission or exclusion in the doing of which acts ministers may erre out of ignorance either of right or of fact if not out of hatred or too much indulgence and favour 4. Since they say that a man by excommunication is delivered to Satan what an uncharitable act do they commit against any one be he never so wicked by putting him into such a condition as they know is worse then his former when they are not sure whether occasionally it may better him neither is it in their power to drive away Satan again from the man as it was in St. Paul Besides no man would punish a child a servant or a malefactour with a punishment that shall last to his lifes end as to torture him till death or to whip him as long as he liveth or put him in a prison that may prove perpetuall for still the earthly father or judge reserveth to himself the liberty to give over correcting when it pleaseth him But those that deliver a man to Satan by excommunication do inflict a penalty which it is not in their power to take off again being not able when they list to recover a man out of the Devils pawes 5. Most school-men and Divines hold that the sentence of excommunication is of a quite different nature from the lawes and sentences of men which have the force and validity of law be they never so unjust and must be obeyed either actively or passively for if no law were valid but that which is just and righteous then should no law be obeyed by any but those that could see equity and justice in it Which sheweth the nullity of excommunication for whosoever doubts whether such an excommunication was pronounced upon right grounds and good information or whether excommunication in it self is lawfull may well count the excommunication null and of no weight yea if the party excommunicated doth but say that he was wrongfully excommunicated and clave errante or that those that did it had no power so to do he may disannull as to himself and so to all others the excommunication For as long as the knowledge of a valid excommunication is grounded upon matter of fact which is known but to few most men may still question that which they are not concerned to believe and whereof they have no certain knowledge 6. Some to avoid that inconvenience that God should be made to ratify what the pastor acts in excommunicating say and it is the opinion of Beza that excommunication is rather a declaration of what God hath already done in Heaven then an act preceding Gods in approving or disapproving the ministers sentence But one and the same inconvenience followeth thereupon whether excommunication be taken for an act preceding the act of God or subsequent to it For if excommunication be a declaration of what God hath already done or decreed to be done it would follow that all the acts of pastors in excommunicating were infallible for if they were fallible it were not possible to know when excommunication ought to be received for a valid act untill the mind and counsell of God were revealed and it were known to be agreeable with the censure of excommunication And therefore Wicliff thought all excommunications void and null except he that excommunicateth were first informed that the party whom he was to excommunicate was excommunicated by God and this was held one of his errours in the councill of Constance Art 11. 7. Calvin in the 3. book of his Institutions chap. 4. § 14. saith that excommunication is no farther valid then as binding in heaven answereth to that on earth for he hath no stronger argument to make void the Romish excommunication then by retorting that many among them are either bound or loosed on earth unworthily which notwithstanding are not bound or loosed in Heaven If this exception against all Romish excommunication is good in Calvins mouth why should it loose its strength in my mouth for by the same argument I disannull all excommunication because all sentences of God in Heaven do not alwayes correspond to those that are pronounced upon earth 8. The same Calvin upon Matth. 18. pleading for the nullity of Romish excommunication useth this argument that the power of the keyes and of binding loosing belong only to those that have received the holy Ghost
and no superinduction of character power duty gift or licence being conferred by the ordaining ministers so neither is there any thing taken away by any act of theirs of deposition or exauctoration only every one withdraweth his feather protection and countenance the magistrate withdraweth his licence the ministers say they will not hereafter hold him a fellow and partner in the work of the Gospell with them the people declare their dislike of the man and professe they will make use no further of his ministery which act is no more an act of jurisdiction then the refusing to take physick is an act of jurisdiction over the physitian CHAPTER XIII The nature of the ministers power and of that of binding and loosing the power of the keyes Amyraldus and Mr. Lightfoots judicious exposition of the power of binding and loosing The power of governing and ruling is not the ecclesiasticall contended for Mr. Gillespies arguments answered NExt we are to consider the nature and extent of the power of the ministers of the Gospell wholly the same with that the Prophets under the old Testament had a power not forcing the body but enlightening the understanding and convincing the heart ruling the affections and bringing them captive to the obedience of the crosse A power which the new Testament mentions in a hundred places either in the same words or in equivalent terms and yet never so much as once understandeth by it a presbyterian synodicall or ecclesiasticall power of deposing excommunicating and of making lawes and canons authoritatively but alwayes meaneth the vertue and efficacy of the spirit of God in the word and ministery called the power of God Rom. 1. v. 16. 1 Cor. 1. v. 14. and chap. 2. v. 5. and chap. 4. v. 19 20. Ephes 3. v. 20. 1 Pet. 1. v. 5. A power by excellency called POWER 1 Cor. 2. 4. by which we are the sons of God Joh. 1. v. 12 13. which no man can withstand Act. 6. v. 10. by which the eyes are enlightened and men turned from darknesse to light Act. 26. v. 18. pricking burning and affecting the heart with sorrow hope joy Act. 2. v. 7. Luc. 24. v. 32. diving into the secrets of the heart Hebr. 4. v. 16. where we have a description of the powerfull effects of the words except by the word we are to understand the word incarnate before whom all things created are said to be naked It is a power which is called the power of the resurrection Philipp 3. v. 10. also the power and demonstration of the spirit 1 Cor. 2. v. 4. a power of the wisdome and salvation of God and opposed to the power of Sathan and darknesse Act. 26. 18. Col. 1. v. 13. a power described in magnificent terms and mightily emphaticall 2 Corinth 10. v. 6. c. This is the power called otherwise the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing by which the slaves to sin and Satan are loosed and the despisers of the word by resisting the holy Ghost become more hard and bound I know of no other power of binding and loosing no other keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to the church-officers though properly speaking the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing are not committed to ministers as the word is but as the spirit is in the word so that it is not the ministers but the word that bears the keyes the opening of the heart with those keyes as it is only the work of the spirit so is it known only to the spirit of God in the heart of man convinced and converted and not to the minister himself who only apprehendeth his office of being the word-bearer but is not sensible of its efficacy and workings Amyraldus thes 10. de 5. falso dictis sacramentis saith that the power of binding and loosing did only belong to the Apostles and that that power consisted in three particulars 1. that being led by an unerring spirit whatsoever in revealing the mystery of the Gospell they preached and approved for sound doctrine was to be received with like credit as if it had been delivered by Christ himself and whatever they said was amiss or false was likewise to be taken as if it had been pronounced so in Heaven this saith he is according to the Hebrew Idiome to bind and to loose 2. in inflicting corporall punishments and vexation by Satan upon those that dishonoured Christianity 3. in freeing those that were delivered to Satan upon their repentance and forgiving their sins He is yet much more expresse and diffuse upon this subject but I study brevity which makes me I do not here insert his own words in Latin but however he saith enough to undermine the foundation upon which the presbyterians build their excommunication which hitherto being mainly supported by that power of binding and loosing and the two chief stayes namely this place of Matth. 18. of binding and loosing and that of the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. failing there now remaineth but a poor single crutch to draw along excommunication cut out of these words tell it unto the church Mr. Lightfoot an exceeding learned and reverend Divine giveth a very probable exposition of the power of loosing and binding in his Harmony Matth. 16. which doubtlesse doth carry in it more solidity and weight then the vulgar explication given by the Reverend Assembly and others of the power of censuring excommunicating and absolving He saith that the power of binding and loosing was given only to the Apostles as far as some part of Moses law was to stand in practise and some to be laid aside some things under the law prohibited were now to be permitted and some things permitted to be now prohibited so that in these words whatsoever c. Christ promiseth to the Apostles such an assistance of his spirit and giveth them such a power that what they allowed to stand in practise should stand and what to fall should fall in short what they bound on earth should be bound in heaven And that exposition is the more receivable because the Greek text speaks not of binding or loosing persons but things saying not whomsoever you shall bind but whatsoever things ye shall bind c. that is whatsoever things ye shall dispense with or oblige unto He also on the 1 Cor. 5. parallels this place of binding and loosing to Joh. 20. v. 22. whose sins yea retain they are retained c. and saith that that power was a peculiar gift to the Apostles when Christ breathed on them by which they spoke strange tongues healed diseases killed and made alive delivered up to Satan and bestowed the holy Ghost or the power to work the same miracles Which exposition strengtheneth the precedent which is but a branch and an effect of that miraculous power conferred on the Apostles For by the same power of miracles or of binding and loosing whereby they delivered to Satan and healed diseases they also
commandeth the gift the other charity and a disposition sutable to the giver The magistrate setteth a day of humiliation but the pastor commandeth the setting of the heart apart from the world All this serves to answer all the arguments of Mr. Gillespie drawn from one and twenty places of Scripture in the belief of his ecclesiasticall jurisdiction The place 1 Tim. 5. v. 19. against an elder c. he much urgeth but the following verse sheweth that in that context there is no mention of a church-judicatory where men are convented witnesses confronted and heard and a judiciall sentence pronounced It is the duty of pastors to reprove sin and sinners privately if the offence be private and publickly and in an open assembly if the sin be committed in the face of the church and to the scandall of all and yet S. Paul giveth a good caveat that the pastor of the church should not lightly ayme at and point at any man specially an elder and give credit to rumours but be throughly informed This rebuke is no excommunication nor a denouncing of church censure but of the judgements of God But were there any such thing in St. Pauls time as a church-judicatory judicious and learned Mr. Lightfoot will tell Mr. Gillespie that it were no inconveniency to say that even in St. Pauls time Christian churches being modelled after the platform of Jewish synagogues besides ministery in them had also magistracy and that it were neither improbable nor irrationall to interpret the place 1 Tim. 5. v. 17. according to that rule See him on the 5. of the 1. Cor. in his Harmony Which being granted the 19. verse will very well admit the same interpretation But let us take a generall view of all the 21. arguments of Mr. Gillespie If it be possible for any man to make something of nothing Mr. Gillespie hath that art for he thinks all is fish that comes to his net like the Papists who if they do but read of fire of a pot of a valley of a ditch it is enough for them there to find purgatory Thus Mr. Gillespie where he findeth the words reject rebuke beware take heed flee note put away withdraw weapon sword there he will be sure to have presbyteriall jurisdiction and power of excommunicating Who would think that Galat. 5. v. 12. I would they were even cut off which trouble you could serve his turn and yet he bestows three pages in striking excommunication out of this flint That noble passage 2 Cor. 10. 4 c. where the spirituall weapons are lively set out he understandeth of excommunication p. 292. and in verse 6. and having in readinesse to revenge all disobedience he findeth ecclesiasticall power and censure no lesse then that of excommunication But of all places I much wonder he can paraphrase 2 Cor. 2. 8. for ecclesiasticall power and excommunication I beseech you that you would confirm your love towards him that is as Mr. Gillespie expoundeth p. 290. I beseech you to shew your judiciall power in absolving the incestuous man from the sentence of excommunication Of the same weight is that proof of ecclesiasticall power and excommunication out of Revel 2. v. 14. and 20. where he saith the church of Pergamus is censured for not censuring that is for not excommunicating the woman Jezebel T is a wonder he doth not make the very censuring of the church of Pergamus to be excommunication Such proofs sometimes fall from the most eminent of them as when the Rever Assembly to prove a government of church-officers distinct from the civil magistrate alledgeth in the margin Esaias 9. v. 6 7. meerly because the word government is there mentioned for without that the place that speaketh of Gog and Magog had been as valid an argument for a church-government and for excommunication as that of Esaias where it is meerly intended to describe the Godhead of Christ the assumption of humane nature and 〈◊〉 gloriousnesse and strength of his spirituall and mysticall kingdom Yet trust I needs say thus much of the reverend Assembly that in grounding the government of church-officers upon that place of Esaias they have followed the sense of all their presbyterian brethren who making two powers of the keyes one of science of which Jesus Christ speaks Luc. 11. v. 52. and another of authority under which they comprehend the power of censuring excommunicating and making lawes authoritatively they have no other authority for it then this place of Esaias and another Apocaly p. 3. 7. where Christ is said to have the key of David with which as he openeth no man shutteth so he shutteth no man openeth which place in my opinion is no stronger a plea for an ecclesiasticall and externall government placed in the hands of church officers then the place of Esaias alledged by the Rever Assembly for this place as well as the other as Beza noteth upon Revel 3. 7. speaketh of the mysticall Kingdom of Christ that hath no end of which Luc. 1. v. 32. 33. but of this power in the hands of church-officers we are to speak in the ensuing chapter CHAPTER XIV That the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing are not committed to all church-officers but to the ministers of the Gospell only IN the third place we are to take notice that the Rever Assembly doth not declare nor Mr. Gillespie what they mean by church-officers whether the dispencers of the word and Sacraments only or with them the lay-elders deacons for they invest them promiscuously with the power of the keyes of binding and loosing and of remitting and retaining sins against the opinion of Amyraldus Walaeus Apollonius and most of the presbyterians who attribute the power of the keyes only to ministers ordained as indeed it doth not belong to any others to preach and to administer the sacraments Therefore one would have expected the assembly should make some distinction both of officers and power It may be by the word respectively they meant that a part of the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing doth belong to lay-elders as far as concerneth governing and censuring but to the ministers belongeth not only the same portion of power common to lay-elders but over and above the power of preaching administring the sacraments voting in synods and determining authoritatively of controversies of faith But how can they make good by the Scripture that lay-elders are invested with the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing since this power was bequeathed only to Peter and with him to all the ministers of the Gospell as ambassadors from Christ to whom God hath committed the word of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5. v. 19 20 Is there any mention in the Scripture of church-officers that have a power of the keyes and of binding and loosing and yet have not the word of reconciliation committed to them I cannot deny but that God sometimes maketh use of private men to bind and to loose
probatum est to them all controversie will be ended and the power in the hands of church-officers will be no longer distinct from that of the magistrate and all presbyterian jurisdiction of excommunicating deposing and making lawes authoritatively will be taken away So that if we give credit to Mr. Rutherfurd all acts sentences and excommunications pronounced by synods and presbyteries are no further valide then as they are conceived by the magistrates and private men agreeable with the word The other passage of Mr. Rutherfurd doth no lesse pull down the definitive judgement of ministers and by it all presbyterian jurisdiction p. 577. As the church is to approve and command the just sentence of the civill judge in punishing ill doers but only conditionally so far as it is just so is the magistrate obliged to follow ratifie and with his civil sanction confirm the sound constitutions of the church but conditionally not absolutely and blindly but only so far as they agree with the word of God Studying brevity I am loth to load the reader with authorities out of most eminent divines Zanchius Martyr Iunius Pareus Camero Rivetus and others all jointly proving 1. that all the judgements and sentences of synods church-judicatories presbyteries are mere counsels advices and no lawes obliging to obedience or to assent except they receive the ultimate sanction from the magistrate 2. that the magistrate ought not to take the ministers or synods judgement barely because it comes from them but follow his own judgement I will alledge but one or two out of Pareus and one out of Rivetus That of Pareus is on the 13. Rom. All faithfull even private men ought to judge of faith and of religion not only with an apprehensive judgement that by it they may understand the true religion but also with a judgement of discretion that they may distinguish the true from the false hold to one and reject the other much more ought the Christian magistrate to judge of the religion not only apprehensively and discretively but also definitively Here we have a definitive judgement proper to magistrates as well as to ministers and church-judicatories In the same place A Prince ought to defend the true religion suppresse the false banish blasphemies and heresies he ought then to know of all these singly and by his office judge of them for if he were only to draw the sword at the beck of the priests without knowledge and judgement and without making any question whether the judgements of the pastors are right or no what would he be but a sergeant and an executioner as the Iewes made of Pilate saving to him If he had not been a malefactour we would not have delivered him to thee Rivet on the decalogue hath these words We joyn those two together that the magistrate should not only act by others prejudice but also by his own judgement not that he should trust so much to his but also let ministers of the Gospell have their parts not relying on his fancy but being counselled by the pastors of churches calling synods and there hearing godly and learned men discoursing out of the word of God of controversies of religion and of articles of faith then what he hath himself approved of to be the truth let him embrace it and spread it There he maketh no more of synods then a Prince of his state-counsellors or a sick man of his physitians whose judgements they take for counsells and advices and not for definitive sentences And so speaketh Maresius Coll. Theol. loc 16. thes 77. Ministers of churches do not so much represent judges in a senat as prudent doctors and learned gathered to give counsell and their result is like the advice of physitians about the health of the body By what I have said of judgement and alledged out of Mr. Rutherfurd that question so much debated betwixt the Romanists and the Protestants who is the judge of controversies in matters of faith is easily decided for doubtlesse the ministers of the Gospell have by their education function and ministeriall duty that publick judgement to declare either in churches or synods what by the judgement of discretion they conceive to be the mind and the ordinance of Christ but this judgement inforceth and obligeth no man to assent to it except they also by their private judgement of discretion apprehend it to be such So ought neither magistrates nor the power of magistracy seated in churches to command or enjoyn it as a law to be obeyed or a doctrine to be believed except apprehended by the judgement of discretion to be the mind or an ordinance of Christ Ministers in divinity physitians in physick each professour of art in his art not only because they are more versed in that thing they professe but also ex officio have a judgement that carrieth and giveth more authority but it being fallible and therefore subject to the revisall of others whether magistrates or subjects and not attended with command obliging to obedience either active or passive it is only authentick to them that are perswaded and convinced to yield to it CHAPTER V. An examination of the 30. chapter of the confession of faith made by the Rever Assembly of Divines That in their Assembly they assumed no jurisdiction nor had any delegated to them from the magistrate and therefore were not to attribute it to their brethren That the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is the same with the magistrates jurisdiction Mr. Gillespies reasons examined THe reverend Assembly of Divines in the 30. and 31. chapters of their Confession of Faith are strong assertors of a double jurisdiction Before I come to examine what they say and their proofs alledged in the margent I would be well understood that I do not quarrell against the spirituall jurisdiction over the inward man in the ministery when a minister doth command from Christ and the people yields obedience being once inlightened and convinced all is done on both parts willingly and not by constraint the weapons of that jurisdiction are not carnall and yet very mighty not by putting away by excommunication but by pulling down the strong holds of sin and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2. Cor. 10. v. 4. 5. The Lord Iesus Christ say they sect 1. as King and head of his Church hath therein appointed a government in the hands of Church-officers distinct from the civil magistrate It may be the Rev. Assembly do only intend to adjudge jurisdiction to other church-assemblies and synods and none to themselves for these reasons 1. They were bound by their charter by which they were called not to exercise any jurisdiction and authority ecclesiasticall whatsoever or any other power for these be the words of the ordinance and besides are en joyned not to assume any authority but to advise and give counsell upon such things as shall be propounded to them and to deliver their opinions and advices 2. And the same they did
necessarie in every judicatorie not so much as one of them is found in the court of Mr. Calandrin 1. They do not cite the party they entreat him to come if he will not come they have no remedy they cannot compell him 2. They have no witnesses nor evidences of the case and therefore cannot pronounce sentence 3. The absolution must be null when they do not know whether it shall stand 4. Neither do they know whether God will not absolve whom they condemn 5. They cannot put their sentence in execution 6. This can be no court which the arraigned can dismisse when he pleaseth 14. I shall willingly admit two courts whereof I have spoken largely in my Paraenesis one called forum externum the externall court or the court of magistracy which is to be found in some measure of power in all assemblies and societies of men as churches synods presbyteries families schools colledges corporations c. and the other called forum internum or the court of the conscience 1. In this God hath set a tribunall a judge a witnesse a plaintiff and defendant 2. In that all is carried by outward evidences whether in a synod presbyterie or any other court 3. In that there is an obligation of active or passive obedience to the laws decrees and ordinances that have the sanction of a law whether just or unjust 4. In this obedience is due for conscience sake and in obedience to God to lawes ordinances and commands either of God or of men that are by the judgement of approbation discretion apprehended to be good just and holy 5. In this there is a stronger stresse of obligation laid then in that so that as we ought rather to obey God then men a man is obliged notwithstanding all the sanction of the magistrate to appeal from the court of the magistrate to that of the conscience and to yield no obedience to any lawes injunctions or commands of magistrates pastours synods presbyteries churches till after they have been there reviewed and approved of There being but these two courts and jurisdictions in the case propounded by Mr. Calandrin the minister cannot be judge in another mans court or conscience and in that court I do not conceive he would put a greater tye then the magistrate doth upon any man as to bind him not to appeal from his judgement to the court of his own conscience or at least not to remove the cause judgement of the ministers court to his own court Neither is the minister judge in the other court except by a delegated power from the magistrate or by an assirmed power of magistracy binding either to active or passive obedience neither from that court do I think that Mr. Calandrin would bind a man not to appeal to the court of his conscience 15. To draw to a conclusion in the case propounded by Mr. Calandrin we have acts of function but none otherwise of jurisdiction then in the function of a physitian whom in relation to his sick patient either being alone or sitting in a colledge among his brethren I might make to exercise a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate and parallel the physitian with the pastor the patient with the penitent the colledge of physitians with the consistory the curing of the patient with the absolving of the penitent and so make the case propounded in the behalf of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction applyable to the medicall jurisdiction changing only the persons Yes I might shew that a parallel being made the medicall would outvie the ecclesiasticall as being lesse inconsistent with the nature of jurisdiction and more distinct from that of the magistrate For 1. the magistrates office extendeth more to the care of souls then to that of bodies 2. Physitians more properly cure diseases then ministers pardon sins 3. Physitians judgements of the nature of diseases are more certain and evident then the ministers judgements of grace and repentance and therefore their sentences are more peremptory I might instance in more particulars at least I could so match both jurisdictions as to make them alike distinct from that of the magistrate Mr. Calandrin in a postscript giveth severall exceptions against what I have said in my Paraenesis of the two courts He saith I do not deny that conscience may be called a court improperly neither do I say that it hath all the properties of a court of magistracy but it hath the necessary conditions required in a court and that name it hath by the common consent of all Divines Philosophers school-men heathens Papists and Protestants none doubting of it whereas many have questioned whether there be any such thing as forum ecclesiasticum and none of those that admitted such a forum or ecclesiasticall court but as they have confessed that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is improperly so called so have they thought no lesse of an ecclesiasticall court He also findeth fault with me for saying that excommunication was no act of ecclesiasticall power because exercised in the court of man and saith Is not preaching as much an act of the externall court as excommunication when both are done alike with words outwardly I grant that the preaching of the word is an externall act performed by outward moving of the lips and lifting up the voice and so all outward actions of men as buying selling walking striking with a hammer eating drinking and the like which are said to be performed in the court of man not because they are juridicall acts but because they are the subject and matter not only of suits and controversies depending on the court of man but also of lawes and orders made in the same court as if a man preached not at all or preached amisse and erroneously or seditiously that act of his may create an action in the externall court of man so may all other actions I have named as if one sell another mans wares unknown to him if he walks in an undue place and time if he strikes his neighbour with a hammer and so one may make an induction of all actions of men which otherwise are no forinsecall acts but are either naturall morall actions or acts of function and not of jurisdiction as in a physitian to cure the sick in a sea-man to set his ship to sail in a merchant to vend his wares and so in a Divine to do the acts of his function all which are actions performed outwardly in the court of man albeit they be not forinsecall And by reason that excommunication is an outward act it is done in the court of man as well as buying selling and walking and besides it is a forinsecall and juridicall act binding men to outward obedience either actively or passively and of the same nature with other juridicall acts in the courts of men but such an act preaching of the word is not binding none to outward obedience except he be first inwardly convinced though it may fall out to be the subject and matter
Which indeed overthroweth all kind of excommunication for if the validity of an outward act dependeth upon the inward grace the validity of the act will be uncertain till dooms-day to those that know not whether he that hath pronounced the sentence of excommunication is endowed with the holy Ghost or no. Perkins goeth along with Calvin upon the third of the Revelation making all excommunication void which is not pronounced by one that hath the spirit For saith he to the society only of the regenerate and faithfull is it said Whatsoever ye shall bind c. 9. But were it so that every pastor excommunicating had received the holy Ghost yet the validity of all excommunication could not be thence inferred since even a man endowed with the holy Ghost except he hath received a spirit of divination may be ill informed and erre ignorantly ignorantia facti aut juris 10. Those that by binding and loosing in Heaven understand only approving of the sentence past on earth have no stronger plea for excommunication except all sentences of excommunication be the product of an infallible judgement for God is so far from approving of an unjust sentence that his will is that it should be disannulled 11. But how can it consist with reason that God at once should ratify approve and dislike a sentence pronounced on earth for they will have him to ratify in Heaven an unjust sentence passed on earth because they say his will is that the party should stand to the sentence though unjust and not intrude to the Sacrament without he be legally absolved and yet the while they say that God doth not ratify or approve of an unjust excommunication because unjust so that at once the same sentence will be valid and invalid valid because legally passed yet invalid because unjust 12. Those that by binding and loosing understand pardoning and retaining sins though they speak truth making the place Matth. 18. v. 18. parallel to that of John 20. v. 22. whatsoever sins c. yet they say nothing for excommunication which is neither pardoning nor retaining of sins It is not pardoning for then excommunication must be counted a blessing neither can it be retaining of sins for since as they say the end of excommunication is that the soul may be saved retaining of sins or rather of pardon cannot be a means to that end 13. Since excommunication is a putting out of the communion I would fain know whither that outing is from the communion of a private church or from the communion of the catholick visible church or else from the communion of the Saints which is spoken of in the Creed for I know but of these three communions If it be only a putting out of the communion of a private church then a man excommunicated in one congregation or parish is not excommunicated in the neighbour church If it be a putting out of the catholick visible church then a man excommunicated in London shall be likewise excommunicated in any part of the world And if the vertue of excommunication extendeth all over the world as indeed so it must be since it reacheth to heaven then any church or pastors of that communion whatsoever may excommunicate any one within that communion and a presbytery in Scotland may excommunicate a man in Switzerland and therefore it must not seem strange that the Pope doth excommunicate Emperours and Kings since they are of his communion 14. Excommunication cannot be a putting out of the communion of Saints and of the invisible church of which none is outed but by his falling from grace 15. Neither can excommunication be a putting out of a presbyterian church nor out of such an hierarchie as was lately in England which are but meer politick systems of many particular societies either under the magistrate of the land or under a power of magistracy assumed by common consent as is the body of the reformed churches in France for then such an excommunication were rather like a banishment or deprivement of liberty then a spirituall censure which are no more bounded and circumscribed by the limits of the magistrate then remission or retention of sins or the vertue of baptisme are 16. Neither can it be proved that those words whatsoever ye shall bind c. are to be understood of exclusion rather from the Eucharist then from the assembly or from either and that there is greater danger of corrupting good manners in receiving the Eucharist with a dissolute man then in conversing with him when as quite contrary to eat with carnall and deboist persons is a more contagious commerce then to partake of the Eucharist with them 17. Neither can they infer out of that Text whatsoever c. or any other whether a church a synod a presbytery whether one minister or two may excommunicate But if the power of excommunicating be included within the power of the keyes and of binding loosing which we have made good to belong only to the dispensers of the word and not to church-members or to lay-elders it will necessarily follow that one single pastor set over four or five thousand communicants must have power to excommunicate alone without the assistance of other ministers for every single minister having received entirely the povver of the keyes and of binding and loosing must needs also have received ability to do vvhatsoever is included vvithin that povver 18. It is to be noted that Christ doth not speak of binding and loosing of men but of things for he doth not say whomsoever but whatsoever and therefore our adversaries the Papists extend the povver of excommunication further then the presbyterians do for they excommunicate not only men but any other living creatures as Mice vvhereof Thuanus hath a notable example CHAPTER XXX That excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of iniquity That the corrupting of the doctrine of the Eucharist made way for excommunication I Should next shew that excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of iniquity but this I have handled at large in my Paraenesis St. Paul saith that in his time the mystery of iniquity began to work Satan was then very busy to infuse bad principles which first put forth themselves in the affectation of primacy and in the corruption of the doctrine of the Eucharist The laity had no hand in it for as Ministers have alwayes been the principall chanels to conveigh knowledge and grace when assisted by the spirit of God so when God gave them over to the guidance of their own spirits they have been still the only agents and instruments to bring in tyranny and heresy into the church The corruption then beginning at the head amongst the leaders of flocks their main care hath been to set up themselves not only over the inheritance of the Lord but also over their own fellow-labourers and collegues for the attaining of which and to seem great in the eyes of all men they