same words in use amongst the Iews are used in the New Testament as 1 Cor. 16. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 19. Act. 15. 7 17. Revel 11. 2 8. 1 Pet. 4. 3. 2 Pet. 1 19. 20 21. Anathema Maeranatha Witnesses Gentiles sinners of the Gentiles imposition of hands c. Indeed in ordinary the Pastor under the New Testament is not called Priest nor high Priest nor the Communion Table an Altar But the words here used are obvious and very significant and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church is a most obvious word in both the Old and New Testament and doth signifie any Assembly Religious civill or prophane according as the nature person and use or end of the meeting or Assembly was Religious and Prophane as is evident by many places of the Old and New Testament where the seventy Interpreters use the word for a Church-Assembly for which see the due right of Presbyters page 349 350. and page 473 474. And since the word Church here is cleerely a company convened to gaine an offending brothers soule by rebukes and censures and which hath power to binde and loose on earth so as their fact is ratified in heaven it cannot be any other then a New Testament Church-meeting seeing we find the Church of Corinth commanded to conveene and exercise such a power 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4. And therfore it cannot be expounded of the â—ivill judge not to adde that Erastus who objecteth this saith the Synâ—dre had both civill and spirituall or Ecclâ—siasticall power and therefore he hath no ground to expound the place of the Civill Magistrate 2. Because he was not yet ascended to heaven and had not sent downe the Holy Spirit it is no consequence to say he speaketh nothing of the Christian Church of the Nevv Testament for before his Ascension he appointed the Ministery the Sacraments the power of Censures and the keyes given to the Church of the New Testament Math. 28. 19 20. Joh. 20. v. 2â— 22. Math. 26. 20 21 22 23 c. Now it is as inconvenient that precepts such as Do this in remembrance of me take yee eate yee and he that heareth you heareth me should be given to the christian Church which yet had no being as for Christ to hold forth the power of jurisdiction of a Christian church destitute of all being Yea this recurreth upon Erastus who will have Christ here to hold forth the power of the Christian Magistrate as yet remoter from being all Magistrates being professed Enemies to Iesus Christ whereas there was at this time a seed a bottome of a christian visible Church There being eleven Apostles seventy Disciples and many others who professed faith in Christ already come Yea though there be no formed instituted visible Church of the New Testament yet it became our great Prophet who taught that Gospell yea all that he heard of the Father Ioh. 15. 15. to his Disciples which was to be a rule of the Faith of the Christian visible Church not yet instituted and who erected a Ministery to teach them before his ascension also to furnish that Ministery with the powerof the keyes censures as he expresly doth before his death Mat. 16. 17 18 19. Not to adde what Camero saith that he spake these words when he was now to offer himselfe on the Crosse and Math. 2. 16. He mentioneth the edifying of the Church of the New Testament and the Disciples aske vvho is to be greatest in the Kingdome of God ver 1. Object 7. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publican can not meane as much as Let him bee excommunicated but onely let him plead vvith his obstinate brother vvho contemneth the Christian Magistrate before the heathen Magistrate and in preserving the offendor vvho is novv obstinate let him deale vvith him as with a Heathen and a Publican onely in this matter of pursuit but otherwise the Publican was not excommunicate 1. Because the Publicans place and office was good and lawfull and from God then to repute him as a Publican is not to repute him as a prophane man 2. When Iohn Baptist is demanded by the Publicans what they shall doe he doth not bid them lay downe the office of a Publican but onely not abuse it to rapine and extortion nor is Zacheus compelled by Christ to lay downe his office but onely to make restitution Answ 1. There is no necessity to condemne the office of the Publican or the birth and condition of the Heathen as unlawfull But a Publican went for a prophane man and for a man who is a stranger to the true church of God as Mat. 5. 46. If you love them that love you what reward have you Doe not even the Publicans the same Ergo It is Christs mind to exclude the Publicans from any spirituall or eternall reward promised to these within the visible Church and when Christ was slandered by the Jewes because he went in to be a Guest with a Publican Luke 19. 7. And because hee did eate vvith Publicans Mat. 9. 12 13. Christ taketh it as granted that Publicans were prophane men and sinners But he saith they were sicke sinners and lost that is such as were sensible of their by-past prophanity and desired the Physitian Christ to cure them and Gentiles or Heathen is taken for these who are without the Church and are void of Religion 1 Cor. 5. 1. Such fornication as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles 1 Pet. 4. 3. Let it suffice you that ye have vvrought the vvill of the Gentiles Eph. 2. 11. Ye vvere in times past Gentiles what is that but Ver. 2. Ye vvalked according to the course of the World according to the Prince of the povver of the aire So a Samaritan is taken for one that hath a Devill yet to be a Samaritan by birth and nation is not unlawfull it is then a distinctive terme spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be an Heathen or counted an Heathen and a Publican that is counted a prophane wicked person not a brother not a member of the church Theophylact expoundeth this with us If he heare not the Church let him be an out-cast least he rub any of his vvickednes upon others vvithin the Church And these words Let him be to thee is a word of command as Mat. 5. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let your speech be yea yea Mat. 20. he that vvould be greatest let him be your servant and let him be to thee is not to exclude the Church but it is set downe in a Law-manner in the second person for farre more must the obstinate offender be as an Heathen and a Publican to the Church Ver. 18. Verily I say unto you What yee bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven These words contain a reason why he who contemneth the Church is to be holden as a Heathen and a Publican Why is it such
an offence before God to despise the church Yea saith our Saviour with a grave asseveration Verily I say unto you they that despise the sentence of you the Ministers of the Gospel being according to truth given out they and their sinnes shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith he is said to bind who doth retaine the sinne when he maketh the obstinate brother unexcusable and he looseth who remitteth or pardoneth the injury and gaineth to repentance his brother by a brotherly admonition for except he speake of a brotherly composing of private injuries to what end should Christ subjoyne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again I say to you if two agree c. Answ 1. Christ doth argue from the lesse to the more he proveth what the Church bindeth on earth shall be bound in Heaven because if the prayers of two or three gathered together in the name of God and agreeing together on earth are not rejected in Heaven farre more shall that be ratified in heaven which the whole church of Christ decreeth on earth in the name of the head of the Church Iesus Christ 2. When in the chapter going before Christ had ascribed to the Apostles and Pastors which are the eyes of the Church a power of the keyes and here he ascribeth to them the power of binding and loosing there was no cause to dreame that he speaketh here of a private forgiving of private finnes betweene Brother and brother for then he might have said at the first step Thou hast gained thy brother that gaining or convincing of thy brother shall be bound or loosed in heaven no lesse then the Churches judiciall binding and loosing in heaven which yet is set downe as an higher degree of power But I may here say with Beza in the whole Scripture the word of binding and loosing is never spoken of any other but of these who are in publike places and by a borrowed speech here it is spoken in regard of Spirituall power To bind and to loose is by a judiciall power in subordination to Christ the King to remit and retaine sinnes So Iosephus saith the Pharisees ruled all so that they would banish or recall from banishment loose and binde whom they pleased and upon the Authority according to the which Christ sent his Disciples as the Father sent him so he instructed his Ministers with power to remit and retaine sinnes Ioh. 20. 23. and Mat. 16. 19. What thou bindest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on earth shall be bound in heaven what thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So doth Lucian bring in that prisoner speaking to Iupiter Loose me O Iupiter for I have suffered grievous things Mat. 22. 13. Then the King said to his servants take him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binde him hand and foot binding here you see is done by the command of the great King Acts 21. 11. So shall the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binde Paul they bound Paul with Law and authority such as it was Iohn 18. 12. The Captaine and Officers tooke Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bound him they bound him not by private authority Mat. 27. 2. and Act. 24. 27. Felix left Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bound if Lictors binde any Malefactors they doe it by authoritie and Law So do the Hebrews speake Psal 105. 20. The Ruler of the people loosed him Psal 102. 20. The Lord looketh downe from heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to open or loose the children of death Psal 146. 7. The Lord looseth the Prisoners Iob 12. 18. 3. It cannot be denyed but when one private brother pardons another repenting Brother God ratifieth that in heaven But it is cleare the pardon here holden forth by our Saviour is such a loosing as hath witnesses going before 2. Such an one as cometh higher to the knowledge of the Chuuch Nor doth the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again signifie any thing but pretereà moreover 4. And who can say that binding and loosing here is some other thing then binding and loosing in the Chap. 16. ver 9. Where the same very phrase in the Greeke is one and the same except that the Lord speaketh Mat. 16. 19. in the singular number to Peter as representing the teachers and Governours of the Church and here Mat. 18. He speaketh in the Plurall number relating to the Church Now Mat. i6 i8 19. binding on earth and loosing which is ratified in heaven is evidently the exercise of the power of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven I will give to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven What be these keyes he expoundeth in the same very verse and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven then binding and loosing on earth must be in these to whom Christ hath committed the power of the keyes but 1. Christ hath not committed the keyes to all but to Church-rulers that are the Stewards of the House and the dispensers of heavenly Mysteries Hence the keyes in Scripture signifie authority and officiall dignity that is in Rulers not in private men as Esa 22. 22. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder So Christ is said to have the key of David to open and no man shutteth to shut and no man openeth By which out of doubt saith Camero is pointed forth the kingly authority and power of Christ so saith Vatablus And our owne Calvin Musculus Gualther Piscator Beza Pareus agree that the keyes are insigne potestatis an Ensigne of power given to the Steward or Master of a Noblemans house who is a person in office The giving of the keyes saiâ—h worthy Mr. Cotton is a giving power for the preaching of the word the administring of the seales and censures by which these invested with power doe open and shut the gates Now we desire any Word of God by which it can be made good that the keyes and power to binde and loose is given to all that are in the house even private Christians But we can shew the Keyes and binding and loosing and opening and shutting to be given to the Officers and Rulers of the house Hence I argue that interpretation that confoundeth the key-bearers and the Children with the Servants of the House and the Governours that are over the people in the Lord with the governed and putteth the Characters proper to the Officers and Stewards conâ—usedly upon all that are in the house is not to be holden but this interpretation is such Ergo c. also to binde and to loose is expounded by Christ Ioh. 20. 21. to be a power to retain and remit sins on earth which are accordingly retained and remitted in Heaven and that by vertue of a calling and Ministeriall mission according to which the Father sent Christ Jesus and Iesus Christ
most at this time Ergo If the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferre that a disobedient brother is most like these Heathen they must be greatest enemies to the Iewes and so remotest from Circumcision and all right to the holy things of God being the worst of the Heathen and so Erastus hath gained nothing but lost much by his poore Grammattication Yea if the offended brother should repute the offender as the worst of the Heathen he is to esteeme him who was once a Member of the Church in that he was obliged to heare the Church now as a Heathen and so no brother no Member of the Church and here Erastus must grant that one brother may un-church and Excommunicate any other for disobedience to the Church but the Church may not Erastus They are as absurd who say by Publicans here are understood wicked men for then by Heathen must be understood also the wickedest of the Heathen and not all the Heathen dwelling in Judea Ans I deny the consequence for by Publicans are meant men wicked and unpure by conversation and by Heathen men unclean by condition because without the Church and strangers to the Israel of God and without Christ and God in the world 2. We have proved what is meant by a Publican by evident Scriptures but that by a Publican is understood one who acknowledged no Magistrate but a Roman no Scripture no Greeke Author warranteth us to thinke it never man dreamed it but Erastus Erastus The Pharises hindred not Christ and his Apostles to come to the Temple Ans Christ was a born Jew and circumcised yea and what can the Practise of the Murtherers of Christ prove It is no Law But the Romans never sacrificed in the Temple but gave Liberty to the Iews to serve God according to his word and to hear Christ preach and that Christ kept the Ceremoniall Law and taught others even the cleansed Leapers so to do Matth. 8. is clear Erastus Private men do forgive sins Matth. 18. Luk. 17. Ergo to binde and loose is not a proper judiciall act of a Court Matth. 16. Christ speaketh not to Peter only but to all the faithfull who by teaching one another may bring one another to acknowledge their sin and if they do it they are pardoned if not their sins are bound in Heaven Ans To these the keys are given who retain and remit sins as Erastus saith But these be such as are sent of Christ as the Father sent his son Ioh. 20. 2. Either in this place there is given power to binde and loose by publick preaching the word or by some other place but this power to binde and loose by publick preaching is only given to Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 29. Eph. 4. 11. 12. And Erastus granteth elsewhere that every private man by his office cannot preach nor administer the Sacraments and by no other place is this given to Pastors for I could elude all places with the like answer and say there is a publick Baptizing and Administration of the Supper by Ministers and sent Pastors only and a private also performed by private Christians yea by a woman and both are valid in Heaven and the binding and loosing of both ratified in Heaven 3. Christ spake this to the Disciples who before were sent to Preach and cast out Devils Matth. 10. and saith not Whom thou bindes on earth but in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What things you binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith all this upon the fancy that binding and loosing of the Church and Peters private forgiving of his brother seven times a day must be all one which I do prove in another place to be different and amongst other reasons this is one because the Church pardoning hath a threefold order 1. between brother and brother 2. before two or three 3. Before the Church and the end of all is the gaining of the offending brother Matth. 18 15 16 17 18 19 20. But the private forgiving of a brother of which Peter speaketh Mat. 18. 21 22 23. and Luke 17 4 5. is of an inferiour nature for I know not if you can gain a brothers soule seven times a day if he but say It repenteth me Luke 17. 4. or seventy seven times Mat. 18. 22. These words It repenteth me said seventy times a day to the Church cannot satisfie to the gaining of a soule whereas to the private remitting of revenge it were enough We have the Text to warrant us that Christ spaâ—e to Stewards to whom the keyes are committed Erastus doth but wickedly assert he spoke to those who were as Christians in that act but the Text is cleare he speaketh of binding and loosing spiriâ—ually which is nothing to the holding off of a civill injurie which Erastus saith is the scope of our Saviour here and how hungry must that sense be That you deal with him as with an Heathen who acknowledgeth no Iudge but a Roman judge is a matter ratified in heaven 4. A private man is to forgive an injury even though the offender repent not Mat. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Col. 3. 13. but that pardon cannot be ratified in heaven 5. See what we have said of binding and loosing before Erastus Though Christ should speake this onely to Ministers yet it followeth not that he speaketh this to other Presbyters Ans That dependeth on the proving that there be ruling Elders in the Church which I conceived have proved else where from Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. I conceive when Christ spake this there was neither a formed Presbytery nor a formed Church Erastus Christ saith not if two or three Presbyters or two or three Ministers agree in one I will heare them but where two or three Christians agree Ans Nor doe we say that two or three can make an Excommunicating Church but Christ argueth a minore if the Lord heare two or three on earth farre more will he heare a Church and ratifie in heaven what they doe in binding and loosing offenders in Earth But how shall these words agree to the interpretation of Erastus for he expoundeth two or three and the whole Church to be but one Christian Magistrate can he be said to agree to himselfe Or can one or two or three meet together in Christs Name And what coherence is here Two or three conveeneth to pray that he that will not hear the Christian Magistrate may be dealt with as a Heathen man before the Roman judge how violent and farre off is this glosse and how unsuitable to the Text Erastus What other thing is it to a private brother to gain another to himselfe and to God then binding and loosing in Heaven Ans To bring him before the civill Magistrate either Christian or Heathen whose intrinsecall end by vertue of their office is not to gaine soules but to draw the blood of ill doers is farre
from gaining of Souls Erastus Though binding and loosing be judiciall and forinsecall words they agree not to the Ministery onely but rather to the Magistrate except you say that in the time of Christ amongst the Iewes there was a Church court beside the Magistrates court Ans That they argue authority judiciall is proved already by many Scriptures and judiciall authority Ecclesiasticall it must be which agreeth to the Church and it was never heard that the Church especially in the New Testament doth signifie the Magistrate 2. There is no necessity to say there was a Christian Church court in Christs time because there was not a Christian Magistrate at this time but the Iewes had then a Church-court before which Christ was conveened Caiphas being President and the blinde man Iohn 9. who was cast out of the Synagogue for that he confessed Christ 3. Christ speaketh of that which was to be though in its frame not yet erected Erastus Christ hath the like words of binding and loosing Mat. 16. which signifieth also to preach the Gospell that he who beleeveth may be loosed and he who beleeveth not may be made inexcusable and therefore it is no other but to pray a brother to desist from his injury shewing him that that is acceptable to God for to binde and loose in all the Scripture is never to debarre any from the Sacraments if you divert your brother from doing an injurie by declaring the will and wrath of God out of his Word thou hast gained him and loosed him if he will not be perswaded the wrath of God abides on him and thou hast bound him Ans If loosing and binding Matth. 16. be preaching of the Word of God and loosing be Christian forgiving of an injury then are women who are taught in the prayer of Christ Mat. 6. to forgive one another invested with the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to preach the Gospell and why not also to administer the Seals and so are all private men clothed with the keyes to take in and cast out at their pleasure and what are Ministers that are over the people in the Lord and watch for their soules 2. We never said to binde was to debarre from the Sacraments except consequently onely to binde is to declare an obstinate man as a Heathen and so no member of the house of Christ and consequently to have no right to the bread of the children of the house nor say we that to Excommunicate is formally to debarre men from the Sacraments it is to cast them out of the house hence it must follow that the priviledges of the house belongeth not to them 3. You may disswade a man from doing a civill injurie and never gaine his soule but the Magistrates club for which Erastus contendeth in these words cannot reach the soule Erastus None can remit a debt but the creditor nor pardon an injury but he who suffereth the injurie Ans Then none can binde and loose but private men and the keyes of heaven are given to all private persons nor can private persons by forgiving so remit the person as he is loosed in heaven 2. The Church is offended at Scandals and are sufferers Ergo The Church must binde and loose Let Erastus teach us the way except by Church-censures Erastus Casting out of the unclean is not to binde because to purifie is not to absolve the unclean might be purified by any cleane and not by the Priests onely Ans The legall purging of the Leper was onely by pronouncing him cleane and could not be done but by the Priest and it was a loosing of him Erastus Where Christ instituteth any new ordinance he omitteth nothing that is substantiall but here he speaketh nothing of publike sins for which you doe especially excommunicate Ans Christ according to the minde of Erastus does here institute a throne for the Christian Magistrate how doth he then institute a way how the Christian Magistrate may remove private Scandals and not publike for publike Scandals hurt the Church ten to one more then private doe Christ speaks of sins in their rise private betweene brother and brother but he speaketh of publike Scandals of such as will not heare the Church and for these onely we Excommunicate 2. Tha◠is not true that any one place of Scripture where an institution is that all the substantials of that institution should be expresly set down in that place it is enough that all be held forth in either one Scripture or other as in Christs sufferings Baptisme Pastors c. Erastus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth these words must referre to private men not to the Church it is cleare that Christ speaketh nothing of two as hee doth in this verse but when he saith that one private man is to rebuke and gain another private man nor is it enough to say its an argument à comparatis for if the same thing be not kept in both extreames it is a vaine comparison if you say a childe understandeth this Ergo An aged man understandeth it it followeth well But if you say a child understandeth this Ergo An aged man is rich and good who would not laugh But if God heare the prayer of two Ergo farre more will he heare the prayers of the Church it followeth not except you say if those things that two or three bindes on earth be ratified how shall we thinke that that is ratified which the Church bindes and looses Ans Here is nothing but Grammatications that cannot convince it is true that Christ speaking of two he speaketh of private men but many will not grant so much for they say that by two the smallest number is meant a Church of the fewest by a Synecdoche and two may be taken for a small convention and number which doe literally exceed two Jer. 3. 14. Rev. 11. 3. I will give power to my two Witnesses they be more Martyrs who witnessed against Babylon then two literally and this Exposition seemeth to me as good as the other and then if the smallest Church doe binde and loose in heaven and earth so much more the Church and so all shadow of this unsolid Grammattication is removed 2. The proportion is well kept if two praying on Earth be so heard in Heaven as by their prayers they may obtaine that these be ratified in Heaven which they aske on earth farre more is that ratified in heaven which the Church in a judiciall and authoritative way doth on earth in the Name of Christ for praying of private Christians and publike and authoritative binding of the Church doe both agree in this that the Father of Christ ratifieth both in heaven which is a due keeping of proportion and not such a crooked comparison as Erastus would make between an aged man a rich good man 3. Though two private men have the same Analogicall binding in Heaven and earth
the Church in his dominion leave to live under him as Nebuchadnezzar did to the Church in captivity The Christian Magistrate is a Governour for the Church 1. Men are governed as men politically by Magistrates though Heathen 2. Men are governed as Christians and Citizens of Heaven and Members of Christs invisible body by the inward government of the Spirit and Word 3. Men are governed as Members of Christs visible Body in Church-society Ecclesiastically by Church-officers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13. 7. 13. who watcheth for our Souls and are over us in the Lord and must give an account to God whom we are to obey in a Church-society so Pilate is called Mat. 27. 2. it is given to Kings and Rulers 1 Pet. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 23. 24. so it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one that serveth Luk. 22. 26. no question it is a word borrowed from the seventy interpreters who use it Iosh 13. 21. Mich. 3. 9. Ezech. 44. 3. Dan. 3. 2. the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thes 5. 12. are ascribed to Church-officers Yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler or a Commander Act. 23. 5. is ascribed to the High-Priest who was but a Church-officer and the stile given to Rulers Exod. 22. 28. from which these words are taken is Gods so Ioh. 10. 35 36. compared with Psal 82. 1. Exod. 21. 6. and proveth the same though Church-officers be onely Ministers not Lords not Princes having any dominion over the Lords inheritance Obj. 8. But is not this an easie way to extricate our selves out of all doubts if we say in Church-government that the doctrinal and declarative part is in the Ministers of Christ as Mat. 28. Go teach c. and the punitive and censuring part in the Christian Magistrate Rom. 13. according to that for the punishing of evill doers as Mr. Coleman saith Ans This Erastian way will intricate us not a little and is destructive of the Covenant of both Kingdoms 1. It s a distinction void of Scripture and reason for the Apostolick Churches by it must have no Government as Churches at all for to publish the Gospel which is made the one half Yea all Church-government for this punitive part is a dream is not Church-government nor any part thereof 1. Master Coleman desires that the Parliament would give to preachers Doctrine and power of preaching and wages learning and competency as for Governing of the Church let the Magistrate have that Ministers have other work to do and such as will take up the whole man Sermon Pag. 24 25. Then preaching the Word to the Church cannot be any part of Governing of the Church 2. Because Church government is properly acted by the Church with the power of the keyes to bind and loose in earth as in Heaven by Church-censures and pardoning of an offender and committed to many to the Church to a society gathered together Mat. 18. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. But publishing of the Gospel is done by one single Pastor even to the end of the world even where there is no Church even in the hearts of the Athenienses Act. 17. 33 34. of Felix Act. 24. 25. of the Iayler not Baptised Act. 16. 29 30 31. of the woman of Samaria Ioh. 4. 28 29 30. The Gospel exerciseth a doctrinall and externall government on thousands the like without the Church visible yea and who never are members of a visible Church is this any Church-government of which we now speak and in all the Scripture a power of the keyes to govern the visible Church was never committed to any one single man by Iesus Christ if an Apostolick-priviledge of Pauls excommunicating his alone be objected I can easily answer Apostles continue not to the end of the world 2. This doctrinal publishing of the word is the plants and flowers of the Gardens but Church-government is the hedge and those two are not to be confounded 3. Paul differenceth them as two distinct qualities of a Preacher 1 Tim. 3. while he will have him apt to teach ver 2. and v. 4 5. one that can rule the Church of God well and 1 Tim. 5. 17. ruling well is distinguished from labouring in the Word and Doctrine as a charge worthy of lesse honour from a charge worthy of double honour 4. All Protestant Divines distinguish Doctrine and Government the former belonging to the being and essence of a visible Church as an essentiall note thereof I mean the publike and settled publishing of the Gospel the other is only a thing belonging to the well being of the visible Church and an accident thereof so it is a heedlesse tenent to make the former a part with the latter 5. When we swear a conformity of Doctrine and worship in one Confession one Catechisme one Directory we do not swear the same over again when we swear to endeavour the nearest uniformity in Church-government c. which we cannot but do if the Doctrine and Worship be nothing but a part of Church-government or if it be all Church-government nâ—w if Mr. Colemans punitive part be but his own dream as I hope is easily proved there is no Church Government at all Now how Mr. Coleman did swear to indeavour the nearest uniformity of a Chimera and a thing that is just nothing let himself consider As for Mr. Colemans punitive part of Church Government by the Magistrate this by his way is done by the power of the sword of the Magistrate saith he and therefore citeth Rom. 13. He beareth not the sword in vain c. Hence either the Apostolique Church had no censures at all and so no visible government and order but preaching of the Word was all and except we would adde to our pattern and be more wise then the Holy Ghost and the Apostles we ought to have no Church Government but onely preaching the Word or then the Apostles Pastors and Teachers medled with the sword of the Emperour Nero in discharging the punitive part for with no other instrument doth the Magistrate punish ill-doers but with the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. This text Mr. Coleman citeth to make bloody Nero a Church-governour But no ground is for this in the Word that Paul Peter Timothy Archippus meddled with the Emperours sword or that the weapons of their warfare were carnal or that Paul was the Minister of God bearing the sword for the punishment of evil doers I think Paul speaketh of civil bodily punishing Rom. 13. and no violence greater can be offered to the Word of God for if that power be an Ecclesiastical administration every soul and so the Christian Magistrate is to be subject to this Ecclesiastical and Church power and if so then to the Church If Mr. Coleman deny the consequence I conceive to be subject to the Magistrate is Rom. 13. to be subject
Papists as Vasquez Becanus and others say that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament but that the holy spirit shall to the end of the world teach other new things as occasion shall require And this he bringeth as an Argument to prove that there must be unwritten Traditions not contained in Scripture even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Positives of Church-Policie 3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law do more respect occasions of Providence customes Laws and the manners of people they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged for the Morall Law should be rather alterable at the Churches lust then Ceremonials for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching what is Sabbath breaking whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath the Jews held the affirmative Christ the negative touching obedience to Superiors Homicide Polygamie Incest Fornication Oppression Lying Equivocating Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing which clearly did adumbrat Christ who was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world yea all significant Symbolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence and depending on the meer will of the Instituter Surplice or white linnen signifieth the Priests holinesse without any regard to time place or nationall customes for Christ might have made an immutable Law touching the Symbolicall and Religious signification and use of Saints-dayes white linnen Crossing and all the rest of humane Ceremonies which should stand to Christs second coming notwithstanding of any occurrences of Providence no lesse then he made an immutable Law touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse mysteries as humane positives 4. The assumption is false for divers Ceremoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to occasions of Providence and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences 5. If positives of Policy be alterable because the occasions of such are alterable by God it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Providence in his hand must change these Positives and not the Authority of the Church and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God not by men which is now our question for Christ hath given a Commandment Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick and Celebrate the Lords Supper but the Church doth not then change the Law nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God but God liberateth us himself Hooker But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this point is that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant and such as their Laws had not provided for and so for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God so that by this reason if we may devise one Law they may devise twenty Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith there was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven what to do Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us but they would as learned Master Prynne with them saith take out of our hand the Apostolick Church that it should be no rule to us for saith he There was no Vniforme Church-government in the Apostles times at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren Acts 1. 13. no Elders or Deacons Their Churches increasing they ordained Dâ—acons Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church after that widowes in some Churches not at all In the primitive times some Congregations had Apostles Acts 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists Prophets workers of miracles Healers c. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes Ans 1. What Hooker saith is that which Bellarmine Sanderus Horantius and all Popists say for their Traditions against the perfection of the word to wit that the word of God for 2373. years between Adam and Moses saith Horantius was not written so Turrianus Bellarmine and the reason is just nothing to say the Jews might devise twenty Laws where we may devise one because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant such as their written Laws had not provided for This must be said which is in question and so is a begging of the controversie that the Iews of their own head and Moses without any speciall word from God or without any pattern shown in the mount might devise what Laws they pleased and might punish the blasphemer and the man that gathered stâ—cks on the Sabbath and determine without God the matter of the Daughters oâ— Zelophehad as the Formalists teach that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth in the Antichrists head and the Kings Court the Surplice the Crosse in Baptisme and the like Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer that it is true there was no written Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years Yea nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai But withall what God spake in visions dreams and apparitions to the Patriarchs was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven as the written word is to us so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition which was the same very will and truth of God which Moses committed to writing if then Formalists will assure us of that which Papists could never assure us we shall
the Gospel to them if they were amongst us except that such as are to communicate according to the will of Christ are Christians members of the Church who doth try and examine themselves and Jews and Turks though dwelling and born amongst us are not such yet Erastus would that such should never be admitted to the Lords Supper though they should desire it Officers also have a command not to dispense some parts of the word to all as we are not to rebuke open Scorners Should any of our Church turn Iew and blaspheme Christ and pertinaciously after conviction persist in his Apostacy might not Erastus aske by what command of Christ will ye not Preach the Gospel to such an one Christ made no exception but said Preach to all Nations why do you make Exceptions might we not answer Christ hath given a power of dispensing the Gospel to all yet hath he excepted some because it s against the will of Christ that such can obey the Gospel We are bidden pray for all yet are there some that we are not to pray for because they sin unto death so is the case here in some kinde 7. It is for our instruction that the Priests were rebuked for that they admitted into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in flesh and heart that they put no difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and prophaned the holy things of God Ezek. 44. 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. And this was a shadow of things to come as was observed before teaching us that farre lesse should the Pastors of the New Testament suffer the holy things of God to be prophaned 8. We read that Iohn Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sinnes and professed â—aith in Iesus Christ it would then appeare to be the will of Christ that every one should not be admitted to the Lords Supper though some say the Apostles baptized single persons not in Church communion so that Pastors administer the Sacraments by reason of the power of order as they are Pastors not by power of jurisdiction as having warrant from any Church in regard Churches at the beginning had the Word and Sacraments before they had any Church Government yet I conceive the Lords Supper is a Seale of a Church-communion 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. and the like I say of Baptisme typed by Noahs Arke 1 Pet. 3. 19 20 c. and though the Apostles partly by priviledge partly through necessitie the parts existing before the whole were necessitated first to baptize and then to plant Churches yet the Churches being once constitute these are Church priviledges to be dispensed both by the power of order and the power of jurisdiction CHAP. VI. Quest 2. Some speciall Reasons of Thomas Erastus against Excommunication examined THomas Erastus a Physitian who medled not much with Divinity save in this in which he was unsound in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame and nothing but a device of Pastors affecting domination 1. Object Onely Petâ—r killed Ananias onely Paul excommunicated Alexander and Hymeneus onely Paul said he would come to the Corinthians with the rod and for a long time onely Bishops excommunicated Presbyters gave advise onely Ergo This power is not in the Church Ans The consequence is naught Christ said only to his Disciples in person Go teach and Baptize Is it a good consequence therefore that none hath power to teach and Baptize but only the Apostles Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians to mourn for the incestuouâ— mans fall therefore no Pastors have power to exhort in the like kinde 2. We grant the Apostles did many things out of their Apostolick power which in a constitute Church the Church onely may doe as Paul his alone disputed against Circumcision of the Gentiles Act. 15. 2. What Ergo Paul in a Synod and a Synod hath not power to dispute and determine the same the contrary is evident Act. 15. 12 22 23. 3. It is false that the Authority and rod with which Paul said he would come to the Coriuthians 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apostle the same he giveth to Timothy and to all the Elders 3. If Bishops exercised the same power for many ages Erastus must shew us Bishops who could kill miraculously such as Ananias and Elimas and work miracles now beside that Erastus must with his new opinion hold up a new creature called a Prelate unknown to the Apostles or Ierome and the Fathers he must parallel Bishops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apostles Obj. 2. The Apostles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven and so bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments so also do the Ministers daily and yet Christ in his word commanded not those to be debarred from the Lords Supper Ans It is very true the Apostles and Pastors of Christ that now are denounce eternall wrath and that authoritatively against those that are invisibly to men heart-hypocrites who yet before the Church who know not the heart go for Saints and are neither excluded from Sacraments nor so much as rebuked But it is a vain collection that therefore externally scandalous are not to be debarred from the Supper and Excommunicated The Prophets 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God yet Heathens cannot be Excommunicated and yet I hope Erastus dare not deny but Christ hath forbidden that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sacraments Though I dare provoke any Erastian and attest them by their new Doctrine to shew me a warrant from Christs Testament why the Church should refuse the Seals to a Turke they will say A Turk is not willing to receive and therefore the Seals may be denied to him and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though scandalous if he desire it and professe repentance But I answer Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals What if he should be willing and require to be Baptized yet remaining ignorant of Christ and the Gospel we should not Baptize him Now by the Doctrine of Erastus we have no more re warrant to deny the seals to him then to deny them to Judas we desire a Scripture from the adversary which will not conclude with equall strength of reason against the giving of the seals to any scandalous member of the Church it is true a Turk ignorant of Christ though he should desire the seals is uncapable and he is unwilling vertually in regard he as yet refuseth the knowledge of the Gospel and so is the scandalous professor no lesse uncapable though we may grant degrees of incapacity for he is vertually unwilling to receive Christ in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-sins 2. Though a Turk should be unwilling as its like enough he will be yet we desire a Scripture why we cannot make offer of
the Sacraments to a Turk and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also conclude we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments being both uncapable of them as also because they can but trample on these pearls no lesse then the Turk should do the Argument then is just nothing We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven whom we do not excommunicate on earth But he should say we Excommunicate many whom we do not exclude out of Heaven Erastus These two are not one to declare a person hatefull in Heaven to God and to be cast out of the visible Church for if they be both one then one private Pastor may Excommunicate for he may declare from Gods word that an offender is excluded out of Heaven hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude also why should this be as good a consequence God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God Ergo he is to be cast out of the visible Church as this God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall Ergo God will not have him to live in this temporall life Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not worthy of life eternall to whom he hath given power to cast out devils in his name Matth. 7. Ans All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication So Iudas might have Excommunicated himself and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church he is cast out of the invisible Church But that is not Excommunication except it be done for a publick scandall that offendeth the Church 2. Except it be done by the visible Church 3. According to the rule of Christ Matth. 18. 4. That he may be ashamed and repent and be saved Gods binding of the offender in Heaven is a part of Excommunication but not all nor the very same with Excommunication 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor and yet the Conscional casting out by one insuo genere is as valid as the other subordinata non pugnant 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule God thinketh those who walketh inordinately and causeth divisions not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints and must binde them in heaven to that censure in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word Rom. 16 17. 18. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these he may deny salvation to the wicked and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath Ergo he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish This consequence dependeth on the meer dispensation of God nor is this our Consequence God judgeth such unworthy of heaven Ergo they must be cast out of the visible Church we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommunicated and only these which is false for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ and yet they are to be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the Church as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy and many whom God judges unworthy of life eternall may so belie a Profession as they deserve not to be excommunicated and both these may fall out and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ Erastus 4. objecteth Excommunication must exclude men from only the externall society of the Church for he only can joyne us to Christ or separate us from internall and spirituall society of Christ who can beget lively faith in us and extinguish lively faith when it is begotten for by faith only we are made living members of Christs body and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie But no Church no creatures can either beget lively faith in us or extinguish it in us or thus men can neither give to us nor take from us salvation therefore Excommunication should not be defined by cutting men off from salvation Ans This is the only Argument of Erastus that seemeth to bear weight But it is false and groundlesse it supposeth the false principle that Erastus goeth on that Excommunication is a reall separation of a member from Christs Invisible and Mysticall body and that the Excommunicated person who may be an Invisible member of Christ and regenerated may be an Apostate and fall from Christ and leave off to be a member The contrary of which all our Protestant Divines teach against Papists whereas Excommunication is only a Declarative but withall an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church and no reall cutting off of a believer from Christ But you will say It presupposeth a cutting off in heaven from Christ and therefore the Excommunicated person is declared to be cut off Let me Answer I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation Regeneration or non-Regeneration for its object or terminus but only it cutteth a contumacious person off from the Visible Church on earth and from the head Christ in heaven not in regard of his state of Regeneration as if Christ ratifying the Sentence in heaven did cut him off so much as conditionally from being a member of his body No but in regard of the second Acts of the life of God and the sweet efficacy and operation of the spirit by which the Ordinances are lesse lively lesse operative and lesse vigorous the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton saith As a palsie Member in which life remaineth but a little withered and blunted and he in Satans power to ve◠his spirit and therefore I grant all to wit that Excommunication is not a reall separating of a member from Christs body only unbelief doth that but it followeth not Ergo it is a separation only from the externall society of the Church For 1. This externall cutting off is ratified in heaven And 2. Christ hath ratified it by a real internal suspension of the influence of his spirit in heaven But I deny that this universall doth follow from Christs binding in heaven That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven all these are to be cast out of the Church he cannot prove this consequence from our grounds Erastus Argueth thus If God dam any as
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
office in either Church or state for so a Christian Magistrate as a Christian Magistrate should be Ens per aggregationem a thing composed of Magistracy and Christianity as a Christian Physician a Christian Painter and then the question should be whether judgeth he as a Magistrate or as a Christian as we may aske whether a Christian painter painteth as a painter or as a Christian not as a Christian for then all Christians should be Painters and a result of both should neither be a Magistrate nor a Christian but middle between both which fighteth with reason and sense Some say The power of the Magistrate in a Christian Magistrate who knoweth the doctrine of the Gospell and hath help of the counsell and light of godly Pastors and Teachers is perfecter then in Heathen Magistrates and therefore this power as not Christian or heathenish governs men as men but as Christian it governeth them as Christian mâ—n But the learned and worthy professor Jac. Triglandius saith this is said without probation for saith he men as Christians are members of the Church and so are not governed but in an Ecclesiasticall way and where hath the Lord commanded the Christian Magistrate to governe the sheep of Christ as the sheep of Christ Then say I 1. The magistrate must governe the Church as the Church and so rule over the conscience of men in relation to eternall happinesse by promising to them temporall rewards and by compelling them by the sword to be carried toward eternall beatitude for to rule the Church as the Church is to direct and lead them by spirituall means Word Sacraments and Discipline to heaven which the magistrate as a magistrate cannot do by the sword and what he doth as a Christian that he must do in a spirituall way not with a secular arm and power as magistrate and the two powers of a magistrate and of a Christian cannot coalescere grow together in one office which is made up of both as of two parts being in nature and spece different no more then of a Horse and a Lyon you can make a third living creature It is true by Grace and Christianity the power of the magistrate is perfected and an excellent lustre added to it but not one degree of Magistraticall power is added to it by which the magistrate doth rule men as Christians and as a Church For as the office of a magistrate doth not promote the man one step nearer to saving Grace so Christianity maketh not the Heathen magistrate more a magistrate nor giveth him a new sword over the Church as the Church which he had not before nor doth it take any magistraticall power from him no more then a heathen Husband Master Physician being converted to Christ is more a husband more a master or Physician then he was before The former power is only spiritualized and graciously facilitated in its acts but not one whit augmented in its entitative degrees of power over the wife the souldiers the servants the sick Triglandius excellently The Christian magistrate converted is sanctified but he acqâ—ireth no new right over the Church So meat is sanctified by the Word and Prayer but it is not more meat nor doth more nourish because sanctified 7. Distinct The exercise of the Ministeriall power in dispensing Word Sacraments Discipline falleth under a fourfold consideration which because it cleareth a necessary point I desire may be carefully observed by the Reader 1. The simple exercise of that power is considered sine modo without any qualification good or evil Orthodox or Heterodox as the Christian Magistrate procureth by his care that there should be a Ministery to dispense Word Sacraments and Disciplinâ— 2. The second Consideration of this exercise is The exercise of power soundly and painfully in the fear of the Lord the Magistrate exhorting them thereunto for conscience 3. The third Consideration is the exercise of the same in a corrupt and wicked way and manner either negligently or wickedly or for evil ends 4. The fourth Consideration is the free and peaceable exercise of this power without bodily violence Hence I intreat the Reader to carry along in his â—ye 1. The simple exercise of the Ministeriall power 2. The just and godly sound and laudable exercise 3. The wicked and corrupt exercise or the abuse thereof 4. The peaceable exercise Hence our 1. Assertion The Magistrate as the Magistrate is to procure that there be Preachers and Church-officers to dispense Word Sacraments and Discipline For 1. his end is That people under him may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in godlinesse and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. And the Magistrate attaineth his end as a Magistrate if there be simple exercise of Religion in the quiet and peaceable way that may consist with the subjects indempnity and immunity from rapine injuries and violence 2. The difference between the Magistrates and other callings is that the Magistrate was to take care of old That there were Levites who bare the Ark and Priests who should burn incense before the Lord and Sacrifice and yet it was unlawfull for the Magistrate to bear the Ark on his own shoulders or in his own person to burn incense or sacrifice so the Physicians hinder that diseases rage amongst the subjects and the Magistrates do also hinder that they should rage But the Physians hinder them by curing diseases and the Magistrate hinders them not by curing diseases for then he should as a Magistrate also be a Physician but by procuring that there should be Physicians in the Common-wealth The Magistrate hindreth ignorance and losing Ships by Tempests not by professing and teaching Sciences and Arts in Academies in his own person nor by steering Ships and guiding them himself to their Ports for so a magistrate as a magistrate should be a Schoolmâ—ster a professor of Arts and Sciences in the Universities and a Pilot or Shipmaster which were a confounding of all callings but by procuring that there should be Universities and Professors of Arts and Sciences and by providing honorable stipends and wages for them and procuring that in the Common-wealth there should be Sailers who are skilled in Shipping and so doth the magistrate by his office take care that the Word Sacraments and Discipline be dispensed 3. But the magistrate as the magistrate doth noâ— command sincere hearty zealous and affectionate dispensing of Word Sacraments aâ—d Discipline But only the dispensing of those without the qualification of the spirituall or sincere exercise of the power Because 1. The Magistrate cannot command that as a magistrate which he cannot judge of whether the thing commanded be consonant to his command or not But the magistrate as the magistrate cannot judge of the spirituallity sincerity zealousnesse affectionatenesse of that obedience which the Church yieldeth to his command for if the Pastors dispense word and Sacraments and binde and loose by the keys following the rules of the word the magistrate
But what wonder For Hooker holdeth that we have no other way to know the scripture to be the Word of God but by Tradition which Popish Assertion holden by him and Chillingworth to me is to make the Traditions of men the object of our Faith Hooker About things easie and manifest to all men by Common sense there needeth no higher Consultation because a man whose wisdom is for weighty affairs admired would take it in some disdain to have his Counsel solemnly asked about a toy so the meannesse of some things is such that to search the Scriptures of God for the ordering of them were to derogate from the Reverend Authority of the Scripture no lesse then they do by whom Scriptures are in ordinary talking very idely applied unto vain and Childish trifles Ans 1. It is a vain comparison to resemble God to an earthly wise man in this for a King of Kings such as Artaxerxes if he were building a stately Palace for his Honour and Magnificence would commit the drawing of it the frame the small pins rings bowles to the wisdom of a Master of work skilled in the Mathematicks and not trouble his own Princely head with every small pin but this is because he is a man and cometh short of the wisdom skill and learning of his servants 2. Because how his Honour and Magnificence be declared in every small pin of that Palace is a businesse that taketh not much up the thoughts of a stately Prince The contrary of both these are true in the Lord our God his wisdom is above the wisdom of Moses and Moses cannot frame a Tabernacle or a Temple for Gods Honour in the least pin or sâ—uffer with such wisdom as the only wise God can do 2. The Lord is more jealous and tender of his own Honour in the meanes and smallest way of Illustrating of it Yea in the smallest Pin then earthly Princes are for earthly Princes may Communicate with their inferiours the glory of curious works set forth as speaking monuments of their honour the Lord who will not give his glory to another never did communicate the glory of devising worship or the Religious means of worshipping and honouring his glorious Majesty to men 2. God hath thus â—ar condiscended in his wisdom to speak particularly in written Oracles of every Pin Ring tittle Officer of his house of every Signe Sacrament Sacramentall never so mean and small Ergo It is no derogation from the dignity of Scripture to have a mouth to aske counsell where God hath opened his mouth to give Counsell in written Oracles 3. There is nothing positive in Gods worship so small as that we may dare to take on us to devise it of our own head 4. Hooker contradicteth himself he said the Ceremonies have their authority from God and though unwritten have the self same force and authority with the written Laws of God pag. 44. Here he will have the unwritten positives so small and far inferiour to written Scripture that to aske for scripture to warrant such small toys is to derogate from the reverend Authority and Dignity of the Scripture so Ceremonies pag. 46. are but Toyes unworthy to be written with Scripture but p. 44. They have the self same force and authority with written Scripture Hooker It is unpossible to be proved that only the Schoole of Christ in his word is able to resolve us what is good and evil for what if it were true concerning things indifferent that unlesse the word of the Lord had determined of the free use of them there could have been no Lawfull use of them at all which notwithstanding is untrue because it is not the Scriptures setting down things indifferent but their not setting them down as necessary that doth make them to be indifferent Ans Then because the scripâ—ure hath not forbidden the killing of our children to God as a â—alse worship against the second Commandment but only as an act of Homicide against the sixth Commandment and hath not forbidden all the Jewish Ceremonies so they have a new signification to point forth Christ already come in the flesh these must all be indifferent For let Formalists give me a Scripture to prove that Circumcision killing of Children sacrificing of Beasts are any wayes forbidden in this notion but in that they are not commanded or set down in the word as not necessary 2. Such Divinity I have not read That only the Schoole of Christ is not able to resolve us what is good and evil I mean Morally good and evil For Hooker pag. 54. Book 2. saith The controversie would end in which we contend that all our actions are ruled by the word If 1. we would keep our selves vvithin the compasse of morall actions actions which have in them vice or vertue 2. If we vvould not exact at their hands for every action the knowledge of some place of Scripture out of vvhich vve must stand bound to deduce it Then it is like the School of Christ the word can and doth teach us what is a Morall action good or ill an action in vvhich there is vertue or vice and to me it is a wonder that the Old and New Testament which containeth an exact systeme and body of all Morals whither naturall or Civill or supernaturall should not be the only rule of all Morals Now I finde that Mr. Hooker saith two things to this 1. That Scripture doth regulate all our Morall actions but not scripture only for the Lavv of nature and the most concealed instincts of nature and other principles may vvarrant our actions We move saith he we sleep vve take the Cup at the hand of our friend a number of things vve often do only to satisfie some naturall desire vvithout present expresse and actuall reference to any Commandment of God unto his glory even these things are done vvhich vve naturally perform and not only that vvhich naturally and spiritually vve do for by every effect proceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature his povver is made manifest But it doth not therefore follovv that of necessity we shall sin unlesse vve expresly intend the glory of God in every such particular Ans I speak of these more distinctly hereafter here I answer that as there be some actions in man purely and spiritually but supernaturally morall as to believe in Christ for Remission of sins to love God in Christ These the Gospel doth regulate 2. There be some actions naturally morall in the substance of the act as many things commanded and forbidden in the Morall Law and these are to be regulated by the Law of nature and the Morall Law 3. There be some actions mixed as such actions in which nature or concealed instincts of nature are the chief principles yet in and about these actions as in their modification of time place and manner and measure there is a speciall morality in regard of which they are to be ruled by the word
Moses the Prince is Commanded to make all according to the Patern in the Mount 2. God speaketh to all Israel and not to the Princes only Deut. 4. 1. Hearken O Israel he speaketh to these who are bidden to keep their soul diligently v. 6. 3. It is Bellarmines groundlesse charity to think private heads who were not Princes and Law-givers did not take on an hâ—iry Mantle to deceive Zach. 13. 4. And say Thus saith the Lord when God had not spoken to them Ier. 23. 16. 32. Yea and Private women added their own dreams to the word of God Ezech. 13. 17 18. 3. They say Traditions are from Gods Spirit But hath Gods Spirit lost all Majesty Divinity and power in speaking If the Popes Decretals the Councels the dirty Traditions wanting life Language and power be from Gods Spirit Formalists admit Traditions from an humane spirit and in this are shamed even by Papists who say God only â—an adde to his own Word whereas they say men and the worst of men Prelates may adde to Gods vvord 4. But that additions perfecting are forbidden is clear 1. Additions perfecting as Didoclavius saith argueth the word of imperfection and that Baptisme is not perfect without Crossing 2. It is Gods Prerogative to adde Canonick Scripture to the five books of Moses and the Nevv-Testament and the doctrine of the Sacraments which cannot be Syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament Matth. 28. 19 20. Ioh. 21. 31. Heb. 3. 2. Rev. 1. 19. and these are perfecting and explaining additions therefore men may by as good reason adde Canonick Scripture to the Revelation as adde new Positive Doctrines like this The holy Surplice is a sacred signe of Pastorall Holinesse Crossing is a signe of dedicating the childe to Christs service for Papists â—ay even Vasquez That the Pope neither in a generall Councell nor out of it can ordain any nevv points of Faith vvhich are not contained in the principles or Articles revealed and may not be evidently concluded out of them Formalists answer It is not lavvfull to adde any thing as a part of divine worship but it is Lawfull to addâ— something as an indifferent Rite coming from Authority grounded upon common equity And this is the ansvver of the Jesuite Vasquez The Pope and Church cannot make an Article of Faith for that is believed by divine Faith to come from God only but as Law-givers they may give Laws that bindeth the conscience and yet are not altogether essentiall in worship If additions as divine parts of Gods worship say we be forbidden God then forbidding to adde such Traditions forbiddeth his own spirit to adde to Gods word for no man but God can adde additions Divine that is coming from God but God himself by good consequence the forbidding men to add additions as really coming from God should forbid men to be Gods for divine additions are essentially additions coming from God but if he forbid additions only of mens divising but obtruded to have the like efficacy and power over the conscience that Canonick Scripture hath then were it lawfull to adde killing of our children to Molech so it were counted not really to come from God with opinion of divine necessity and by this God should not forbid things to be added to his Word by either private or publick men but only he should forbid things to be added with such a quality as that they should by Divine Faith be received as coming from God and having the heavenly stamp of Canonick Scripture when as they are come only from the Pope and his bastard Bishops so all the fables of the Evangell of Nicodemus The materials of the Iewish and Turkish Religion might be received as lawfull additions so they do not contradict the Scripture as contrary to what is written but only beside what is written and with all so they be received as from the Church Also 3. Additions contrary to the word are diminutions to adde to the eight Command this addition The Church saith it is lawfull to steal were no addition to the ten Commandments but should destroy the eight Commandment and make nine Commandments only and the meaning of Gods precept Deut. 12. Thou shalt neither adde nor diminish should be Thou shalt neither diminish neither shalt thou diminish And so our Masters make Moses to forbid no additions at all 6. Commentaries and Expositions of the Word if sound shall be the word of God it self the true sense of a speech is the form and essence of a speech and so no additions thereunto but explanations except you make all sound Sermons Arbitrary Ceremonies and Traditions whereas Articles of Faith expounded are Sermons and so the Scripture it self materially taken is but a Tradition QUEST II. Whether Scripture be such a perfect rule of all our Morall Actions aâ— that the distinction of essentiall and necessary and of accidentall and Arbitrary worship cannot stand And if it forbid all worship not only contrary but also beside the word of God as false though it be not reputed as divine and necessary FOrmalists do acknowledge as Morton Burges Hooker and others teach us that Ceremonies which are meer Ceremonies indifferent in nature and opinion are not forbidden yea that in the generall they are commanded upon common equity and in particular according to their specification Surplice Crossing Knâ—eling before consecrated Images and representations of Christ are not forbidden and negatively Lawfull having Gods allowing if not his commanding will but only God forbiddeth such Ceremonies wherein men place opinion of divine necessity holinesse and efficacy in which case they become Doctrinall and essentiall and so mens inventions are not Arbitrary and accidentall worship But let these considerations be weighed 1. Distinct The Word of Go being given to man as a Morall Agent is a rule of all his Morall Actions but not of actions of Art Sciences Disciplines yea on of meer nature 2. Distinct Beside the Word in actions Morall and in Gods worship is all one with that which is contrary to the Word and what is not commanded is forbidden as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindenesse 3. Lawfulnesse is essentiall to worship instituted of God but it is not essentiall to worship iâ— generall neither is opinion of sanctity efficacy or Divine necessity essentiall to worship but only to Divine worship and its opinion not actuall nor formall but fundamentall and materiall 4. Seeing the Apostles were no lesse immediatly inspired of God then the Prophets it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush and put a difference betwixt Apostolick Commandments or Traditions and divine Commandments as it is a vain and Scripturelesse curiosity to difference betwixt the Propheticall truths of Moses Samuel Isaiah Ieremiah Ezekiel c. And Divine Prophecies which is as if you would difference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer and the writing made by the pen of Titus
feet in that he could not have said I have put the honour of Table-fellowship on you for you stand and wash my feet and I sit this I say had been no table-honour but most contrary to it It had been indeed servant-honour Luk 22. 27. and more then sinfull men are worthy of To kneel to Christ is an honour but to kneel at Tabling with him as kneeling is no more an expressing signe of table-honour nor standing and serving Christ while he did eat is an honour of table-fellowship Now if any shall take away eating with Christ at that table he taketh away table-honour as Papists do in taking away drinking with Christ from the people yet eating with Christ maketh us not equall to Christ but take away eating and you take away Table-honour so take away sitting at Table and you take away eatenus in so far the Table-honour But by this mean say they you make it necessary to sit and of Divine necessity I answer Table sitting is not so necessary as that the want thereof doth annihilate the Sacrament and make it to be no Sacrament at all but it is as I think many wayes necessary as first it is morally or Theologically necessary as being gesture sanctified by the practice of Christ and his Apostles upon Morall grounds and so to be imitated by us 2. It is necessary by necessity of expediency as free from hazard of Idolatry of which crime kneeling in this act is guilty 3. It is necessary sacramentally for the integrity of the Sacrament as signifying our honour of Table-fellowship 4. It is by natures grounds necessary that as this banquet is materiall having bread wine taking breaking distribution eating drinking so the externall solemnity of a banquet such as is table-sitting requireth the same And 5. which is our 4. Argument it is necessary by necessity of Divine precept Do this in remembrance of me that this is included in the precept we certainly believe 1. Because nothing in reason can be excluded from the precept of the first pattern but what is meerly occasionall such as sitting is not 2. The practise of Christ and the Apostles cannot be a will-action and therefore must fall under a precept sitting cannot be occasionall upon the reason that it was continued through occasion of the passeover for if this be good then eating and drinking and the Analogy betwixt the signe and Christ shall be occasionall and the singing of a Psalm as was at the Passeover shall be occasionall for Christ retained what did equally belong to the Supper of the Iews and this Christian Supper as concerning the common nature of sacred Feasts 5. What is proper to a table of solemn feasting should not be denyed to this But sitting was such Ergo More of this may be seen in the Nullity of Pearth examination and the re-examination of the five Articles of Pearth QUEST II. Whether humane Laws binde the consciences are not OUr Argument against Ceremonies is that they fail against the fifth Commandment and the Authority of Rulers What the Civill or Church-Ruler can command must be good necessary apt to edifie and not indifferent or neither good nor evil Ceremonies are acknowledged by their Fathers to be indifferent and neither good nor evil Ergo They are such as cannot be lawfully commanded The Proposition is clear the Ruler must command for good Rom. 13. 4. He is the minister of God for thy good and all for edification 1 Cor. 10 23. 1 Cor. 14. 3. v. 12 17 26. And therefore all means injoyned for this end good and Edification must conduce thereunto of their own nature and not by the will of men else they edifie not But that this may be further cleared it is questioned if humane Lawes binde the conscience for which consider 1. Dist An humane Law is taken in Concreto when judges command what God commandeth as when they make a Law against murther 2. In abstracto when the judge forbiddeth what may tend to murther as carrying Armour in a City in the night 2. Dist There is some morall equity in right humane Laws 3. Something positive 4. Dist There be four things to be regarded in humane Laws 1. Publick peace of the society 2. The credit honour and Majesty of the Ruler even when the Law is unjust 3. Obedience passive and subjection by patient suffering 4. Obedience active by doing which is now to be considered Dist 5. An humane Law Civill may oblige Ratione generalis praecepti In regard of the generall command to obey our superiors as the fifth Command saith But the question is if a humane Law as meerly positive oblige in conscience as if this which the Captain forbiddeth as not to speak the vvatch-word be in it self against the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not murther if no murther follow upon the not speaking of the watch-word though it be against the fifth in the generall Dist 6. The question is not whether we be obliged in conscience to obey superiors in things Lawfull or whether we be obliged in conscience to obey Superiors when they are sole authoritative relaters and carriers of Gods expresse Law to us for then they bring nothing of their own to lay upon us and in these cases their laws are rather Gods Laws delivered by Superiors to us and binde the conscience But the question is if positive laws in particular matters negatively only conform to the word as in matters of Oeconomy and policy as not to eat flesh in Lent for the growth of cattell in matters of Art and in ordering of war and Military Acts commanded by Captains if these commandments as such oblige the conscience Now to oblige the conscience is when the not doing of such a thing bringeth an evil conscience now an evil conscience as Pareus saith Is the sense of sin committed against God and the fear of Gods judgement Distinct 7. The conscience iâ— obliged by doing or not doing two wayes 1. Per se kindly when the fact of it self obligeth and for no respect without as to give almes to the poor at the Commandment of the superior 2. When the fact obligeth for a reason from publick peace good example and order 1. Conclusion When Rulers command what God expresly commandeth their Laws obligeth the conscience Psal 34. 11. Come ye children hearken unto me and I will teach you the fear of the Lord Prov. 4 1. Hear ye children the instruction of a Father 2. Conclus Publick peace in all the commandments of Superiors in so far as can be without sin obligeth the conscience as Heb. 12. 14. Follow peace with all men and godlinesse Psal 34. 14. Seek peace and follow after it Rom. 12. 18. 3. Conclus Subjection to the censures of Rulers by suffering patiently is an obligation lying upon all private persons 1 Pet. 2. 20. But if vvhen ye do vvell and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable to God Rom. 13. 2. Whosoever therefore
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 4. Conclus Nothing in non-obeying unwarrantable Commandments must be done that redoundeth to the discredit of the Ruler or the hurting of his Majesty and honour 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King Eccles 10. 20. Curse not the King For even when we deny subjection or obedience objective to that which they command yet owe we obedience officiall and all due respect and reverence to the person and eminent place of the Ruler as Act. 7. 2. Steven calleth them Men brethren and fathers Act. 7. 51. And yet stiffe-necked resisters of the holy Ghost 5. Conclus Humane Laws whither civill or Ecclesiastick in that particular positive matter which they have of Art Oeconomy policy and in Gods matters of meer humane coyne and stamp do not bindes the conscience at all per se kindely and of themselves 1. Nothing but what is either Gods expresse word or his word by consequence doth lay a band on the conscience of it self But not to eat flesh in Lâ—nt upon civill reasons Not to carry Armour in the night To wear Surplice and to Crosse infants in Baptisme are neither Gods word expresly nor by consequence The major is sure because the word is the perfect and adequate object of matters of Faith and morall practice which concerneth the conscience Psal 19. 7. 8. Psal 119. 9. Iohn 20. 31. Prov. 8. 9. 2. Because whatever thing layeth a band on the conscience the not doing of that would be a sin before God if the Ruler should never command it But the carrying Armour in the night the not wearing Surplice in Divine service should be no sin before God if the ruler should never command them as reason Scriptures and adversaries teach The Proposition I instruct from the diffinition of an obligation of conscience for to lay a band on the conscience is defined to lay a command on the soul which ye are obliged before God to do as you would eschew sin and obtain eternall salvation So the learned Pareus so Dr. Field so Gerson and so teach Gregorius de Valentia and Suarez 3. None can lay on a band of not doing under the hazard of sin but they that can remit sins for the power that looseth the same bindeth But mortall men cannot binde to sin nor loose men from sin but where God goeth before them in binding and loosing for they cannot bestow the grace of pardoning sin But he onely who hath the keys of David who openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth 4. Whoever can lay on bands of Laws to bring any under the debt of sin must lay on bands of obligation to eternall punishment but God only can do this Mat. 10. 28. The Proposition is clear because sin against God essentially includeth a relative obligation to eternall punishment 5. In matters of Gods worship this is clear The School-men as Aquinaâ— Suarez Ferrariensis Conradus teach us that there is a twofold good The first is an objective and primordiall goodnesse whereby things are agreeable to Gods Law if rulers finde not this in that good which they command they are not just and so not to be obeyed There is another goodnesse that cometh from the will of authority so only divine authority must make things good the will and authority of Rulers findeth objective goodnes in them and therefore enacteth Laws of things but because they enact Laws of things they do not therefore become good and Lawfull It is the will of the Creator of all beings which is the measure rule and cause of the goodnesse of things as Adams not eating of the tree of knowledge is good and gratefull obedience from Gods forbidding will and it should have been as gratefull obedience to eat of that tree if God had commanded so Men cannot make worlds nor can their will create goodnesse in acts indifferent nor can their forbidding will illegittimate or make evil any actions indifferent and therefore things must be morally good and so intrinsecally good without the creative influence of humane Authority and from God only are they apt to edifie and to oblige the conscience in the termes of goodnesse morall And this is strengthened by that which in reason cannot be denied to wit that it is essentiall to every human Law that layeth any obligation on the conscience that it be just nor is it to be called a Law except it be just and justice and equity humane Laws have from God the law of nature and his word not from the Authority and will of men therefore Iurists expound that What pleaseth the Prince hath the vigour of a Law of just things Also the School-men as Carduba Thomas Soto Medina Adrianus Navar Driedo Castro as I gather out of their writings give strong reasons why Rulers cannot lay an obligation on the conscience when the matter of the Law is light and naughty for this were to make a man a trangressor before God for a word a straw a toy which is unjust Because the just weight of the matter is the only just ground of the Laws obligation Ergo the will of the Lawgiver except he make a moat a mountaine cannot lay an obligation of necessity on man 2. It were a foolish law and so no law to oblige to eternall punishment and the offending of 2. God for a light thing for this were to place the way of salvation in that wherein the way consisteth not 3. Such a law were not for edification but for destruction of soules 4. This was the Pharises fault Mat. 23. to lay on intollerable burthens on mens soules 5. The law of God and nature freeth us in positive lawes from guilt in case of necessity as David did lawfully eat Shew-bread 6. A Civill law may not take away a mans life for a straw farre lesse can it bind to Gods wrath 7. Augustine saith they be unjust ballances to esteeme things great or small for our sole will Out of all which I conclude that no law as a Law doth oblige the Conscience but that which hath from the matter morall equity and not from the intention of the Law-giver as Cajetan Silvester Angelus and Corduba teach which intention must take a rule from the matter of the law and not give a rule Gerson No law saith he is a law to be called as necessary to salvation as all good lavves should be but that vvhich de jure Divino is according to Gods lavv yea vve are not saith Durandus to obey the Pope if he command a Monke to doe somthing vvhen he is not moved to command by the necessity the profit of the Church but by his ovvne free vvill and if this be knovven If the Pope faith he for his ovvne vvill and vvithout necessity and utility should seclude vvorkes of supererogation that command should tend to destruction and vve
are to obey Christ vvho is above the Pope And therefore his mind is that all obligation of Conscience in humane commandments commeth from Gods will and law that is from the just and necessary matter of the law not from the will of men 6. Conclus All humane or Ecclesiastick lawes binding the conscience have necessarie and not probable deduction onely by the warrant of both the Mâ—jor Proposition and Assumption from the Word of God and Law of Nature This conclusion is against Suarez he seeketh onely a probable connexion betwixt obliging Lawes and the Divine law And Gregorius de valent is in very deed against Gerson who teacheth three things of all humane lawes 1. That they are in so farre just 2. That they in so farre oblige the Conscience as they have necessary dependance upon natures law or Gods word and therefore compareth them to these precepts that Physitians give to sicke persons they oblige the conscience of the sicke as I thinke from the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther for if the patient sleepe at such a time or drinke wine in such a case he killeth himselfe but they have not obliging power from the fift Commandement not as if the King being sicke were obliged by the fift Commandement to obey the Physitian as his superiour 3. He will have all humane laws that properly obligeth to be onely declaratory and to manifest onely the Divine law and to apply it to such and such a matter The Conclusion is clear from what is said before because all civil laws as meerly positive in the cafe of non-contempt doe not oblige and in the case of non-scandall as Medin Almaine Gerson teach And it followeth from a sure ground that Vasquez layeth downe and he hath it from Driedo to wit that the efficacy of obligation in humane lawes cometh not from the will of Lawgivers or their intention but from the dignity or waightines of the matter If then the matter be not from Gods law just the obligation is none at all for if the law from mans will shall lay on an obligation of three degrees whereas Gods law from Gods vvill before men inacted this in a Law laid on an obligation of two degrees onely tying the Conscience then the will of man createth obligation or the obligative power of conscience in the matter of the Law and by that same reason he createth goodnes which is absurd for that is proper to God onely I grant it is hard because of the variety of singular actions in mans life to see the connexion betwixt particulars of humane lawes and Gods lawes yet a connexion there is and for this cause the learned worthy Divine Pareus will have humane lawes in particulari per se in the particular and of themselves to binde the Conscience Whereas Calvin and Beza Iunius Tilenus Sibrandus Whittakerus and others deny this But the truth is humane civill lawes are two waies considered 1. As they are meerly Positive according to the letter of the Law 2. As they have a connexion with 1. The principles of nature of right and wrong 2. With the end of the law which is the supream law The safety of the people as the Civill law saith he who entreth to an inheritance and maketh no Inventory of all his goods shall pay debts above the-whole heritage this law according to the letter in the Court of conscience is unjust and so cannot oblige in Conscience so as he is guilty before God and deserveth the vengeance of everlasting wrath who doth not make an inventory of all his goods and produce it to the Iudge so he that goeth up to the walls of a City may by the Law be commanded to be put to death yet is he not guiltie of eternall death before God and therefore if the presumption which is the ground of the law cease as this He that maketh not an inventory with a purpose to enjoy the whole inheritance and pay no debts sinneth before God against conscience as famous jurists to wit Jason Bartolus and others teach for this Law considered as having connexion with a principle of nature that every man should pay his debts is a law binding the Conscience and the truth is the end of these Lawes oblige the Conscience they being divine expressions of justice and righteousnesse but not the Lawes themselves for whatever obligeth the conscience as a divine truth the ignorance thereof is a sinfull ignorance and maketh a man guilty of eternall wrath but men are not guilty lyable to the eternal wrath of God because they are ignorant of all the civill Lawes in Iustinians book then were we obliged to be no lesse versed in all the civill lawes that bindeth in foro humano then of the Bible and law of God The adversaries strive to prove that these lawes oblige the conscience we may heare Bellarmine Vasquez Valentinian and the Formalist and Arminian Doctor Jackson say To resist the Rulers in giving and making lawes is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. They have not refused thee but they have refused me that I should not raigne over them Suarez â—aith An humane law is the neerest cause of obligation of conscience as the eternall law is the remote cause And â—ackson as the immediate interposition of divine authority made the killing of Abrahams sonne holy which otherwise would have been cruelty so the interposition of authority derived from God make some actions that barely considered would be apparently evill and desperate to be honest and lawfull to strike a Prophet would seem sin but when a Prophet coÌ„mandeth to strike not to strike is disobedience 1 Kin. 20. 35 36. to rob a Spaniard is Piracie but to do it upon the Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State is obedience to the King Answ To resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and as a servant is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. proveth well But the assumption then is most false for rulers in making lawes and creating by their sole pleasure goodnes morall in particular matters without the word of God are not Gods servants nor is humane authoritie as humane the nearest cause of obligation of conscience instamped in these lawes nor is it the cause at all and therefore to resist them is not to resist God They be Gods instruments and Ministers in 1. Propounding and expounding Gods laws 2. In executing them and defending them from the violence of men 3. In making positive and directory civil lawes for civill government that are lawes improperly so called which bind the conscience as above is said in so far as they have dependance upon Gods Law for Iames saith There is but one Law-giver As for Church-canons all except Physicall circumstances in them are to be warranted by the word Therefore it is a vaine consequence of Valentia humane lawes oblige dependenter
a lege aeternâ as they depend on the eternall law Ergo they oblige in Conscience it followeth not They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition in that which is morall can be proved out of Gods word but so in their morallity they are meerely divine and not humane and positive and so the argument concludeth not against us They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law that is as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God in a Major proposition without probation of the assumption that we deny and it is in question now The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge rejected God not because Samuel had a power of making lawes without the warrant of Gods word Neither Moses nor Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines hand then Jackson saith For Bellarmine saith In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power to make that which is sinne to be no sin and that which is no sinne to be sinne So Iackson the interposition of derived authority maketh that which would be murther other wayes to bee a good worke that is men may doe what God onely can doe If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice then Abrahams derived authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice as to strike a Prophet of it selfe is a degree of murther but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet it is lawfull But can any blasphemer say that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord such as are humane positive lawes and our humane ceremonies see the text 1 King 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord smite me This was immediate divine and Propheticall authoritie and not humane Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull Court Parasites speake so he refuteth himselfe The Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State maketh that which is Piracy lawfull then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetick power and a law laid upon the Conscience but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine done to the State of England may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawfull Magistrate Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place which have no warrant of the word of God Yea even Stapleton a Papist saith as Doctor Field also observeth That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter and not from the will of the Lawgiver And so saith Gerson Almain Decius Mencha and our owne Iunius saith The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent not in the instrument Doctor Iackson saith unlimited and absolute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers that is due to God but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedience if they speake from God suppose they fetch not an expresse commission from Scripture for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture I were no more bound to beleeve obey my governours then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr 3. lih 4. cap. 6. not 89. my Governours then ther are bound to believe and obey me for equals are oblieged to obey equalls when they bring a warrant from Gods word and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall but titular and the same do th Sutluvius and Bellarmine say Answ We owe to equalls to Mahomet conditionall and cautionary faith and obedience thus I beleeve what Mahomet saith so he speake Gods word yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way so they speake according to Gods word 2. It followeth in no sort if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls Infetiours because there is a double obedience one of conscience and objective coming from the thing commanded And in respect of this the word hath no lesse authority and doth no lesse challenge obedience of Confcience and objective when my equall speaketh it in a private way yea when I writ it in my muse then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority for we teach against Papists that the word borroweth â—o authority from men nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man but as indeed the Word of God as the Scripture saith 1. There is another obedience officiall which is also obedience of Conscience because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular commanded in humane Lawes as humane so I owe obedience of subjection and submission of affection of feare love honour respect by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers when they command according to Gods Word and this I owe not to equals or inferiours and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular because they must warrant their mandates from the Word But it s alwayes this mans hap to be against sound truth But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this Thou shalt not murther Beleeve in Iesus Christ when Rulers and Pastors command them then when I read them in Gods word I prove 1. If this from a Ruler Thou shalt not murther challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees but as I read it my selfe or as my equall in a private way saith Thou shalt not murther it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely then is it more obligatory of Conscience and so of more intrinsecall authority and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it then when I read it or my equall speaketh it to me This were absurd for the speaker whether publike or private person addeth not any intrinsecall authority to the word for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word as the bearers were publike or private more or lesse worthy As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience should be resolved as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler and not on the authority of God the Author of his own word 4. I answer to Sutluvius That Christ in the externall policy of his owne house is a Lawgiver ordaining such and such officers himselfe Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency
Magistrate in matters Ecclesiasticall QUEST 1. That Christ hath a spirituall Kingdom not only in the power of preaching the word but also in the power of the keys by discipline COncerning the Christian Magistrate we are to consider two heads the one negative what he cannot do in the matters of Christs Kingdom 2. Positive What he ought to do for the opening of the former We are to cleare whether or no all externall scandalls Ecclesiasticall as well as civill are to be punished by the Civill Magistrate and that as in Civill scandals that disturbeth the peace of the Common-wealth the Magistrate hath a twofold power one to command what is good and just another to reward and punish so the Lord Jesus in his Kingdom hath not onely a directive power to teach and forbid but also a power by way of Discipline upon the external man ecclesiastically to reward and punish to binde and loose in an externall Court on earth It is granted by the Adversaries that Christ as King hath a power of binding and loosing but meerly internall purely spirituall in regard of the Conscience by the Preaching of the Word but for any externall power to take in and cast out of the Visible Kingdom of Iesus Christ his Visible Church This they deny and so refuse all externall Ecclesiasticall censures of receiving into the bosome of the Church and casting out by rebukes or Excommunication and therefore that there is no externall Court in the Church to punish Ecclesiasticall scandals all scandals and externall offences of the Church are to be punished by the Christian Magistrate onely In opposition to which error I say 1. Conclusion There is not only a rebuking of an offender in the Church by private admonition as between Brother and Brother common to all Christians Col. 3. 16. Levit. 19. 17. And of the Pastor only he applying the Word by way of Preaching to such and such offenders and closing the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven upon impenitent sinners which is acknowledged by the Adversaries But there is also a Church-rebuking by way of censure which must presuppose an Ecclesiasticall Court and a rebuking of a Publique sin put forth by many whereas one only not a Church or multitude may Preach the Word and so rebuke by way of Preaching which I make out from the Word of God 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rebuke or punishment in the old Translation it is Objurgatio in the Newer Increpatio Piscator Muleta is a chastisement whether this punishment was actuall excommunication as many Learned Interpreters do not improbably gather out of the Text or if it was a Rebuke of the Church in order thereunto Certain it included a rebuking not of one man but a Church-rebuking inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And by the Representative Church of Corinth gathered together with Pauls spirit and the power of the the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. And so presupposeth a Court or Convention of many inflicting this punishment 2. The Adversaries who deny that there is such a thing as Excommunication say it was onely a rebuke but if it was Excommunication it must include a rebuke coming from the many who do excommunicate 3. It is such a rebuke as must be taken off and pardoned by many as ver 7. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him ver 10. To whom ye forgive any thing I also forgive So here is a rebuking put upon an offender by many convened in a Court who did rebuke by way of judiciall Authority and the power of the Lord Iesus Ergo it was some higher censure which was inflicted by many and taken off by many then that which was inflicted by one by way of Preaching where there is no necessity that many either rebuke or comfort the rebuked for one Pastor is to give out the sentence of Death or Life rebuking and comforting toward any one offender or a person Repenting whether many be convened to consent and joyn or not Yea I may being a Pastor of Iesus Christ dispense rebukes and comforts by way of Preaching against the will and minde of the whole flock But a rebuke and a forgiving by many cannot be dispensed except these many convene together in the Name of the Lord Iesus in a Church way and consent 2. If the convened Church must be heard and obeyed when she rebuketh a Brother for a fault done between Brother and Brother and that upon the Testimony of two or three witnesses then is the Church a Court that is to rebuke an offender and so to convene him before her and that is some other censure then by way of Preaching but the former is true Matth. 18. 16 17. 3. If the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch convened in a Synod do give forth an Ecclesiasticall rebuke on false Teachers as those that troubled the Churches and perverted their Souls with false Doctrine then is there rebuking of offenders by a Church or Churches beside a Pastorall rebuking by one single Brother or Pastor But the former is true Act. 15. ver 24 25. The Proposition is clear in that a select company of Apostles Elders and Brethren doth not only Doctrinally conclude against their errour who did hold the necessity of Circumcision but also against the Persons and their Schismaticall way of troubling the Church by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in making a side and Faction in the Church ver 2. 24. And this not any one single man could do in an ordinary way except we say that it was an idle and unnecessary remedy which the Apostles used to quench the sire as if any one man might have done all this or as if they had rebuked these men publikely not having heard and convinced them by the Word of God or as if an offence touching conversation and against the second Table had risen betweene Church and Church no lesse then in the present case of an offence in matter of doctrine that the Apostles would not have taken the same course all which are not to be imagined And in very deed this was not a point of meer doctrine but also of peace and charity violated by a Faction ver 2. And a scandall in eating things strangled was raised in the Churches Acts 15. 24. 1 Cor. 10. 28 29. Rom. 14. 14 15 16 17. 4. If Timothy be to rebuke publikely those that sin publikely and that judicially upon the Testimony of Witnesses Then is there a publike Church-rebuking by way of censure beside the pastorall rebuking But the former is expresly said 1 Tim. 5. 19 20. This must be a rebuking in a Church-court except we say Timothy his alone was the Church and a Monarch of the Church who hath power to lead witnesses against Elders 2. Conclusion There is such a censure as excommunication in the hands of the Church by
neglect to hear them he was to tell the Church Ergo If he should hear them he was gained and was not to tell the Church Ergo spirituall gaining must be Christs scope 2. If to tell the Church be as Erastus dreameth to tell the Civill Magistrate and then the Roman Emperour this was no suitable mean to gain the mans soul a club was never dreamed of by our Saviour to compasse the spirituall end or neerest scope of gaining any to repentance for the end of the Magistrate as a Magistrate is to bring no man to repentance but to take avvay evil out of the land to cause Israel fear and do so no more to be an avenger of evil doing far lesse is there any shadow of reason to dream that Christ intended by Cesars or any Heathen Magistrates sword to gain an offending brother to repentance and that he commandeth the offended brother to use such a carnal mean so unsuitable to such a spirituall end Lastly How a private brother cannot be said to binde and loose I have cleared already Erastus Least these words Let him be to thee as an Heathen should seem to make the offender every way as an Heathen therefore he addeth a restrictive word and a Publican and he addeth the article ◠common to them both so as he speaketh not of every Heathen and Publican but of those who were conversant amongst the Jews and none of those would answer to any Judge but the Roman Emperour or his deputies being the servants of the Romans to vex the people of the Jews Ans Here is a groundlesse conjecture for a Publican was large as odious as a Heathen being a companion to sinners and the worst of the Heathen 2. How proveth he that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Heathen is meant of those Heathen only that were servants to the Romans and would acknowledge no Iudge but Cesar 1. The Iews themselves said We have no King but Cesar 2. The holy Ghost doth not restrict the Heathen so What warrant hath Erastus to be narrower in his glosse then the holy Ghost is in the Text. If in these Let him be as an Heathen the threatning be perpetuall to remove all scandals to the end of the world when most of the Heathen shall not acknowledge the Iudicatures of Heathen Rome then the word Heathen must be as large as all Heathen all wicked and all scandalous men such as Publicans and so there is no hint at the Heathen Romish Iudge here which is the way of Erastus But the former is true or this Law of Christ is to remove scandals amongst the Disciples when the Roman Empire shall fall as the Lord in his word hath prophecied The Scripture speaks not so Mat. 6. 7. Vse no vain repitition in prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can Erastus say none use babling prayers but such heathen as were subject to the Roman Empire Gal. 2. 9. That we should goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Heathen here is an Article also belike Paul should preach to no Gentiles but those under the Roman Empire A frothie dream Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing God would justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles Here also an Article belike then no Gentiles are justified by faith but these that are Officers to the Romans and vexed the Iewes Act. 18. 6. Henceforth I will goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Gentiles Act. 21. 19. Paul told what things the Lord had done by his Ministery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Heathen Act. 26. 23. that Christ should shew light to the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the Heathen not the Romish heathen onely except Christ be a Saviour to no other Heathen in the world I need not weary the Reader to resute these unsolid conjectures of Erastus Erastus Converted Publicans were not scandalous as touching their office Ergo A publican signifieth not one that is none of the Church Zachens after his conversion remained a Publican Ans Converted Publicans left not off to be Publicans but they left off to be such as went under the name of Publicans that is abominable Extortioners and grinders of the Poore and therefore it followes well that to be as a Publican in the common speech of the Iewes familiar to our Saviour was to be a wretched godlesse prophane man without the Church and without God and Christ in the world as also the Heathen were Eph. 2. 11 12. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 1 Pet. 4. 3 4. Acts 21. 11. Rom. 2. 24 blasphemers of the Name of God and 1 Cor. 12. 2. Yee know that yee were Gentiles carried away with dumbe Idols Eph. 4. 17. That ye walke not as other Gentiles in the vanity of their minde 18. Having the understanding darkned being strangers from the life of God These and many other Scriptures confirmeth me much that in Christs time to be as a Heathen and a Publican was to be cast out whereas the man was once a brother a beleever and a member of the Church and in profession in the covenant of God and a brother to Peter Iohn and the Lords Disciples and a Christian and professing Saint as the disciples of Christ were but now one who is turned out of that society and as a Gentile serving Satan walking in the vanity of the minde as an uncircumcised man c. This is as like Excommunication as one egge is like another we have cleare Scripture for this Exposition but it is good Erastus never gave us one syllable of Scripture for his exposition Nor can it be shewen that to be as a Heathen and a Publican by Scripture or any that ever spoke Greeke is to be in subjection to the Roman Empire or lyable to their lawes onely we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastus for it Erastus Who ever by no law of God or command was execrable and could for no just cause be hated by no Law of God could bee debarred from the Temple and holy things of God But such were the Publicans Ergo Ans 1. The Major is false The Leper because a Leper was by no Law of God cursed and execrable nor was he worthy of hatred but of pitty yet was he by an expresse Law debarred from the Temple and holy things of God 2. The Minor is false in the sense we contend for the office of a Publican in abstracto was not execrable nor worthy of hatred but the thing signified and that which proverbially went under the name of a Publican amongst the Iewes to wit a professed extortioner a robber a grinder of the face of the poore is both execrable and hatefull the conclusion in the former sense is granted and it is nothing against us But in the latter sense the Assumption being false the conclusion followeth not not to say that in ordinary none was a Publican but he that was either an heathen and so execrable or then an