to the holy men of God in the old Testament who honoured Heathen Princes and were subject to them as to lawful Magistrates but also to the doctrine of Jesus Christ who taught his Disciples to give unto Caesar what is Caesars and of the Apostles who in their time exhorted the Churches to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates for they had no other at that time to obey them to pray for them Rom. 13. Titus 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. 17. It is justly condemned as one of the errors of the Anabaptists that an heathen Magistrate is not to be acknowledged as a lawfull Magistrate or as being from God See Gerhard loc com Tom. 6. Pag. 498 499 P. Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo disp 13. cap. 1. The Scriptures now cited are so clear that when Mr. Hussey saith of the heathen Magistrate Let Baal plead for himself he might as well have said that Christ and his Apostles pleaded for Baal They that plead for the authority of an heathen Magistrate do not plead for Baal but for God and for his ordinance for the powers that be are ordained of God saith Paul speaking even of the heathen Magistrates Rom. 13. 1. But what will Mr. Hussey say if his great master Erastus be found a pleader for Baal as much as I am Confirm Thes. lib. 3. cap. 2. pag. 184. speaking of the heathen and unbeleeving Magistrates before whom the Corinthians went to law one against another he saith An non est impius quoque Magistratus à Deo praepositus ut subjectes quoslibet ab injuria vi tueatur Is not the ungodly Magistrate also preferred by God that he may defend any of his Subjects from injury and violence Yea the Scriptures afore touched are so clear in this point that Gamachaeus in primam secunda Quaest. 4. 5. cap. 33. though he hold that by humane and Ecclesiastical right Pagan Princes lose their dominion and authority over their Subjects when their Subjects turne Christians yet he acknowledgeth that they still retain their former Jurisdiction over those Subjects by the Law of God and nature Surely one might as well say that heathen Parents are unlawful and heathen masters are unlawful and heathen husbands are unlawful all which were contrary to the Word of God as to say that heathen Magistrates are unlawful Take the instance in Parents for all lawful Magistrates are fathers by the fifth Commandement Doth the paternity of a heathen father differre specie from the paternity of a Christian father are they not both lawful parents being made such by God and nature are not their children bound to honour them and be subject to them and obey them in things lawful The paternity is the same in se but different modaliter that I may borrow a distinction from Mr. Hussey The Christian father is sanctified and qualified to do service to Jesus Christ as a father in educating his children Christianly which an heathen father can not do So the heathen Magistrate and the Christian Magistrate are both lawful Magistrates being made such by God and nature or by election of people they are both of them to be honoured submitted unto and obeyed they are both of them the ministers of God for good to their people their power is the same in actu signato though not in actu exercito The heathen Magistrate may do and ought to do what the Christian Magistrate doth but the Christian Magistrate is fitted qualified enabled and sanctified to glorifie and serve Jesus Christ as a Magistrate which the heathen Magistrate is not Secondly They that hold the derivation of Magistracy to be from Jesus Christ and that it is held of and under him as Mediator must either shew from Scripture that Jesus Christ as Mediator hath given a commission of Vicegerentship or Deputyship to the Christian Magistrate or otherwise acknowledge that they have given the most dangerous and deadly wound even to Christian Magistracy it self which ever before it received Mr. Hussey pag. 20 answereth I conceive he the Christian Magistrate hath a Commission from Christ but when he should prove it which my argument calld for here he is at a losse He citeth Psal. 72 11. All Kings shall fall downe before him all Nations shall serve him Isa. 60. 12. That Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish I hope indeed there is a time comming when all Kings shall fall down before Jesus Christ and all Nations shall serve him and that will make an end of the Erastian controversie But I pray do all that serve Jesus Christ hold their office of and under Christ as Mediator and as his Vicegerents then the poorest servant that fears God shall be a Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator and shall have a commission from Christ to that effect for every godly servant doth not serve his master onely but Christ Eph. 6. 5 6 7. Again if those who shall perish because they serve not Christ be his Deputies and Vicegerents then the wickedest persecuters in the World shall have a commission of Vicegerentship from Jesus Christ. Well let the Christian Magistrate animadvert whether these men have done any thank-worthy service to Magistracy who will needs have it to hold of and unâ—er Christ as Mediator and by a commission of Vicegerentship from him and when they are put to it to produce that commission they prove no more then agreeth either to the meanest Christian or to the wickedest persecuter The Ministery hath a clear undeniable commission from Christ as Mediator even our opposites themselves being Judges Matth. 16. 19. and 28. 19. 20. Iohn 20. 21 22 23. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. Eph. 4. 11 12. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5. I say therefore again let them also shew from Scripture a commission from Jesus Christ constituting Christian Magistrates to be his Vicegerents as he is Mediator and to hold their office of and under him as Mediator which if they cannot shew they have done a greater disservice to the Christian Magistrate then they can easily repair or amend We are sure the lawful Magistrate whether Heathen or Christian is Gods Vicegerent and that is a safe holding of his office But our opposites shall never prove that any civil Magistrate though Christian and godly is the Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator And in seeking to prove it I am perswaded they shall but discover their own weaknesse and shall also weaken the Magistrates authority more then they can strengthen it Thirdly The Scripture intimateth this difference between Ministery and Magistracy that the work of the Ministery and the administrations thereof are performed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church the work of Magistracy not so except we adde to the Word of God they who will do any thing in the Name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and cannot find any Scripture which can warrant their so doing are lyars and the truth is not in
for my Argument that he acknowledgeth this Scripture to warrant Synods of Ministers and Elders and the power of these Synods to be not onely consultive but conclusive decisive and obligatory for this I suppose he means by the power to determine controversies and to make Canons for the Churches peace and government else he had concluded nothing against the Independents who yeeld a consultive Synodicall power If any shall yet desire to be more partiâ—ularly satisfied concerning the strength of my present Argument from Act. 15. I will make it out from these particulars following First Here is a power and authority to assemble Synodically and it is an intrinsecall power within the Church it self not adventitioâ—s or extrinsecall from the Magistrate Whence the soundest Protestant writers prove that though the civil Magistrate hath a power of convocating Synods and he ought to do it when the Churches necessity or danger doth call for such a remedy yet this power of his is positive not privative cumulative not destructive And that if the Magistrate be an enemy and persecuter of the Church and of true Religion or cease to do his duty that is to wit in a manifest danger of the Church the Church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting to her self but ought to use the right and authority of convocation which first and forâ—…most remaineth with the Rulers of the Church as may be seen Act. 15. So say the Professors of Leyden in Synops. purior Theol. Disp. 49. Thes. 24. beside diverse others whom I might here cite but that is not now my businesse Secondly Beside the publike debate and deliberation the Synod did also choose and send certain delegates or commissioners to Antioch and wrote by them a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in Antioch Syria and Cilicia I beleeve such Synodical acts of sending Commissioners and letters to the Churches in other Nations or Provinces should now be lookt upon as acts of government if done without the leave of the Magistrate as then Iudas and Silas were sent Thirdly That Synod did exercise and make use of a threefold Ecclesiastical power for remedy of a three-fold Ecclesiastical disease 1. They purge out the leven of false doctrine and heresie by deciding and determining that great controversie whether Circumcision and the keeping of the Ceremoniall Law of Moses were neeessary to salvation They hold forth and declare to the Churches the negative And this they do by the dogmatik power 2. There was a great scandal taken by the beleeving Jewes then not fully instructed and perswaded concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law by the death of Christ who were so far stumbled and offended at the beleeving Gentiles for their eating of things sacrificed to Idâ—ls and of blood and things strangled that they could not freely nor contentedly converse company and eate together with the Gentiles For remedy whereof the Synod doth require in regard of the law of love edification peace and avoyding of scandall that the Gentiles should abstain from those things as also from fornication which for what cause it is added I do not now dispute And this they do by the Diataktik power 3. There was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a schisme dissention and rent made in the Church by the Judaizing Teachers vers 2. Who clothed themselves with a pretended authority and warrant from the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem and thereupon got the more following and drew away the more disciples after them For remedy hereof the Synod stigmatizeth and brandeth those men by declaring them to be lyars troublers of the Church and subverters of souls vers 24. And this they do by the Critick power or authority of censures Fourthly The decree and Canon of the Synod which is made imposed emitted and promulgat is authoritative decisive and binding Act. 15. 28. For it seemed good to the holy Ghost and here the Arabick repeateth it seemed good to us to lay upon you no greater burthen then these necessary things That ye abstain c. If it be said that this was but a doctrinal advice It seemed good c. I answer Iosephus Antiq. Iud. lib. 4. cap. 8. speaking of the decree of the supreme Sanhedrin which he that disobeyed was to be put to death calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which seemeth good So likewise in this place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant of an Opinion onely for an Opinion as Schoolmen define it is properly such a 〈◊〉 of or assent to a thing as is evident and firme but not certain So that Opinion cannot be ascribed to the holy Ghost It is therefore here a word of authority and decree as Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth out of Châ—…mnitius In which sence the Grecians frequently use it So Stephanus out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is de reed by the Senate And Budaeus out of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is certainly appointed to die Observe also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imposing and burthen They do impose some burthen onely they are carefull to impose no burthen except in necessary things Acts 16. 4. And as they went through the Cities they delivered them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Hierusalem And here I cannot passe the observation of that gentleman who hath taken so good pains in the Original Tongues Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra of the New Testament in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wheresoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found in the New-Testament it is put for Decrees or Lawes as Luke 2. 1. Acts 17. 7. it is put for the Decrees of Caesar and Ephes. 2. 15. Colos. 2. 14. for the Ceremonial Lawes of Moses and so frequently by the LXX in the Old Testament for Decrees as Dan. 2. 13. and 3. 10. 29. and 4. 6. for Lawes Dan. 6. 8. Caeterum saith Erasmus upon Act. 16. 4. Dogmata Graeca vox est significans ipsa decreta five placita non doctrinam ut vulgus existimat And whereas some have objected that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used onely in reference to a doctrinal power as Col. 2. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer Budaeus expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be decerno and Col. 2. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriack makes it judicamini Erasmus and Bullinger Decretis tenemini Stephanus Beza and Gualther ritibus oneramini the English Translators are ye subject to Ordinances This subjection was not onely to Doctrines but to Commandements vers 22. after the Commandements and Doctrines of men and these commandements though in deed and truth the commandements of men onely at that time were imposed as the Commandements of God and as Ceremoniall Lawes given by Moses The vulgar Latine hath decernitis and Tertullian readeth Sententiam fertis
both of them it seemeth having read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however they understand the power related unto to be more then Doctrinall I conclude that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 4. must be more then Doctrinal declarations and that it is meant of binding decrees that I may use Mr. Prynns phrase especially when joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a Judgement passed and given upon the making and sending of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the judgement of one or two but the judgement of the Apostles and Elders Synodically assembled So Acts 21. 25. Iames and the Elders speaking of that Synodical judgement say we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing c. These four considerations being laid together concerning an intrinsecall Ecclesiastical power of assembling together Synodically of choosing and sending Commissioners with a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in other parts of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies scandals and schismes arising in the Church of making and imposing binding decrees on the Churches will infallibly prove from Scripture authority another Government in the Church beside Magistracy I might here adde other Arguments but so much for this time CHAP. X. Some Objections mâ—de against Ecclesiastical Government aâ—d Discipline answered MR. Hussey in his Epistle to my selfe objecteth thus What will your censure doe it will shame a few whores and knaves a great matter to shame them the Law of nature shameth All this in terminis might have been as justly objected against the Apostle Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians to put away from among themselves the incestuous man What will your censure do Paul a great matter to shame one whom the law of nature shameth The Lord save me from that Religion which will not shame Whores and Theeves and all other whom the Law of Nature shameth and that in a Church way as well as civilly if any such member fall into such impiety yet this is not all All Orthodox Writers that write of Church-censures will tell him that scandalls either of Doctrine or life either against the first or second Table fall under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure Secondly He argueth thus Ibid. Sure in the day of our Lord there will be as good a returne of the word preached as of the censure And in his plea pag. 1. If the Word be able to make the man of God perfect then nothing is wanting to him perfectum cui nihil deest and it is a wonder how that Conscience should be wrought upon by humane authority with whom divine cannot prevail Answ. 1. This also he might as well have objected against the Apostle Paul who did require the Corinthians to put away from among them the incestuous man and Titus to rejâ—ct an Heretick after once or twice admonishing of him 2. He might object the same thing against Magistracy Shall there not be a better account of the word preached then of Magistracy and if the Word be able to make the man of God perfect there is no need of Magistracy Perfectum est cui nihil deest Surely many Erastian Arguments do wound Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Government 3. Church-censures are not acts of humane authority for they are dispensed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and if clave non errante are ratified in heaven 4. Discipline is no addition to that Word which is able to make the man of God perfect for it is one of the directions of the Word 5. The comparison which some make between the efficacy of the Word preached and the efficacy of Church-discipline as to the point of converting and winning foules is a meer fallacy ab ignoratione â—…lenchi for Church discipline is not intended as a converting light-giving or life-giving Ordinance Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and the Word is the power of God for salvation to every one that beleeveth But Ecclesiastical Discipline hath a necessary use though it hath not that use Discipline and censures in the Church are intended 1. For the glory of God that his name may not be blasphemed nor the doctrine of the Gospel reproached by occasion of uncensured scandalls in the Church 2. For keeping the Ordinances of Christ from prophanation and pollution that signa gratiae divinae the signes of Gods favour and grace and the seales of his Covenant may be denied to unworthy scandalous persons 3. For preserving the Church from the infection of bad and scandalous examples it is fit to put a black mark upon them and to put away the wicked person as the Apostle saith for a rotten member if it be not cut off and a scabbed sheep if not separated from the flock may infect the rest 4. For the good also of the offender himself that he may be ashamed and humbled 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2. Cor. 2. 7. This afflicting of the sinner with shame and sorrow may and shall by the blessing of God be a means to the destruction of the flesh 1 Cor. 5. 5. that is to tame and mortifie his lusts and so far removere prohibens that he may be the better wrought upon by the Word I conclude Church-Government being instituted by Christ and having a necessary use in the Church the Erastians gain nothing by comparing it with the Word Because it is not so necessary as the Word Ergo it is not necessary at all Or because it is not efficacious in the same manner as the word is Ergo it is not efficacious at all The Apostle saith Christ sent me not to baptizâ—… but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. 1. 17. What if he had said Christ sent me not to rule but to preach the Gospel Then had the Erastians triumphed Yet this expression could not have proved that Church-government is not an Ordinance of Christ more then that can prove that Baptisme is not an Ordinance of Christ. A negative in the comparative will not inferre a negative in the positive 3. Object I could never yet see said Mr. Coleman how two co-ordinate governments exempt from Superiority and inferiority can be in one State Against this I instanced in the co-ordinate governments of a General and an Admiral of a Master and a Father of a Captain and a Master in one ship Mr. Hussey finding he can not make good Mr. Colemans word tells me pag. 7. that he meaneth two supreme co-ordinate Governments Where first he loseth ground and tacitely yeeldeth that Church-Government and Civil Government distinct each from other do well consist as long as they are not supreme but as two armes under one head No inconsistency therefore of Congregational and Classical Elderships and of Provinciall Assemblies with the subordinate Magistrates and civil Courts in Cities and Counties Next we shall find also in Scripture two co-ordinate supreme Governments for the civil and the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jewes were both supreme and co-ordinate and there was no appeal from the
3. 14. Not eat with them 1 Cor. 5. 11. Nor bid them God speed 2 Epist. John vers 10. 11. 6. That since there must be a withdrawing from a brother that walketh disorderly and scandalously it s more agreeable to the glory of God and to the Churches peace that this be done by a publick authoritative Ecclesiastical judgement and sentence than wholly and solely to trust it to the piety and prudence of each particular Christian to esteem as heathens and publicans whom and when and for what he shall think good and accordingly to withdraw and separate from them 7. That there is a distinction between Magistracy and Ministery even Iure Divino That the civil Magistrate hath not power to abolish or continue the Ministery in abstracto at his pleasure nor yet to make or unmake Ministers in concreto that is to ordain or depose Ministers as he thinks fit 8. As the Offices are distinct so is the power Magistrates may do what Ministers may not doe and Ministers may doe what Magistrates may not do 9. It is Iuris Communis a principle of common equity and naturall reason that the directive Judgement in any matter doth chiefly belong to such as by their profession and vocation are devoted and set apart to the study and knowledge of such matters and in that respect supposed to be ablest and fittest to give Judgement thereof A consultation of Physitians is called for when the Magistrate desires to know the nature symptomes or cure of some dangerous disease A consultation of Lawyers in Legal questions A Councell of War in military expeditions If the Magistrate be in a ship at Sea he takes not on him the directive part of Navigation which belongs to the master with the mates and pilot Neither doth the master of the ship if it come to a Sea-fight take on him the directive part in the fighting which belongs to the Captain And so in all other cases Artifici in sua arte credendum Wherefore though the Judgement of Christian prudence and discretion belongs to every Christian and to the Magistrate in his Station and though the Magistrate may be and sometime is learned in the Scriptures and well acquainted with the principles of true Divinity yet ut plurimum and ordinarily especially in a rightly Reformed and well constituted Church Ministers are to be supposed to be fittest and ablest to give a directive Judgement in things and causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical with whom also other ruling Church Officers do assist and joyne who are more experimentally and practically they ought also and diverse times are more Theoretically acquainted with the right way and rules of Church-government and censures then the civil Magistrate when he is no ruling Elder in the Church which is but accidentall can be rationally or ordinarily supposed to be 10. There is some power of Governement in the Church given to the Ministery by Christ else why are they said to be set over us in the Lord and called Rulers and Governours as we shall see afterwards CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto Vs and what We yeeld unto them FOr better stating of the controversie We shall first of all take notice of such particulars as are the Opposites concessions to us or our concessions to them Their concessions are these 1. That the Christian Magistrate in ordering and disposing of Ecclesiastical causes and matters of Religion is tyed to keep close to the Rule of the Word of God and that as he may not assume an Arbitrary Government of the State so far lesse of the Church 2. That Church-Officers may exercise Church-government and authority in matters of Religion where the Magistrate doth not professe and defend the true Religion In such a case two Governments are allowed to stand together one civil another Ecclesiastical This Erastus granteth as it were by constraint and it seems by way of compliance with the Divines of Zurik who hold excommunication by Church-Officers under an infidel Magistrate and that Iure Divino to move them to comply the more with him in other particulars 3. That the abuse of Church-governement is no good argument against the thing it self There being no authority so good so necessary in Church or State but by reason of their corruptions who manage it may be abused to tyranny and opression These are Mr. Prinnes words Vindic. of the 4. Questions pag. 2. 4. That some Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyteries by Divine Right Mr. Prynne in his Epistle Dedicatory before the vindication of his four questions saith that his scope is not to take from our new Presbyteries all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction due by Divine Right to them but to confine it within certain definite limits to prevent all exorbitant abuses of it 5. That the Christian Magistrate ought not may not preach the Word nor minister the Sacraments Mr. Coleman in his Brotherly examination re-examined pag. 14. I never had it in my thoughts that the Parliament had power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments Then so far there is a distinction of Magistracy and Ministery Iure Divino Yet in this he did not so well agree with Erastus 6. That the ministery is Iure Divino and Ministers have their power and authority of preaching the Word derived to them from Christ not from the Magistrate So Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to my self We preach the Word with all authority from Christ derived to us by those of our Brethren that were in Commission before us Magistrates may drive away false Teachers but not the Preachers of the Gospel but at their utmost peril 7. They admit and allow of Presbyteries so that they doe not exercise Government and Jurisdiction Erast. lib. 4. cap. 1. Our Concessions to our Opposites are these 1. That all are not to be admitted promiscuously either to be governours or members in the Ecclesiastical Republick that is in a visible political Church None are to governe nor to be abmitted members of Presbyteries or Synods except such as both for abilities and conversation are qualified according to that which the Apostle Paul requireth a Bishop or Elder to be Scandalous or prophane Church-Officers are the worst of dogs and swine and to be first cast out And as all are not to governe so all are not to be governed Ecclesiastically but onely Church-Members 1 Cor. 5. 12. Therefore what hath been objected concerning many both Pastors and People in England who are still branches of the old stock doth not strike against what we hold All are not sit for a Church-government Therefore those that are fit shall not have a Church-Government So they must argue Or thus a Popish people are not fit to be governed Presbyterially and Episcopal Ministers are not fit to governe therefore the rest of the Nation shall want a Government 2. Presbyteriall Government is not despotical but ministerial it is not a Dominion but a Service We are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.
whole Diocesse consisting it may be of some hundreds of Congregations holding that the Ministers of particular Congregations did preach the Word and minister the Sacraments in his name by vertue of authority and order from him and because he could not act by himself in every Congregation The Presbyteriall Government acknowledgeth no Pastorall charge of preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments to more Congregations then one and doth acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches being lawfully called to have power and authority for preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments in the name of Christ and not in the name of the Presbyterie 5. The Prelates as they denyed the power and authority of Pastors so they utterly denyed the very offices of ruling Elders and Deacons for taking more especiall care of the poor in particular Congregations 6. They did not acknowledge Congregationall Elderships nor any power of discipline in particular Congregations which the Presbyteriall Government doth 7. They intruded Pastors oft times against the consent of the Congregation and reclamante Ecclesiâ which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 8. They ordained Ministers without any particular charge which the Presbyterial Government doth not 9 In Synods they did not allow any but the Clergie alone as they kept up the name to have decisive suffrage The Presbyterial Government gives decisive voices to ruling Elders as well as to Pastors 10. The Prelates declined to be accountable to and censurable by either Chapters Diocesan or Nationall Synods In Presbyteriall Government all in whatsoever Ecclesiasticall administration are called to an account in Presbyteries Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies respectively and none are exempted from Synodicall censures in case of scandall and obstinacy 11. The Prelates power was not meerly Ecclesiasticall they were Lords of Parliament they held Civil places in the State which the Presbyterial Government condemneth 12. The Prelats were not chosen by the Church Presbyters are 13. The Prelates did presume to make Lawes binding the Conscience even in things indifferent and did persecute imprison fine depose excommunicate men for certain Rites and Ceremonies acknowledged by themselves to be indifferent setting aside the will and authority of the Law makers This the Presbyteriall Government abhorreth 14. They did excommunicate for money matters for trifles Which the Presbyteriall Government condemneth 15. The Prelates did not allow men to examine by the Judgement of Christian and private discretion their Decrees and Canons so as to search the Scriptures and look at the Warrants but would needs have men think it enough to know the things to be commanded by them that are in place and power Presbyteriall Government doth not lord it over mens consciences but admitteth yea commendeth the searching of the Scriptures whether these things which it holds forth be not so and doth not presse mens Consciences with Sic volo sic jubeo but desireth they may doe in faith what they do 16. The Prelates held up pluralities non-residencies c. Which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 17. As many of the Prelates did themselves neglect to preach the Gospel so they kept up in diverse places a reading non-preaching Ministery Which the Presbyteriall Goverment suffereth not 18. They opened the door of the Ministery to diverse scandalous Arminianized and popishly affected men and locked the door upon many worthy to be admitted The Presbyteriall Government herein is as contrary to theirs as theirs was to the right 19. Their Official Courts Commissaries c. did serve themselves Hâ—ires to the sons of Eli Nay but thou shalt give it me now and if not I will take it by force The Presbyterial Government 〈◊〉 such proceedings 20. The Prelates and their High-Commission Court did assume potâ—…statem utriusque gladij the power both of the Temporall and Civil Sword The Presbyteriall Government medleth with no Civil nor Temporall punishments I do not intend to enumerate all the differences between the Papal and Prelatical Government on the one side and the Presbyterial Government on the other side in this point of unlimitednesse or arbitrarynesse These differences which I have given may serve for a consciencious caution to intelligent and moderate men to beware of such odiouâ— and unjust comparisons as have been used by some and among others by Mr. Salâ—…marsh in his Parallel between the Prelacy and Presbyterie Which as it cannot strike against us nor any of the Reformed Churches who acknowledge no such Presbyterie as he describeth and in some particulars striketh at the Ordinance of Parliament as namely in point of the Directory so he that hath a mind to a Recrimination might with more truth lay diverse of those imputations upon those whom I beleeve he is most unwilling they should be laid upon In the third place The Presbyterian Government is more limited and lesse arbitrary than the Independent Government of single Congregations which exempting themselves from the Presbyterial subordination and from being accountable to and censurable by Classes or Synods must needs be supposed to exercise a much more unlimited or arbitrary power than the Presbyterial Churches do especially when this shall be compared and laid together with one of their three grand Principles which disclaimeth the binding of themselves for the future unto their present judgement and practice and avoucheth the keeping of this reserve to alter and retract See their Apologetical narration pag. 10 11. By which it appeareth that their way will not suffer them to be so far moulded into an Uniformity or bounded within certain particular rules I say not with others but even among themselves as the Presbyterian way will adâ—it of Finally The Presbyterial Government hath no such liberty nor arbitrarinesse as Civil or Military Government hath there being in all civil or temporal affairs a great deal of latitude 〈◊〉 to those who manage the same so that they command nor act nothing against the Word of God But Presbyterial Government is tyed up to the rules of Scripture in all such particulars as are properly spiritual and proper to the Church Though in other particular occasional circumstances of times places accommodations and the like the same light of nature and reason guideth both Church and State yet in things properly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical there is not near somuch latitude left to the Presbytery as there is in civil affairs to the Magistrate And thus I have made good what I said That Presbyterial Government is the most limited and least arbitrary Government of any other All which Vindication and clearing of the Presbyterial Government doth overthrow as to this Point Master Hussey's Observation pag. 9. of the irregularity and arbitrarinesse of Church-government And so much of my fourth Concâ—ssion The fifth shall be this 'T is far from our meaning that the Christian Magistrate should not meddle with matters of Religion or things and causes Ecclesiastical and that he is to take care of the Common-wealth but not of the Church Certainly there is much power and Authority which
onely of that avoiding or rejecting by which every private Christian ought to observe and avoid and not receive false Teachers but of a publike Ministerial or Consistorial rejecting of an Heretick by cutting him off or casting him out of the Church It is a Canon de Judiciis Ecclesiasticis saith Tossanus upon the the place This the Greek will easily admit for Stephanus in Thesauro linguae Gr. tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for recuse aversor repudio and citeth out of Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repudiate or put away a wife As here also we may read A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition repudiate or put away though the word reject doth also bear the same sence And as the Greek will admit it so I have these reasons to confirm it which shall suffice for the present He that pleaseth may read a large Discourse concerning the censure of Hereticks in Claudius Espencaeus upon this place First The Apostles scope is not to hold forth the common duties of all Christians except ex consequenti but his primary intention all along in that Epistle is to instruct Titus concerning the ordering and governing of the Church Chap. 1. vers 5. Secondly there must be a first and second admonition before the Heretick be thus rejected This rejecting is not for his dangerous and false Doctrine simply or by it self considered but for his contumacy and incorrigiblenesse But private Christians ought to observe by the judgement of private discretion and ought in prudence and caution to avoid all familiar fellowship and conversation with a man that is an Heretick though he hath not yet gotten a first and second admonition Matth. 7. 15 16. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in â—…eeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening Wolves Ye shall know them by their fruits Thirdly the admonition in the Text is a publike authoritative or ministerial admonition after that thou Titus hast once and again admonished him saith the Syriack therefore the rejecting must also be publick and ministerial Fourthly This rejecting of an Heretick is the last act when he appears incorrigible We find before chap. 1. vers 13. Rebuke them sharply and chap. 2. vers 15. Rebuke with all authority But now when the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reject this is a higher degree and this much more must be with all authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words compare with 1 Cor. 7. 25. where the Apostle opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commandement and opinion or judgement From all which it will appear that this rejecting of an Heretick by Titus and others joyned with him in the Government of the Church was an authoritative and Juridical act and the judgement thereupon decisive not consultative onely Fifthly Look by what authority Elders were ordained by the same authority they were for heresie maintained with contumacy rejected for the Apostle committeth into the same hands the ordaining of Elders and the rejecting of Hereticks compare Tit. 3. 10. with Tit. 1. 5. Now the ordination was by the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4. 14. Therefore so was the rejection I conclude with the Dutch Annotations upon Tit. 3. 10. reject i. e. Have no communion with him Let him go without disputing any further with him and casting the holy things before such dogs Matth. 7. 6. Let him not remain in the outward communion of the Church The sixth Argument I draw from 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not ye judge them that are within Vers. 13. Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked person 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment or censure which was inflicted of many Here is an Ecclesiastical judging not by the judgement of private Christian discretion onely for so they judged those also that were without but an authoritative corrective Judgement by which a scandalous brother a rotten member like to infect other members is put away from among the people of God And this Judgement was made sentence given and censure inflicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by many that is not by all but by the Elders of that Church saith Walaeus Tom. 1. pag. 468 or you may read by the chiefest So Piscator and Heinsius upon the place The sence is all one as if the Apostle had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by them that have the rule over you Now what will you make of judging putting away and censuring being acts neither of a civil power nor put forth upon any except Church-members if you make it not a corrective Church-government As for Mr. Colemans answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amounts to no more but an objurgation I have fully confuted that in Male audis pag. 12. 13. 14. which I will not resume But beside all I said there I add somewhat which I have since observed Zonaras in Conc. Antioch can 22. useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to be punished or censured and in Conc. Carthag can 49. he calls the man who is under Church-censure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Balsamon in Conc. Carthag can 46. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both of them do often use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Church-censure as in the place last cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea the Councell of Antioch held under Constantius useth Pauls word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse Ecclesiasticall censure and an act of corrective government Can. 3. It is said of him that receiveth a Presbyter or Deacon being justly deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille quoque à communi Synodo puniatur ut qui Ecclesiastica statuta dissolvat Ibid. Can. 22. A Bishop is prohibit to ordain within the charge of another Bishop unlesse that other Bishop consent But if any presume to do such a thing let the ordination be void or null 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipse a Synodo puniatur and let himself be punished by the Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Balsamen how they should be punished who ordain without the bounds of their owne charge and without consent of him whose charge it is may be learned from other Canons Where you see he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree in signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is punishment The sixth general Councel Can. 60. useth the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for suffering punishment adding also by way of explanation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be subject to afflictions and labours Seventhly We have an Argument from 1 Cor. 14. 32 33. And the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the Author of confusion but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints The Apostle is giving such rules and directions concerning prophecying or interpretation of Scripture that upon the one hand there may be a liberty to all the Prophets to prophecy and that the Church may be edified by the gifts of all and
civil punishment but they had power to bind the soul and to retain the sin Ioh. 20. 23. And this power of binding is not in all the Scripture ascribed to the civil Magistrate The eighteenth Argument shall be drawn from the example of excommunication 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. The Apostle writeth to the church of Corinth to deliver to Sathan for the delivery to Sathan was an act of the church of Corinth as the Syriack explaineth it the incestuous man which is called a censure inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. that is by the whole Presbytery of the Church of Corinth And whereas some understand by delivering to Sathan the putting forth of the extraordinary Apostolicall power to the working of a miracle upon the offender by giving him over into the hands of Sathan so as to be bodily tormented by him or to be killed and destroyed as Erastus takes it I answer 1. It cannot be meant of death for it is said that Hymeneus and Alexander were delivered to Sathan and to what end that they might learne not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20 which had been too late to learn after death 2. Nor is it at all meant of any miraculous tormenting of the body by the divel for beside that it is not likely this miracle could have been wrought Paul himself not being present to work it it is utterly incredible that the Apostle would have so sharply rebuked the Church of Corinth for that a miracle was not wrought upon the incestuous man it not being in their power to do or that he would seek the consent of that Church to the working of a miracle and as a joynt act proceeding from him and the Church by common counsell and deliberation for where read wee of any miracle wrought that way Therefore it is much more safe to understand by delivering to Sathan as Gualther himself doth Excommunication which is a shutting out of a Church-member from the Church whereby Sathan commeth to get dominion and power over him for he is the God of this World who reigneth at his pleasure in and over those who are not the Church and people of God 2 Cor. 4. 4. Eoh. 2. 2. And if any shall be so far unsatisfied as not to admit this sence which we put upon that phrase of delivering to Sathan Yet our Argument for Excommunication drawn from 1 Cor. 5. standeth strong the weight of it not being laid upon tradere Satanae onely but upon vers 6. 7. 11 12. compared with 2 Cor. 2. 6. which undeniably prove Excommunication from Church fellowship The nineteenth Argument shall be drawn from Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compared with 1 Pet. 5. 2. 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Texts as they hold forth a Bishop and a Presbyter to be one and the same Iure divino so they hold forth the ruling power of Presbyters or Elders First Because otherwise the simile so much made use of in these Scriptures of overseeing the flock mentioned and joyned together with the feeding thereof will fall short in a main and most materiall point for the overseers of flocks do not onely make them to lye down in green pastures and lead them beside the still waters but they have also rodds and staves for ruling the flocks and for correcting and reducing the wandring sheep which will not be brought home by the voice of the shepheard Psal. 23. 2. 4. The Pastorall rod there mentioned by David is corrective as Clemens Alexandrinus paedag lib. 1. cap. 7. who doth also paralel it with that 1 Cor. 4. Shall I comâ— unto you with a rod Secondly Paul requireth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to take heed unto and to oversee the whole flock which did consist of more then did or could then meet together ordinarily into one place for the worship of God as appeareth by the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla which was one but not the onely one Church assembly at Ephesus by the great and wonderfull increase of the Gospel at Ephesus and such other Arguments which I do but point at the full debate of them not being my present work Peter also writing to the Churches of the strangers in severall provinces calls them the flock not flocks and commends unto the Elders the feeding and oversight of that flock Now what is it that can denominate many particular visible Churches or Congregations to be one visible ministeriall flock or Church unlesse it be their union and association under one Ecclesiasticall Government No doubt they had the administration of the Word and Sacraments partitive or severally Nor do I deny but they had a partitive several Government but there was also an union or association of them under one common Government which did denominate them to be one visible Ecclesiastical flock Thirdly The very name given to the Elders of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name of authority rule and government especially in the Christian and Ecclesiasticall use of the Word H. Stephanus in Thes. ling. Gr. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that the Elders of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit saith he those qui verbo gubernationi praeeraâ—…t Where he tells us also that the Magistrate or Praetor who was sent with a Judiciall power into those Townes which were undâ—r the power of the Athenians was called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Septuagints use the word Nehem. 11. 9. Ioel the son of Ziâ—…hri was their overfeer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Judah the son of Senuah was second over the City He that had but the second place was a Ruler how much more he that was in the first place Loe here the head and chief Ruler of the Benjamites called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Numb 31. 14. 2 Kings 11. 15. the chief officers of the Host the Captains over thousands and captains over hundreds are called by the Septuâ—gints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Hebrew words which they render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praefectus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praepositus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princeps Yea the name of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render by this word Iob. 20. 29. This is the portion of a wicked man from God and the heritage appointed to him by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek by the overseer even as the same name of Bishop is given to Christ 1 Pet. 2. 25. Conradus Kirchâ—…rus in the word Pakad tells us also that Gen. 41. 34. Lâ—…t Pharaoh do this and let him appoint Officers over the Land where the 70. read
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek Scholia which he useth to cite hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly Peter addeth not as being Lords or over-ruling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might understand he condemneth the ruling power of the Lord Bishop not of the Lords Bishop of Episcopus Dominus not of Episcopus Domini Just as Ezek 34. 4. the shepheards of Israel are reproved for lording it over the flock with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them It was their duty to rule them but it was their sin to rule them with force and with cruelty The twentieth Argument I take from 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God Moreover it is required in Stewards that a man be found faithfull And Tit. 1. 7. a Bishop is the Steward of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This name doth exclude Lordship and dominion but withall it noteth a ministeriall rule or government as in the proper so in the metaphorical signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name diverse times given by Aristotle in his Politicks to the civil Magistrate The Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as fynonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esthâ—…r 8. 9. To the Lieutenants and the Deputies The 70. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy Ghost by the same word expresseth Government Gal. 4. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is under Tutors and Governors Rom. 16. 23. Erastus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact thinks he was Governour of the City Erasmus that he was praefectus aerario Town-Treasurer The English Translators call him the Chamberlain of the City Yea setting aside the metaphorical signification of this name often used for a name of rule the very literall and native signification of the word will serve to strengthen this Argument in hand Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is house-stewards or over the house but what house Aristotle at the beginning of the second book of his Oeconomicks distinguisheth a fourfold oeconomy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kingly noble civil private The Ministers of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the first sort They are stewards in the house of the great King He that is steward in a Kings house must needs have a ruling power in the house 1 Kings 4. 6. Ahishar was over Solomons houshold 1 Kings 18. 3. And Ahab called Obadiah which was the Governour of his house 2 Kings 18. 18. Eliakim which was over the houshold In all which places the 70. have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I hold therefore with Peter Martyr upon 1 Cor. 4. 1. that Ministers being by their calling and office stewards in the house of God ought to cast out prophane impure persons out of the house and receive them again upon their repentance And why are they called Stewards of the mysteries of God surely the Sacraments are part and a chief part of those mysteries and Christ hath made his Ministers not the civil Magistrates stewards of these mysteries to receive unto or to exclude from the Sacraments and as they may not keep back any of the children of the house so they may not suffer dogs to eat at the childrens Table The one and twentieth Argument which shall claudere agmen shall be drawn from Act. 15. where we find an Ecclesiastical Assembly or Synod of the Apostles Elders and other choice brethren snch as Iudas and Sylas These did so assemble themselves and proceed with authority in a businesse highly concerning the truth of the Gospel Christian liberty the healing of scandal and the preserving of peace in the Church as that it is manifest they had and executed a power of government distinct from Magistracy Mr. Selden de Jure natur Gent. lib. 7. cap. 12. hath sufficiently expressed that which is the ground of my present Argument and I rather choose to speak it in his words then in my owne Now a dispute being had of this thing at Antioch Paul and Barnabas who having used many Arguments against that Pharisaical opinion yet could not end the controversie are sent to Hierusalem that there the thing might be determined by the Apostles and Elders It is agitated in a Synod In it it is determined by the Apostles and Elders that the Gentiles who had given their names to Christ are not indeed bound by the Law of Moses or of the Hebrewes as it is Mosaicall and prescribed to the Church or Common-wealth of the Iewes but that they ought to enjoy their Christian liberty And so much for that which the Synod loosed them from But what dorh the Synod bind upon them The Synod doth also impose certain things namely abstinence from fornication and from things offered to Idols and from blood and things strangled VT QUAE NECESSARIO OBSERVANDA EX AUTHORITATE SYNODI saith Mr. Selden BEING SUCH AS WERE NECESSARILY TO BE OBSERVED IN REGARD OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SYNOD by those who giving their names to the Christian Religion should live with the Jewes they also giving their names to the Christian Religion and so enter into religious fellowship with them I shall adde two other Testimonies of Mr. Prynns The first I shall take out of his twelve considerable serious Questions concerning Church-Government pag. 5. where arguing against the Independency of particular Congregations he askes whether the Synodâ—…l Assembly of the Apostles Elders and Brethren at Hierusalem Act. 15. who MADE AND SENT BINDING DECREES to the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria and Cilicia and other Churches be 〈◊〉 an apparent subversion of Independency So that by Mr. Prynns confession the Scripture holds forth other Governours or Rulers in the Church beside Magistrates and the authority of these other Governours to be such as to make and send to the Churches BINDING DECREES in things and causes Ecclesiastical Another Testimony I take from his Independency examined pag. 10 11. where he argueth against the Independents and proveth from Act. 15. the authority of ordinary Ecclesiastical Synods bringing also six Arguments to prove that the Apostles did not there act in their extraordinary Apostolical capacity or as acted by a spirit of infallibility but in their ordinary capacity Thereafter he concludeth thus Therefore their assembling in this Councel not in their extraordinary capacity as Apostles onely buâ—… as Elders Ministers and the Elders Brethrens sitting together in Councell with them upon this Controversie and occasion is an undeniable Scripture authority for the lawfulnesse use of Parliaments Councels Synods under the Gospel upon all like necâ—…ssary occasions and FOR THEIR POWER TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES OF RELIGION TO MAKE CANONS IN THINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCHES PEACE AND GOVERNMENT Loe here Mr. Prynn gives us an undeniable Scripture authority for a diataktick governing power in the Church distinct from Magistracy How he will draw from Act. 15. the use of Parliaments or their authority I do not imagine It is enough
bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Where the power of binding and loosing is given to the Apostles Grotius upon the place cleareth it from 2. Cor. 5. 19. 20. God hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ. So that we find in Scripture Church Officers inabled and authorised ex officio as the Heraulds and Ambassadours of the King of Zion to loose from the bands of sinne all repenting and beleiving sinners and to bind over to eternall justice and wrath the impenitent and unbeleevers 2 They are also authorised dogmatically and authoritatively to declare and impose the will of Christ and to bind his precepts upon the shoulders of his peeple Matth. 28. 20. as likewise to loose them and pronounce them free from such burthens as men would impose upon them contrary or beside the word of God 1 Cor. 7. 23. An example of both we have Act. 15. 28. The Synod of the Apostles and Elders bindeth upon the Churches such Burthens as were necessary by the Law of love for the avoiding of scandall but did pronounce the Churches to be free and loosed from other burthens which the Judaizing Teachers would have bound upon them Now therefore if we will expound Matth. 18. 18. by other Scriptures it being the onely surest way to expound Scripture by Scripture it is manifest and undeniable that Church-Officers are by other Scriptures inabled and authorised to bind loose in both those respects afore-mentioned But we no where find in Scripture that Christ hath given either to all private Christians or to the civill Magistrate a Commission and Authority to bind or loose sinners I know a private Christian may and ought to convince an impenitent brother and to comfort a repenting brother ex charitate Christiana But the Scripture doth not say that God hath committed to every private Christian the word of reconciliation and that all Christians are Ambassadours for Christ nor is there a promise to ratifie in heaven the convictions or comforts given by a private Christian No more then a King doth ingage himself in verbo principis to pardon such as any of his good Subjects shall pardon or to condemne such as any of his good Subjects shall condemne but a King ingageth himself to ratifie what his Ambassadours Commissioners or Ministers shall doe in his name and according to the Commission which he hath given them to pardon or condemne Besides all this if Christ had meant here of the brother to whom the injury was don his private binding or loosing not condemning or forgiving then he had kept the phrase in the singular number which Erastus observeth diligently all along the Text vers 15 16 17. But he might have also observed that vers 18. carries the power of binding and loosing to a plurality VVhatsoever ye bind c. As for the Magistrate it belongeth to him to bind with the cords of corporall or civill punishments or to loose and liberat from the same as he shall see cause according to law and justice But this doth n t belong to the spirituall Kingdome of Jesus Christ for his Kingdome is not of this world neither are the weapons thereof carnall but spirituall And beside the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth bind on punishment when the soule is loosed in Heaven and the sinne remitted Again the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth loose and absolve from punishment when a mans soule is impenitent and sinne is still bound upon his conscience There is no such promise that God will forgive whom the Magistrate forgiveth or condemne whom the Magistrate condemneth Neither hath God any where in Scripture committed to the Magistrate the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven or the word of reconciliation as to the Ambassadours of Christ. Binding and loosing in the other sence by a dogmaticall authoritative declaration of the will of Christ is not so principally or directy intended Matth. 18. 18. as that other binding and loosing in respect of sinne Howbeit it is not to be excluded because the words preceding Vers. 17. mention not onely the execution of Excommunication Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican but also the Churches judgement and determination of the case if he neglect to heare the Church which words implie that the Church hath declared the will of Christ in such a case and required the offender to doe accordingly but he shewing himselfe unwilling and contumacious as it were saying in his heart I will breake their bands asunder and cast away their cords from me thereupon the promise reacheth to this also that what the Church hath determined or imposed according to the will of Christ shall be ratified and approved in Heaven Now Christ hath no where given a Commission either to every particular Christian or to the Magistrate to teach his people to observe all things which he hath commanded them and authoritatively to determine controversies of faith or cases of conscience As in the old Testament the Priests lips did preserve knowledge and they were to seeke the law at his mouth Mal. 2. 7. so in the new Testament the Ministers of Christ have the Commission to make known the counsell of God My second proposition that the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. is juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall Censures this I will make good in the next place against M r Prynne who to elude the argument for Excommunication from Matth. 18. answereth two things concerning the binding and loosing there spoken of 1. That these words have no coherence with or dependence upon the former 2. That this binding and loosing is meant onely of preaching the Gospell Touching the first of these I confesse if by the Church vers 17. be meant a civill Court of Justice and by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen c. be meant no more but keepe no civill fellowship with him which is his sence of the Text I cannot marvell that he could finde no coherence between vers 17. and vers 18. yet if there be no coherence between these verses the generality of Interpreters have gone upon a great mistake of the Text conceiving that Christ doth here anticipate a great objection and adde a great encouragement in point of Church discipline for when the offender is excommunicated that is all the Church can doe to humble and reduce him put the case he or others despise the censures of the Church What will your censure doe saith M r Hussey To that very thing Christ answereth It shall be ratified in Heaven and it shall doe more then the binding of the offenders in fetters of Iron could doe But let us heare what M r Prynne saith against the coherence of Text because saith he that of binding and loosing is spoken onely to and of Christs disciples as is evident by the parallel Text
is I have not declined them but encountered yea sought them out where their strength was greatest where their Arguments were hardest and their exceptions most probable so no man may decline or dissemble the strength of my Arguments Inferences Authorities Answers and Replies nor thinke it enough to lift up an Axe against the uttermost branches when he ought to strike at the root Thirdly if there be any acrimony let it be in a reall and rationall conviction not in the manner of expression In which also I aske no other measure to my selfe than I have given to others T is but in vaine for a man to help the bluntnesse of reason with the sharpnesse of passion for thereby he loseth more than he gaineth with intelligent Readers the simpler sort may peradventure esteem those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those despicable nothings to be something but then they are delu ded not edified Therefore let not a man cast sorth a flood of passionate words when his Arguments are like broken cisternes which can hold no water If any Replyer there be of the Erastian party who will confine himselfe within these Rules and Conditions as I doe not challenge him so if God spare me life and liberty I will not refuse him But if any shall so reply as to prevaricate and doe contrary to these just and reasonable demands I must to his greater shame call him to the Orders and make his tergiversation to appeare I shall detaine thee good Reader no longer The Lord guide thee and all his people in waies of truth and peace holinesse and righteousnesse and grant that this Controversie may I trust it shall have a happy end to the glory of God to the embracing and exalting of Iesus Christ in his Kingly Office to the ordering of his House according to His owne will to the keeping pure of the Ordinances to the advancing of Holinesse and shaming of prophanesse and finally to the peace quiet wel-being comfort and happinesse of the Churches of Christ. These things without thoughts of provoking any either publike or private person the searcher of hearts knoweth to be desired and intended by him who is Thine to please thee for thy good to edification GEO. GILLESPIE THE CONTENTS The first Booke Of the Jewish Church Government CHAP. I. That if the Erastians could prove what they alledge concerning the Iewish Church Government yet in that particular the Iewish Church could not be a president to the Christian. THe Jewish Church a patterne to us in such things as were not typicall or temporall If it could be proved that the Jewes had no supreme Sanhodrin but one and it such as had the power of civill Magistracy yet there are foure reasons for which that could be no president to the Christian Church Where the constitution manner of proceedings and power of the Sanhedrin ure touched Of their Synagoga Magna what it was That the Priests had great power and authority not onely in occasionall Synods but in the civill Sanhedrin it selfe CHAP. II. That the Iewish Church was formally distinct from the Iewish State or Commonwealth WE are content that the Erastians appeale to the Jewish government Seven distinctions between the Jewish Church and the Jewish State Of the proselytes of righteousnesse and that they were imbodied into the Jewish Church not into the Jewish State CHAP. III. That the Iewes had an ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the civill DIvers Authors cited for the ecclesiastcal Sanhedrin of the Jews The first Institution thereof Exo. 24. That the choosing calling forth of these 70 Elders is not coincident with the choosing of the 70 Elders mentioned Num. 11. nor yet with the choosing of Judges Exod. 18. The institution of two coordinate Governments cleared from Deut. 17. A distinct Ecclesiasticall government setled by David 1 Chro. 23. and 26. The same distinction of Civill and Church government revived by Iehoshaphat 2 Chro. 19. That Text vindicated Two distinct Courts one Ecclesiasticall another Civill proved from Ierem. 26. Another argument for an Ecclesiasticall Senate from Ierem. 18. 18. Who meant by the wise men of the Jewes Another argument from Ezech. 7. 26. Another from 2 Kings 6. 32. and Ezech. 8. 1. Another from Psal. 107. 32. Another from Zech. 7. 1 2 3. That Ezech. 13. 9. seemeth to hold forth an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin That the Councell of the chiefe Priests Elders and Scribes so often mentioned in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles was an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and not a civill Court of Justice as Erastus and M. Prynne suppose which is at length proved That the civill Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Hierusalem 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City and consequently neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. The great objection that neither the Talmud nor Talmudicall Writers doe distinguish a civill and an ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin answered Finally those who are not convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes may yet by other Mediums be convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiasticall Government among the Jewes as namely the Priests judgement of cleannesse or uncleannesse and so of admitting or shutting out CHAP. IV. That there was an Ecclesiasticall Excommunication among the Iewes and what it was FIfteen witnesses brought for the Ecclesiasticall excommunication among the Jewes all of them learned in the Jewish antiquities Of the 24 causes of the Jewish excommunication which were lookt upon formally qua scandals not qua injuries Of the three degrees of their excommunication Niddui Cherem and Shammata The manner and form of their Excommunication sheweth that it was a solemne Ecclesiasticall censure Formula anathematis The excommunication of the Cuthites The excommunication among the Jewes was a publique and judicial act and that a private or extrajudicial excommunication was voyd if not ratified by the Court The effects of the Jewish excommunication That such as were excommunicated by the greater excommunication were not admitted to come to the Temple He that was excommunicated with the lesser excommunication was permitted to come yet not as other Israelites but as one publiquely bearing his shame The end of their excommunication was spirituall CHAP. V. Of the cutting of from among the people off God frequently mentioned in the Law THe sence of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scanned That the commination of cutting off a man from his people or from the Congregation of Israel is neither meant of eternall death nor of dying without children nor of capitall punishment from the hand of the Magistrate nor yet of cutting off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sinne Reasons brought against all these That Excommunication was meant by that cutting off proved by six reasons CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue THe casting out of the Synagogue is understood by Interpretâ—rs and others to be an excommunication from the Church assemblies and
of Kings and Lord of Lords How all power in Heaven and in Earth is said to be given to him That the Governments set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not civill Magistrates fully proved Ephes. 1. 21 22 23. and Colos. 2. 10. vindicated CHAP. VII Arguments for the negative of that Question formerly propounded THe lawfull authority of the Heathen Magistrates vindicated It can not be shewed from Scripture that Christ as Mediator hath given any Commission of Vice-gerentship to the Christian Magistrate That the worke of the Ministery is done in the name and authority of Jesus Christ the worke of Magistracy not so The power of Magistracy or civill Government was not given to Christ as Mediator shewed from Luke 12. 14. Iohn â—8 36. Luke 17. 20 21. Magistracy founded in the Law of nature and Nations The Scripture holds forth the same origination of Heathen Magistracy and of Christian Magistracy CHAP. VIII Of the power and priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not and what it is THat no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall and namely the dispencing of Church censures doth belong unto the Magistrate nor may according to the Word of God be assumed and exercised by him proved by six Arguments That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church to receive appeales from all Ecclesiasticall Assembles There are other sufficient remedies against abuses or Mal-administration in Church-Government Reasons against such appeales to the Magistrate The Arguments to the contrary from the Examples of Ierenâ—…y and of Paul discussed Of the collaterality and coordination of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers What is the power and right of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall cleared first generally next more particularly by five distinctions 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong to the civill power but non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Magistrate may imperare that which he may not elicere 3. Distinguish the directive power from the coercive power 4. The Magistrates power is cumulative not privative 5. He may doe in extraordinary cases that which he ought not to doe ordinarily A caution concerning the Arbitrary power of Magistrates in things Ecclesiasticall CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government besides Magistracy or civill Government namely an Ecclesiasticall Government properly so called in the hands of Church-officers THe Question stated and the Affirmative proved by one and twenty Scripturall Arguments Who meant by the Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 names of government The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 13. 7 17. examined Of receiving an accusation against an Elder Of rejecting an Hereticke Of the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian and the sence of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the subjection of the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets The Angels of the Churches why reproved for having false Teachers in the Church Note that man 2 Thess. 3. 14. proved to be Church-censure Of the Ruler Rom. 12. 8. and Governments 1 Cor. 12. 28. A patterne in the Jewish Church for a distinct Ecclesiasticall government What meant by cutting off Gal. 5. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly what Of the Ministeriall power to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 8. what Of the visible administration of the Kingdome of Christ by his Laws Courts Censures The Arguments for Excommunication from Matth. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. briefly vindicated That Elders are rulers of the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of Government Ministers why called Sâ—…ewards of the Mysteries of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of government Church-Government exercised by the Synod of the Apostles and Elders Acts 15. CHAP. X. Some objections made against Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline answered Mr Husseys objection doth stricke as much against Paul as against us The fallacy of comparing Government with the word preached in point of efficacy Foure ends or uses of Church-government That two coordinate Governments are not inconsistent The objection that Ministers have other worke to doe answered The feare of an ambitious ensnarement in the Ministery so much objected is no good Argument against Church-government M. Husseys motion concerning Schooles of Divinity examined Church Government is no immunity to Church-officers from Censure Though the Erastian principles are sufficiently overthrown by asserting from Scripture the may be of Church-government yet our Arguments prove a must be or an Institution Six Arguments added which conclude this point CHAP. XI The necessity of a distinct Church-government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates THis acknowledged by Christian Emperours of old Grotius for us in this particular Christian Magistracy hath never yet punished all such offences as are Ecclesiastically censurable Presbyteries in the primitive times did not exercise any power which did belong of right to the Magistrate No warrant from the word that the Ordinance of a distinct Church government was onely for Churches under persecution but contrariwise the Churches are charged to keep till the comming of Christ the commandement then delivered No just ground for the feare of the interfeering of the civill and of the Ecclesiasticall power The Churches liberties enlarged not diminished under Christian Magistrats The Covenant against this exception of the Erastians The Christian Magistrate if he should take upon him the whole burthen of the corrective part of Church-government could not give an account to God of it The Erastian principles doe involve the Magistrate into the Prelaticall guiltinesse The reasons and grounds mentioned in Scripture upon which Church-censures were dispenced in the Primiâ—ive Churches are no other then concerne the Churches under Christian Magistrâ—tes The end of Church-censures neither intended nor attained by the administration of Christian Magistracy The power of binding and loosing not temporary They who restrict a distinct Church-government to Churches under Heathen or persecuting Magistrats give a mighty advantage to Socinians and Anabaptists Gualther and Master Prynne for us in this Question APPENDIX A Collection of some testimonies out of a Declaration of King Iames the Helvetian Bohemian Augustane French and Dutch confessions the Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches in France Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum the Irish Articles a Book of Melanchton and another of L. Humfredus The third Booke Of Excommunication from the Church AND Of Suspension from the Lords Table CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles A Transition from Church-government in generall to Excommunication and Suspension in particular The present controversie ten waies mis-stated by M. Prynne That which was publiquely depending between the Parliament and Assembly did rather concerne the practicall conclusion it selfe then the Mediums to prove it The strength of the Assemblies proofes
Gisb. Vâ—etius Gul. Vorstius Hen. Vorstius Gerâ—ardus Uossius Dionysius Vossius Ursinus Z ZAncâ—ius Zepperus Zonâ—ras Zâ—inglius Aarons Rod blossoming OR The Divine Ordinance of Church-government VINDICATED The first Booke Of the Jewish Church-government CHAP. I. That if the Erastians could prove what they alledge concerning the Iewish Church Government yet in that particular the Iewish Church could not be a president to the Christian. OBserving that very much of Erastus his strength and much of his followers their confidence lieâ—h in the old Testament and Jewish Church which as they averre knew no such distinction as Civill Government and Church Government Civill Justice and Church Discipline I have thought good first of all to remove that great stumbling-block that our way may afterward lie fair and plain before us I doe heartily acknowledge that what we finde to have been an Ordinance or an approved practice in the Jewish Church ought to be a rule and patterne to us such things onely excepted which were typicall or temporall that is for which there were speciall reasons proper to that infancy of the Church and not common to us Now if our opposites could prove that the Jewish Church was nothing but the Jewish State and that the Jewish Church-government was nothing but the Jewish State-government and that the Jewes had never any supreame Sanhedrin but one onely and that civil and such as had the temporall coercive power of Magistracy which they will never be able to prove yet there are divers conâ—iderable reasons for which that could be no president to us First Casaubon exerc 13. anno 31. num 10. proves out of Maimonides that the Sanhedrin was to be made up if possible wholly of Priests and Levites and that if so many Priests and Levites could not be found as were fit to be of the Sanhedrin in that case some were assumed out of other Tribes Howbeit I hold not this to be agreeable to the first institution of the Sanhedrin But thus much is certaine that Priests and Levites were members of the Jewish Sanhedrin and had an authoritative decisive suffrage in making decrees and inflicting punishments as well as other members of the Sanhedrin Philo the Jew de vita Mosis pag. 530. saith that he who was found gathering sticks upon the Sabbath was brought ad principem sacerdotum consistorium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to the Prince or chiefe Ruler meaning Moses together with whom the Priests did sit and judge in the Sanhedrin Jehosaphat did set of the Levites of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord c. 2 Chro. 19. 8. Secondly the people of Israel had Gods own Judiciall Law given by Moses for their civill Law and the Priests and Levites in stead of civill Lawyers Thirdly the Sanhedrin did punish no man unlesse admonition had been first given to him for his amendment Maimon de fundam legis cap. 5. sect 6. yea saith Gul. Vorstius upon the place though a man had killed his parents the Sanhedrin did not punish him unlesse he were first admonished and when witnesses were examined seven questions were propounded to them one of which was whether they had admonished the offender as the Talmud it self tels us ad tit Sanhedrin cap. 5. sect 1. Fourthly the Sanhedrin respondebat de Jure did interpret the Law of God and determine controversies concerning the sence and intent thereof Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11. and it was on this manner as the Ierusalem Talmud in Sanhedrin cap. 10. sect 2. records There were there in Ierusalem three assemblies of Iudges one sitting at the entry to the mountaine of the Sanctuary another sitting at the doore of the Court the third sitting in the Conelave made of cut stone First addresse was made to that which sate at the ascent of the mountaine of the Sanctuary then the Elder who came to represent the cause which was too hard for the Courts of the Cities said on â—…his manner I have drawne this sence from the holy Scripture my fellows have drawn that sence I have taught thus my fâ—…llows so and so If they had learned what is to be determined in that cause they did communicate it unto them If not they went forward together to the Iudges sitting at the doore of the Court by whom they were instructed if they after the laying forth of the difficulty knew what resolution to give Otherwise all of them jointly had recourse to the great Sanhedrin For from it doth the Law go forth unto all Israel It is added in Exc. Gemar Sanhed cap. 10. sect 1. that the Sanhedrin did sit in that roome of cut stone which was in the Temple from the morning to the evening daily sacrifice The Sanhedrin did judge cases of Idolatry apostasie false Prophets c. Talm. Hieros in Sanhed cap. 1. sect 5. Now all this being unquestionably true of the Jewish Sanhedrin if we should suppose that they had no supreme Sanhedrin but that which had the power of civill Magistracy then I aske where is that Christian State which was or is or ought to be moulded according to this patterne Must Ministers have vote in Parliament Must they be civill Lawyers must all criminall and capitall Judgements be according to the Judiciall Law of Moses and none otherwise Must there be no civill punishment without previous admonition of the offender Must Parliaments sit as it were in the Temple of God and interpret Scripture which sence is true and which false and determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience and judge of all false doctrines yet all this must be if there be a paralell made with the Jewish Sanhedrin I know some divines hold that the Judiciall Law of Moses so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the morall â—aw Idolatry blasphemy Sabbath-breaking adultery theft c. ought to be a rule to the Christian Magistrate and for my part I wish more respect were had to it and that it were more consulted with This by the way I am here only shewing what must follow if the Jewish Government be taken for a prâ—sident without making a disâ—inction of Civil Church government Surely the consequences will be such as I am sure our opposites will never admit of and some of which namely concerning the civill places or power of Ministers and concerning the Magistrates authority to interpret Scripture ought not to be admitted Certainly if it should be granted that the Jewes had but one Sanhedrin yet there was such an intermixture â—of Civill and Ecclesiasticall both persons and proceedings that there must be a partition made of that power which the Jewish Sanhedrin did exercise which taken whole and entire together can neither sute to our Civill nor to our Ecclesiasticall Courts Nay while the Erastians appeale to the Jewish Sanhedrin suppose it now to be but one they doe thereby ingage themselves to grant unto Church officers a share at
these two things 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jewes one Civill and another Ecclesiasticall that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concerne both Church and State both did consult conclude and decree in a joynt way and by agreement together Now Ezra 10. the Princes Elders Priests and Levites were assembled together upon an extraordinary cause which conjuncture and concurrence of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious forfeiture and excommunication But 2. The objection made doth rather confirme me that Excommunication is intended in that place For this forfeiture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a making sacred or dedicating to an holy use as I have shewed out of Iosephus The originall word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted which is the word put in the margin of our bookes The Greek saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anathemstizabitur which is the best rendring of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a mans substance Intellige saith Grotius ita ut Deo sacra fiat And so the excommunication of a man and the devoting of his substance as holy to the Lord were joyned together and the substance had not been anathematized if the man had not been anathematized I doe not say that Excommunication ex natura rei doth inferre and draw after it the devoting of a mans estate as holy to the Lord. No Excommunication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate further than the Civill Magistrate and the Law of the Land appointeth And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches where there was no Christian Magistrate to adde a Civill mulct But the devoting of the substance of Excommunicated persons Ezra 10. as it had the authority of the Princes and Rulers for it so what extraordinary warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence we can not tell Finally M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 4. cap. 9. p. 523. agreeth with Lud. Capellus that the separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. plane ipsum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri it is the very same with casting out of the Synagogue which confuteth further that which M. Prynne holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods word but was onely a humane invention I know some have drawne another argument for the Jewish Excommunication from Nehem. 13. 25. I contended with them and cursed them id est anathematizavi excommunicavi saith C. a lapide upon the place So Tirinus upon the same place Mariana expounds it anathema dixi Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of Excommunication Niddui and Cherem For my part I lay no weight upon this unlesse you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiasticall power onely authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate Which the words may well beare for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his owne hand smite those men and plucke off their hayre but that by his authority he tooke care to have it done by civill Officers as the cursing by Ecclesiasticall Officers The Dutch annotations leane this way telling us that Nehemiah did expresse his zeale against them as persons that deserved to be banned or cut off from the people of God Another Text proving the Jewish Excommunication is Luke 6. 22. When they shall separate you and shall reproach you and â—…ast out your name as evill It was the most misapplied censure in the world in respect of the persons thus cast out but yet it proves the Jewish custome of casting out such as they thought wicked and obstinate persons This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beda upon the place understandeth of casting out of the Synagogue Separent Synagoga depellant c. yet it is a more generall and comprehensive word then the casting out of the Synagogue It comprehendeth all the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication as Grotius expounds the place Which agreeth with Munsterus Dictionar Trilingue where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the onely Greeke word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui Cherem and Shammata and for the Latine Excommunicatio Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is extermino excommunico repudio which is one of the usuall significations of the word given by Stephanus and by Scapula It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Councels to expresse such a separation as was a Church-censure and namely suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For by the ancient Canons of the Councels such offences as were punished in a Minister by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deposition were punished in one of the people by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is segregation or sequestration Zonaras upon the 13 th Canon of the eighth generall Councell observeth a double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the ancient Church â—ne was a totall separation or casting out of the Church which is usually called Excommunication another was a suspension or sequestration from the Sacrament onely Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Booke I hold now at the Text in hand which may be thus read according to the sence and letter both when they shall excommunicate you c. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you holds forth the same thing which I speake of separate from what our Translators supply from their company but from what company of theirs not from their civill company onely but from their sacred or Church assemblies and from religious fellowship it being a Church-censure and a part of Ecclesiasticall discipline in which sence as this word frequently occurreth in the Greeke fathers and ancient Canons when they speake of Church discipline so doubtlesse it must be taken in this place 1. Because as Grotius tels us that which made the Jewes the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civill coercive power of Magistracy which sometime they had And I have proved before that the civill Sanhedrin which had power of criminall and capitall judgements did remove from Ierusalem and cease to execute such judgement forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple 2. Because in all other places of the new Testament where the same word is used it never signifieth a bare separation from civill company but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church members did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walke or were conceived to walke disorderly and scandalously Acts 19. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Gal. 2. 13. or Gods separating between the godly and the wicked Matth 13. 49. 25. 32. or the setting apart of men to the ministery of the Gospell Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly a Civill separation is for a Civill injury but this separation
the Talmud it selfe proving that whether the sinne was expiated by Sacrifice or by death it was alwayes to be confessed from the same example of Achan doth P. Galatinus lib. 10. cap. 3. prove that Declaration of repentance was to be made by word of mouth and that the sinne was to be particularly confessed which he further proveth by another rabbinicall passage In the fourth place Io. 9. 24. seemeth to hold forth a judiciall publike confession of sinne to have been required of scandalous sinners The Pharisees being upon an examination of him that was born blind and was made to see they labour to drive him so farre from confessing Christ as to confesse sinne and wicked collusion Give God the Praise say they we know that this man is a sinner Which is to be expounded by Ios. 7. 19. Give glory to the Lord God of Israel and make confession Fifthly as the Jewes had an Excommunication so they had an absolution and that which interveened was Confession and Declaration of Repentance And hence came the Arabik 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nadam he hath repented and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nadim a penitent the Niddui made the nadim for when a man was excommunicated by the lesser Excommunication the Consistory waited first 30. dayes and then other 30. dayes and as some thinke the third time 30. dayes to see whether the offender were penitent which could not be known without confession and would seek absolution which if he did not but continued obstinate impenitent then they proceeded to the greater excommunication Which doth prove a publike Confession at least in the case of the excommunicated Sixthly we find a publike penitentiall confession Ezra 10. 10. 11. And Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them ye have transgressed and have taken strange wives to encrease the trespasse of Israel Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your Fathers and doe his pleasure and separate your selves from the people of the land and from the strange wives Marke here the foresaking of the sinne could not suâ—fice without confessing the sinne All Israel had sworne and covenanted to doe the thing to put away the strange wives vers 5. But Ezra the Priest tells them they must also make confession of their sinne confession of their former trespasse must be joyned with Reformation for the future All which the people promise to doe as Ezra had said vers 12. But what was this confession was it onely a private confession to God alone or was it onely a generall confession made by the whole congregration of Israel at a solemne Fast and humiliation Nay that there was a third sort of Confession differing from both these appeareth by vers 13. neither is this a worke of one day or two for we are many that have transgressed in this thing yea three Moneths are spent in the businesse vers 16 17. during which space all that had taken strange wives came at appointed times out of every City and were successively examined by Ezra the Priest and certaine chiefe of the Fathers and Levites such of both as were not themselves guilty before whom such as were found guilty did make Confession The Sons of the Priests made Confession as well as others yea with the first and gave their hands that they would put away their wives and being guilty they offerered a Ram of the Flock for their trespasse With which trespasse offering confession was ever joyned as hath been before shewed from the Law Seventhly Master Hildersham of worthy memory in his 34. Lecture upon Psal. 51. draweth aâ— Argument from Davids example for the publike Confession of a scandalous sinne before the Church He made saith he publike Confession of his sinne to the Congregation and Church of God for we see in the Title of this Psalme 1. That he committed this Psalme that containeth the acknowledgement of his sinne and profession of his repentance to the chief musitian to be published in the Sanctuary and Temple 2 That in this publication of his Repentance he hideth not from the Church his sinne nor cloketh it at all but expresseth in particular the speciall sinne c. Adde hereunto this publike Confession was made after ministeriall conviction by Nathan who did convince David of the greatnesse of that scandalous sinne in which he had then continued impenitent neer a yeer or thereabout The Doctrin which Master Hildersham draweth from Davids example is this That they whose sinnes God hath detected and brought to light whose sinnes are publike and notorious scandalous and offensive to the congregations where they live ought to be willing to confesse their sins publikely to make their Repentance as publike and notorious as their sinne is He addeth in his explanation when they shall be required to doe it by the Discipline of the Church Marke one of his applications which is the Subject of the 37. Lecture The second sort that are to be reproved by this Doctrine are such as having authority to enjoyne publike Repentance to scandalous sinners for the satisfying of the Congregation when they are detected and presented unto them refuse or neglect to doe it And here he complaineth that the publike acknowledgement of scandalous sinnes was grown out of use and that though it was ordered by authority yet it was not put in execution The Canons of our Church saith he can 26. straightly charge every Minister That he shall not in any wise admit to the Communion any of his flock which be openly known to live in sinne notorious without Repentance And the Booke of Common Prayer in the rubrike before the Communion commandeth that if any be an open and notorious evill liver so that the Congregation by him is offended the Minister shall call him and advertise him in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table till he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which were afore offended So that you may see the Lawes and Discipline of our Church require that open and scandalous sinners should dâ—…e open and publike Repentance yea give power to the Minister to repell and keepe back such from the Communion that refuse to doe it Where it may be observed by the way that the Power of Elder-ships for suspending scandalous persons not Excommunicated from the Sacrament now so much contented against by Master Prynne is but the same Power which was granted by authority to the Ministery even in the prelaticall times And he hath upon the matter endeavoured to bring the Consciences of a whole Elder-ship into a greater servitude under this present Reformation then the Conscience of a single Minister was formerly brought under by Law in this particular Eightly Master Hildersham Ibid. Lect. 34. argueth not onely â—… pari but â—… fortiori If a necessity of satisfying an offended Brother how much more a necessity of satisfying an offended Church which will equally hold both for the old and
and as they say cum grano salis between that which was ordinary and that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Government We can not from extraordinary cases collect and conclude that which was the fixed setled ordinary rule The examples which have been alledged for the administration of Church-Government the purging away of scandals the ordering of the Ministery in the old Testament by the Temporall Magistrate or civill powers onely and by their owne immediate authority how truly alledged or how rightly apprehended shall appeare by and by this I say for the present diverse of them were extraordinary cases and are recorded as presidents for godly Magistrates their duty and authority not in a reformed and constituted Church but in a Church which is full of disorders and wholly out of course needing reformation So that the Erastian Arguments drawn from those examples for investing the Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Government and jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affaires are no whit better than the Popish and Prelaticall Arguments for the lawfulnesse of the civill power and places of Clergymen as they called them drawne from some extraordinary examples of Aaron his joyning with Moses and Eleazer with Ioshua in civill businesse of greatest consequence of the administration and Government of the Commonwealth by Eli the Priest and by Samuel the Prophet of the anointing of Iehu to be King by Elisha of the killing of Athaliah and the making of Ioash King by the authority of Iebojada the Priest of the withstanding and thrusting out of King Uzziah by fourscore valiant men of the Priests and such like cases Master Prynne himself in his Diotrephes catechised pag. 4. noteth that Ezra the Priest received a speciall commission from Artaxerxes to set Magistrates and Judges which might judge all the people Ezra 7. 11 25. from all which it appeareth that as Priests did extraordinary some things which ordinarily belonged to Magistracy so Magistrats did extraordinarily that which ordinarily did not belong to their administration I conclude this point with a passage in the second book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland Chap. 10. And although Kings and Princes that be godly sometimes by their own authority when the Church is corrupted and all things out of order place Ministers and restore the true service of the Lord after the example of some godly Kings of Judah and divers godly Emperours and Kings also in the light of the new Testament yet where the Ministery of the Church is once lawfully constituted and they that are placed doe their Office faithfully all godly Princes and Magistrates ought to beare and obey their voyce and reverence the Majesty of the Sonne of God speaking in them In the third place let us take a particular survey of such Objections from which the Erastians doe conclude that the power of Church-govâ—rnment in the old Testament was onely in the hand of the Magistrate And first concerning Moses it is objected that he being the supreme Magistrate did give Lawes and Ordinances for ordering the Church in things pertaining to God Answ. This he did as a Prophet from the mouth of the Lord yea as a type of Jesus Chriâ—t the great Prophet Deut. 18. 15. 18. not as civill Magistrate 2. Object We read not of an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin adjoyned with Moses but onely of a civill Sanhedrin Num. 11. Neither doth the Talmud mention any supreme Sanhedrin but one Answ. 1. If those 70 Elders Num. 11. be understood onely of the civill Sanhedrin which some doe not admit though for my part I doe not gainsay it yet we read of the conâ—itution of another Sanhedrin or Assembly of 70 before them Which I have before proved from Exod. 24. 1. 2. And if there had been no disâ—inct Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin in Moses his time yet by the Law Deut. 17. when the people came into the Land of promise they were to have two distinct Courts in the place which the Lord should choose Of which also before And whereas M r Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quaest 2. intimateth that by the Law Deut. 17. the Priests were onely â—oyntly and together with the temporall Judges to resolve hard civill cases or controversies this sence can neither agree with the disâ—unction in the Text verse 12. the man that will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge nor yet with the received interpretation of those words between stroke and stroke that is between leprosie and leprosie the decision whereof is no where in Scripture found to be either committed unto or assumed by the civill Judge As for the Talmud that of Babylon was not begun to be compiled before the yeere of 〈◊〉 367 nor finished before the yeere of Christ 500. The Ierusalem Talmud can pretend to no greater antiquity than the yeere of Christ 230. So that both were collected long after the dissolution of the Sanhedrin and government of the Jewes No marvell therefore if these declining times did weare out the memory of some part of their former government 3. Object The King was by Gods appointment entrusted with the custody of the booke of the Law Deut. 17. 18. 2 King 11. 12. Answ. 1. The principall charge of the custody of the Law was committed to the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 9 24 25 26. Of the King it is onely said Deut. 17. 18. That he shall write him a coppy of this law in a Booke out of that which is before the Priests and Levites 2. I heartily yeeld that a lawfull Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen ought to be a keeper or guardian of both Tables and as Gods Vâ—cegerent hath authority to punish haynous sinnes against either Table by civill or corporall punishments which proves nothing against a 〈◊〉 Church-government for keeping pure the Ordinances of Christ. 4. Object King David did appoint the Offices of the Levites and divided their courses 1 Chrâ—… 23. So likewise did Solomon appoint the courses and charges of the Priests Levites and Porters in the Temple Answ. David did not this thing as a King but as a Prophet 2 〈◊〉 8. 14. For so bad David the man of God commanded the same thing being also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord 2 hro 29. 25. According to the commandement of David and of Gâ—…d the Kings seer and Nathan the Prophet for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets Which cleareth also Solomons part for beside that himselfe also was a Prophet he received from David the man of God a patterne of that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord and directions concerning the courses of the Levites 1 Chro. 28. 11 12 13. 2 Chro. 8. 14. 5 Object King Solomon deposed Abiathar from his Priesthood and did put 〈◊〉 in his place Answ. Abiathar was guilty of high treason for assisâ—ing and ayding Adonijah against Solomon whom not onely his father David but God himselfe had designed to the Crowne So that
the crime was of civill cognizance and Abiathar deserved to die for it That which Solomon did was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a moderation of the punishment as Strigelius cals it when Solomon might justly have put him to death he onely banisheth him from Hierusalem to Anathoth there to enjoy his owne inheritance to live a private life and no more to intermeddle in State affaires Wherefore this example doth belong to the case of a capitall crime committed by a Minister but not to the case of scandall or mal-administration in his Ministery 2. Neither did Solomon directly or intentionally put Abiathar from the Priesthood for that offence but by consequence it followed upon his banishment from Hierusalem the place where the high Priest was to exercise his calling 1 King 2. 27. So that is in respect of banishment from Ierusalem mentioned in the verse immediately preceding Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. A Minister now banished is not thereby thrust out from all exercise of his Ministery for he may exercise it in another place but Abiathar being thrust out from Hierusalem was eo ipso thrust from the calling of the high Priest which was necessarily to be exercised in that place 3. Solomon being a Prophet who knowes what warrants he had more then ordinary for that which he did to Abiathar that it was not without an extrordinary divine instinct some collect from the next words that he Solomon might fulfill the word of the Lord which he spake cencerning the house of Eli in Shilo 4. As for the investing of Zadok with the place and authority of the high Priest it doth not prove that the Magistrate hath a constitutive power to make or authorize Church officers for Zadok had been formerly chosen by the congregation of Israel and anointed to be high Priest 1 Chro. 29. 22. yea he did fall to the place Iure divino for the high Priesthood was given to Eleazar the eldest sonne of Aaron and was to remaine in the family of Eleazar from whom Zadok had lineally descended Whereas Abiathar was not of the family of Eleazar but of the family of Iâ—…hamar 6. Object Hezekiah did apply his regall power to the reformation of the Levites and to the purging of the Temple 2 Chr. 29. 5. and did also appoint the courses of the Priests and Levites every man according to his service 2 Chro. 31. So likewise did King Iosiah 2 Chro. 35. Answ. Hezekiah in exhorting the Levites to sanctifie themselves and to cleanse the Temple doth require no other thing than the Law of God did require Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. 18. 32. which Hezekiah himselfe pointeth at 2 Chro. 29. 11. And why should not the Magistrate command Ministers to do the duties of their calling according to the Word of God As for his appointing of the courses of the Pâ—iests and Levites he did nothing therein but what the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chro. 29. 25. The like I answer concerning King Iosiah for it is recorded that what hee did was after the writing of David and Solomon 2 Chro. 35. 4. and according to the Commandement of David and Asaph and Heman and Jeduthun the Kings seer Verse 15. as it is written in the booke of Moses v. 12. 7. Object King Ioash while hee yet did right in the dayes of Iebojada the Priest sent the Priests and Levites to gather from all Israel a collection for repairing the house of the Lord and when they dealt negligently in this businesse he discharged them to receive any more money so collected Ans. Joash did impose no other collections but those quae divino jure debebantur which were due by divine right saith Wolphius in 2 Kings 12. The thing was expressely commanded in the Law of Moses compare 2 Chro. 24. 6. Exo. 30 12 13 14. As for the Kings prohibition afterwards laid upon the Priests 1. the Priests had still neglected the worke till the three and twentieth yeare of his raigne was come 2. The Priests themselves consented to receive no more money 3. The high Priest had still a chiefe hand in the managing of that businesse in which also the Priests that kept the doore had an interest All which is plaine from 2 Kings 12. 6. 8 9 10. And beside all this it was a money matter concerning the hyring and paying of workemen and so did belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the extrinsecall not to the intrinsecall things of the Church 8. Object The Kings of the Jewes have purged the Land from Idolatry and Superstition have broken downe Altars cut down Groves destroyed high places and such like Idolatrous Monuments Ans. This was nothing but what was commanded in the Law of Moses whereunto also the secular coercivepower was necessary Let it be remembled concerning those godly reforming Kings of 〈◊〉 1. The case was extraordinary no matter of ordinary Government 2 Their reformation was Iure divino The Law of God was the rule and Ius Divinum was not then startled at but embraced 3. Sometime also the reformation was not without an assembly of the Prophets Priests and Elders as 2 Kings 23. 1. 9. Object Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes Catechised Quest. 2. 〈◊〉 another objection from 2 Chr. 19. asking whether it be not clearly meant that as King Josiah himselfe he should have said Iehoshaphat did by his owne regall authority appoint Iudges in the Land and in Jerusalem in the preceeding 5 6 7 8 9. 10. Verses to dâ—…termine all controversies and punish all offences whatsoever accoâ—…ding to the Lawes of God and that Kingdome so hee did by the selfe same regall authority appoint Amariah then chiefe Priest over the Priests and Levites onely implyed in the word you not over the people of the Land in all matters of the Lord that is to Order direct the Priests and Levites under him in their severall courses and all matters whatsoever concerning the Worship c. Ans. 1. Mr. Prynne will never prove from that Text That Iehoshaphat by his regall authority did appoint or set Amariah the chiefe Priest to be over the rest The English translators expresse the sence by interlacing the word is Verse 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord. 2. To restrict the word you to the Priests and Levites onely is an intolerable wresting of the Text for all these relatives Verse 9 10 11. them ye you must needs repeat the antecedent Verse 8. and so relate to the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel as well as to the Priests and Levites So that these words Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you are spoken to the Sanhedrin and the plaine meaning is that Amariah the chiefe Priest was at that time the Nasi or princeps Senatus the Prince or chiefe Ruler of the Senat as Grotius expounds it 3. That the high Priest was a Ruler of the People as well as of the Priests and Levites is
power hath for the matter of it the earthly Scepter and the Temporal Sword that is it is Monarchical and Legislative it is also punitive or coercive of those that do evil understand upon the like reason remunerative of those that do well The Ecclesiastical power hath for the matter of it the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven 1. The key of knowledge or doctrine and that to be administred not onely severally by each Minister concionaliter but also Consistorially and Synodically in determining controversies of Faith and that according to the rule of holy Scripture onely which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The key of order and decency so to speak by which the circumstances of Gods Worship and all such particulars in Ecclesiastical affairs as are not determined in Scripture are determined by the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church so as may best agree to the generall rules of the word concerning order and decency avoyding of scandall doing all to the glory of God and to the edifying of one another And this is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The key of corrective discipline or censures to be exercised upon the scandalous and obstinate which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Adde also the key of Ordination or mission of Church-Officers which I may call clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authorizing or power giving key others call it missio potestativa 3. They differ in their formes The power of Magistracy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is an authority or dominion exercised in the particulars above mentioned and that in an immediate subordination to God for which reason Magistrates are called gods The Ecclesiastical power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely It is meerly Ministeriall and Steward-like and exercised in an immediate subordination to Iesus Christ as King of the Church and in his name and authority 4. They differ in their ends The supreme end of Magistracy is onely the glory of God as King of Nations and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth And in that respect the Magistrate is appointed to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to the moral Law the obligation where of lyeth upon all Nations and all men The supreme end of the Ecclesiastical power is either proximus or remotus The neerest and immediate end is the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church The more remote end is the glory of God as having all power and authority in heaven and earth You will say Must not then the Christian Magistrate intend the glory of Iesus Christ and to be subservient to him as he is Mediator and King of the Church Certainly he ought and must and God forbid but that he should do so But how not qua Magistrate but qua Christian. If you say to me again Must not the Christian Magistrate intend to be otherwise subservient to the Kingdom of Iesus Christ as Mediator then by personal or private Christian duties which are incumbent to every Christian I answer no doubt he ought to intend more even to glorifie Iesus Christ in the administration of Magistracy Which that you may rightly apprehend and that I be not misunderstood take this distinction It is altogether incumbent to the ruling Officers of the Church to intend the glory of Christ as Mediator even ex natura rei in regard of the very nature of Ecclesiasticall power and government which hath no other end and use for which it was intended and instituted but to be subservient to the Kingly office of Iesus Christ in the governing of his Church upon earth and therefore sublata Ecclesiâ perit regimen Ecclesiasticum take away the Church out of a Nation and you take away all Ecclesiasticall power of government which makes another difference from Magistracy as we shall see anon But the Magistrate though Christian and godly doth not ex natura rei in regard of the nature of his particular vocation intend the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church but in regard of the common principles of Christian Religion which do oblige every Christian in his particular vocation and station and so the Magistrate in his to intend that end All Christians are commanded that whatever they do in word or deed they do all in the name of the Lord Iesus Col. 3. 17. that is according to the will of Christ and for the glory of Christ And so a Marchant a Mariner a Tradesman a School-master a Captain a Souldier a Printer and in a word every Christian in his own place and station ought to intend the glory of Christ and the good of his Church and Kingdom Upon which ground and principle if the Magistrate be Christian it is incumbent to him so to administer that high and eminent vocation of his that Christ may be glorified as King of the Church and that this Kingdom of Christ may flourish in his Dominions which would God every Magistrate called Christian did really intend So then the glory of Christ as Mediator and King of the Church is to the Ministery both finis operis and finis operantis To the Magistrate though Christian it is onely finis operantis That is it is the end of the godly Magistrate but not the end of Magistracy whereas it is not onely the end of the godly Minister but the end of the Ministery it self The Ministers intendment of this end flowes from the nature of their particular vocation The Magistrates intendment of the same end flowes from the nature of their general vocation of Christianity acting guiding and having influence into their particular vocation So much of the supreme ends Now the subordinate end of all Ecclesiastical power is that all who are of the Church whether Officers or members may live godly righteously and soberly in this present world be kept within the bounds of obedience to the Gospel void of all known offence toward God and toward man and be made to walk according to the rules delivered to us by Christ and his Apostles The subordinate end of the Civil power is that all publike sins committed presumptuously against the moral Law may be exemplarly punished and that peace justice and good order may be preserved and maintained in the Common-wealth which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the Church and to the promoting of the course of the Gospel For this end the Apostle bids us pray for Kings and all who are in Authority though they be Pagans much more if they be Christians that we may live under them a peaceable and quiet life in all Godlinesse and Honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. He saith not simply that we may live in Godlinesse and Honesty but that we may both live peaceably and quietly and also live godly and honestly which is the very same that we
instituted and appointed by Iesus Christ to be in his Church beside the Civil Government and if it should be granted that Christ even as Mediator hath committed delegated and instituted Civil Government in his Church yet they must further prove that Christ hath committed the whole and sole power of Church-Government to the Magistrate and so hath left no share of Government to the Ministery But I can by no means yeeld that so much contended for Vicegerentship of the Christian Magistrate and his holding of his Office of and under Christ as he is Mediator Mr. Coleman in his re-examination pag. 19. was fearfull to set his foot upon so slippery ground He was loth to adventure upon this aâ—sertion that Magistracy is derived from Christ as Mediator by a Commission of Deputation and Vicegerentship which yet did necessarily follow upon the fourth rule which he had delivered in his Sermon Wherefore he made a retreat and held him at this That Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his Kingdom But out steps Mr. Hussey and boldly 〈◊〉 a great deal more I much mistake if he shall not be made either to make a retreat as Mr. Coleman did or to do worse First of all this part of our Controversie is to be rightly stated The Question is not 1. Whether the Magistrate be Gods Deputy or Vicegerent and as God upon earth for who denies that Nor 2. Whether the Magistrate be Christs Deputy as Christ is God and as he exerciseth an universall dominion over all things as the Father and the holy Ghost doth Here likewise I hold the affirmative Nor 3. Whether the Christian Magistrate be usefull and subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ even as he is Mediator and King of the Church for in this also I hold the affirmative that is that as every man in his owne calling parents masters servants marchants souldiers c. being Christians so the Magistrate in his eminent station being a Christian is obliged to endeavour the propagation of the Gospel and the good and benefit of the Church of Christ. But the Question is Whether the Christian Magistrate be a Governour in the Church Vice Christi in the room and stead of Jesus Christ as he is Mediator Or which is all one Whether the rise derivation and tenure of Christian Magistracy be from Jesus Christ under this formall consideration as he is Mediator and head of the Church Or which is also the same whether Jesus Christ by vertue of that authority and power of Government which as Mediator and as God-man he received of the Father hath substituted and given commission to the Christian Magistrate to govern the Church in subordination to him as he governeth it in subordination to his Father In all these Mr. Hussey is for the affirmative I am for the negative Let us hear his reasons First pag. 16. He argueth from my concession A Christian Magistrate is a Governour in the Church said Mr. Coleman This understood sano sensu I admitted Now saith Mr. Hussey If the Church be Christs Kingdom surely such as govern in it must receive commission from him Which commission saith he must be in this forme Christ the Mediator King of his Church doth appoint Kings and Civil Magistrates to govern under him Let him find this commission in Scripture and I shall confesse he hath done much Neither doth any such thing follow upon my Concession For 1. It is one thing to govern in the Church another thing to govern the Church Christian parents masters of Colledges and the like are Governours in the Church that is being within not without the Church yet as Parents or masters they are not Church-Governours 2. I can also admit that the Christian Magistrate governeth the Church and if this had been the concession which is more then the other it could not have helped him For how doth the Magistrate govern the Church not qua a Church but qua a part of the Common-Wealth as learned Salmafiuâ—… distinguisheth Appar ad lib. de primat pag. 292. 300. For the Common-wealth is not in the Church but the Church in the Common-wealth according to that Rev 2. The Church in Smyrna the Church in Pergamus the Church in Thyatira And suppose all that are members of the Common-wealth to be also Church-members yet in an universall spread of the Gospel the Church is governed by the Magistrate as it is a Common-wealth not as it is a Church Every soule must be subject to the higher powers Church-Officers Church-members and all but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua tale and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo ad is not any Ecclesiastical or spiritual but a humane and civil relation But whereas Mr Hussey addeth that the Gospel is the Law by which Christ will judge all the world if all the world be under the Law of Christ thâ—…n the Kingdom of Christ must needs reach over all the World his proofes are meer mistakes he cites 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. Christ shall come in slaming fire to take vengeance on all them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ but in that place they that obey not the Gospel are those disobedient persons to whom the Gospel was preached He cites also Rom. 2. 16. Iudge all the world according to my Gospel but the Text saith not so it saith the secrets of men not all the World Wherefore as the Apostle there saith of the Law vers 12. so say I of the Gospel as many as have sinned without the Gospel shall also perish without the Gospel and as many as have sinned under the Gospel shall be judged by the Gospel Secondly He draweth an argument the strength whereof is taken from Psal. 2. 8. Ask of me and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession and from 1 Tim. 6. 15. our Lord Jesus Christ is said to be King of kings and Lord of lords Jesus Christ being names that agree to him onely as Mediator Answ. Christ as Mediator hath right to the whole earth and all the kingdoms of the World not as if all government even civil were given to Christ for in this kind he governeth not so much as any part of the earth as he is Mediator which was the thing he had to prove but it is meant onely of his spiritual kingdom which is not of this world and in this respect alone it is that Christ as Mediator hath right to the government of all Nations he hath jus ad rem though not in re As for that title King of kings and Lord of Lords it may be understood two wayes First as Christ is the eternal and natural Son of God the eternal wisdom of God by whom Kings reigne and Princes decree justice Prov. 8. 15. 16. which is spoken of Christ as he was the Fathers delight and as one brought up with him before the foundation of
that Text. When Christ said All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth it may be understood either as he is Mediator or as he is the second person in the blessed Trinity the eternall Sonne of God So when the Ubiquitaries would prove from that place the reall communication of Divine omnipotency to the humane nature of Christ our Divines answer the Text may be understood either of Christs person God-man or as he is the natural Son of God See Gomarus upon the place Now take the Text either way it proves not what Mr. Hussey would Let it be understood of Christ as God-man and as Mediator which is the most promising sence for him yet it cannot prove that all power without exception and all government as well without as within the Church as well secular as Ecclesiastical is put in Christs hand as he is Mediator and that the civil Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ but the sence must be All power which belongs to the Mediator and all authority which belongs to the gathering and governing of the Church is given to me for we must needs expound his meaning as himself hath taught us Iohn 18. 36. Luke 12. 14. We must not say that any such power is given to him as himself denieth to be given to him namely civil power and Magistracy Wherefore Martin Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 273. doth rightly referre these words All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth to the head de Ecclesiae oeconomia and makes this Text paralel to Iohn 20. 21 22 23. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you c. Whose soever sins ye remit c. and to Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority or power in heaven and in earth which is meant Matth. 28. 18. Which is further confirmed by the Syriack which readeth thus verse 18. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth but as my Father hath sent me even so send I you Vers. 19. Goe therefore teach all Nations So restricting the sence to be in reference to the Church onely and excluding civil government and Magistracy from which Christ had before excluded his Apostles Medina in tertiam Partem quaest 59. art 4. holds the same thing that the context and cohesion of vers 18. and vers 19. proves the Kingdom of Christ to be meerly spirituall But 2. The Text will suffer yet a further restriction namely that all power in heaven and in earth is said to given unto Jesus Christ as he is the eternal Sonne of God and that both in respect of the eternal generation by which the God-head and so all Divine properties of which omnipotency is one was from all eternity communicated from the Father to the Son and in respect of the declaration or manifestation of him to be the Son of God with power when God raised him from the dead Mr. Hussey saith he is astonished to hear that any thing should be given to Christ as God Where first of all I observe how miserably he mangleth and maimeth my words as in other places so here He citeth these words as mine That Christ as he is eternal God doth with the Father and the holy Ghost reigne over the Kingdoms of the earth c. and this power was given c. It is not fair nor just dealing to change a mans words in a citation especially when the change is materiall Now here are divers changes in this passage This one onely I take notice of I said not as he is eternal God but as he is the eternal Sonne of God and all along in that Question I spake of the Son of God not essentially but personally as he is the Sonne of God or second person in the Trinity and so the God head and all the attributes and properties thereof are communicated to him from the Father by the eternal Generation and as the Nicene Creed said he is Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine God of God Light of Light I ask therefore Mr. Hussey What do you mutter here Speak it out Doe you hold that Jesus Christ is not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely essentially but personally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he is not onely ex seipso Deus but ex seipso filius If this be the thing you hold then you oppose me indeed but so as you fall into a blasphemous heresie that Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God hath not all power in in Heaven and in Earth but onely as he is Mediator because that power is given to him and nothing can be given to Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God but onely as he is Mediator by your principles But if your meaning be no more then this that Christ considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the very nature and essence of the God-head is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not God of God but God of himself and that so nothing can be said to be given to him then why have you dealt so uncharitably as to suppose me to be herein opposite unto you when I plainly spake of the eternal Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the personality or relation of filiation or as he is the eternall Son of God in which sence I yet averre confidently that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Jesus Christ as he is the eternal Son of God by eternal generation I added that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of God in another respect namely in respect of the declaration thereof at his resurrection To this Mr. Hussey replieth that to hold any thing should be given him that should concern his God-head at the time of his resurrection is more monstrous Then hath Gomarus and others given a monstrous answer to the Ubiquitaries yet they clear it by Augustines rule aliquid dicitur fieri quando incipit patesieri Is it any more strange then to say that Christ was begotten that day when he was raised from the dead Act. 13. 33. The Son of God had in obedience to his Fathers will laid aside and relinquished his divine dominion and power when he took upon him the forme of a servant which I said before but it seems was not considered by Mr. Hussey now at his resurrection the Father restoreth with advantage that formerly relinquished Soveraignty But he addeth that if Matt. 28. 18. be not understood of Christ as Mediator then he had no authority as Mediator to send his Apostles for it followeth Go ye therefore and preach from this authority here
spoken of is the authority to preach the Gospel Answ. Not to stand upon the want of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore in diverse Greek coppies I admit of the cohesion and dependance of the words thus Christ being to give a commission to the Apostles to go and preach the Gospel to all Nations he first anticipateth a great objection which might arise in the Apostles minds They might think how shall we be able to carry the Gospel through the Nations We shall have all the powers of the world against us To remove this fear he said All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth as if he had said Do you beleeve that I who send you out aâ— the Son of the living God Tâ—en know assuredly that my divine power and soveraignty shall be for you and I will so over-rule all the Kings and Potentates and States of the World as may be most for my glory and your good fear not therefore but go and preach to all Nations And so much of that Text Matth. 28. 18. Salmeron upon the place draws from it Christs dominion even in temporall things as Mr. Hussey doth and thence he deriveth the temporall power of the Pope as Christs Vicar over the Kings and Kingdoms of the World So Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae disp 48. sect 2. Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Thomae Quaest. 22. yet some of the Papists themselves are ashamed to defend Christs dominion in temporall things except as God onely it appearin to them so far contrary to other Scriptures Bellarmine himself lib. 5. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. confesseth that Christ as he did not execute any Temporall dominion so he neither had nor received such power and authority thereupon he inferreth that the Pope whom he calleth Christs Vicar and Representee on earth hath not any Temporal dominion directly but indirectly and in ordine ad spiritualia I appeal also to Salmeron in another place where he speaks more soundly Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 4. pag. 413. he proves from Iohn 18. 36. and Luke 12. 14. that Christ had not nor received not any temporall power and thence inferreth Cum ergo Christus hujusmodi potestatem non habuerit nec Petro illam tradidit The eigth argument shall be that which Mr. Coleman did draw from 1 Cor. 12. 28. to prove that Christ hath placed in his Church Magistrates or civil Governments Hereunto I had made four answers Mr. Hussey passeth two of them which he is pleased to esteem trifles not worth answer Now the Gamaliel speaks è cathedra The other two he offereth to confute pag. 28 29 30 31. First whereas I said that if by Governments in that place be understood civil Magistrates yet the Text saith not that Christ hath placed them Then saith Mr. Hussey à fortiori you disclaim by that means any Government in this place as Officers under Christ. No Sir this reasoning is à baculo ad angulum I hold Church-Officers and Church-government to be under Christ and under him as Mediator and Kâ—ng of the Church and am ready to prove it against any that will denie it But upon supposition that civil Government is meant in that Text which I utterly deny I had reason to call the affirmer to his proper task to prove from that Text that Christ as Mediator hath placed civil Government or Magistracie in his Church This was the point it was brought for and still I call to make good that proof for I denie it It seemes Mr. Hussey finds himself puzzled to make it out and therefore he saith if Mr. Coleman will be ruled by me so as Mr. Gilespie will not urge this for constitution of Church-Governments he shall 〈◊〉 it goe But if it be a truth Sir you ought to buy it and not sell it For my part I dare make no bargain of Scripture My next answer was that the Apostle speaks of such Governours as the Church had at that time but at that time the Church had no Godly nor Christian Magistrates Mr. Hussey answereth that it cannot be proved that the Apostle speaketh of such Officers as were in the Church in his time onely He addeth I shall urge some few argaments to the contrary To the contrary of what I did not say that the Apostle speaketh of such Officers as were in the Church in his time onely but that the Church at that time had all those Officers whom the Apostle speaketh of One would think that he who censureth others so much for want of skill in disputations should not so far mistake his mark But we know what he would have said though he hath not hit it Let us hear his arguments First he tells us that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will signifie proposuit or decrevit so that where we read God hath set in the Church it may be read God hath appointed to his Church so to take in those Governments which should afterward by Gods appointment come to the Church He clears it by Iohn 15. 16. Act. 19. 21. Answ. Then the Apostle saith no more to the Corinthians then might have been said to the old world before the flood for if the meaning be that God hath ordained and purposed all this Text had been true if delivered in terminis terminantibus to the old World God hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. 2. The context sheweth that the Apostle speaketh onely of such administrations as the Church had at that time for all this is spoken in reference to the preventing of a Schisme in the Church of Corinth and that every member of that body might discharge its owne proper function without usurping anothers 3. He confuteth himself for he addeth This cannot be a Catalogue of such Officers as are at all times necessary to the Church for thâ—…n Apostles might not be mentioned Therefore it must be said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is posuit or collocavit according to the more usuall signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth relate to that present time as well as Act. 20. 28. The holy Ghost hath made or set you overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner here God hath set or placed in the Church and so it will agree both to ordinary and extraordinary officers But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be decrevit then it will referre the Apostles Prophets Evangelists miracles to the future estate of the Church as if they were ordinary Officers to continue in the Church 4. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth decrevit then the thing is not mentioned as having an actuall present existence but a futurition so that when he takes him to the decrevit he quits the posuit and by that means one cannot prove from that Text that the Church at that time had any of these Officers there enumerated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to all that follows and either it must be posuit to them all
delegare plus juris quam ipse habet No man can give from him by delegation or deputation to another that right or power which he himself hath not 3. If the power of excommunication come by delegation from the Magistrate either the Magistrate must in conscience give this power to Church-officers onely or he is free and may without sin give this power to others If the former what can bind up the Magistrates conscience or astrict the thing to Church-Officers except it be Gods ordinance that they only do it If the latter then though this Parliament hath hath taken away the old High Commission Court which had Potestatem utriusque gladii yet they may lawfully and without sin erect a new High Commission Court made up of those who shall be no Church-officers yea having none of the Clergy in it as the other had with commission and power granted to them to execute spiritual Jurisdiction and Excommunication and that not onely in this or that Church yea or Province but in any part of the whole Kingdom So much of the first point Now to the second concerning appeals to the Magistrate as to the head of the Church It is asked what remedy shall there be against the abuse of Church-discipline by Church-officers except there be appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the civil Magistrate which if it be Church-officers will be the more wary and cautious to do no man wrong knowing that they may be made to answer for it And if it be not there is a wide dore opened that ministers may do as they please Answ. 1 Look what remedy thene is for abuses in the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments the like remedy there is for abuses in Church-discipline Mal-administration of the Word and Sacraments is no lesse sinfull to the ministers and hurtful to others then mal-administration of discipline and in some respects the former is more to the dishonour of God and destruction of men than the latter Ministers have not an arbitrary power to preach what they will Now when the word is not truly preached nor the Sacraments duely administred by any minister or ministers the Magistrate seeketh the redresse of these things in a constituted Church by the convocating of Synods for examining discovering and judging of such errors and abuses as are found in particular Churches But if the Synod should connive at or comply with that same error yet the Magistrate taketh not upon him the supreme and authoritative decision of a controversie of faith but still endeavoureth to help all this by other Ecclesiastical remedies as another Synod and yet another till the evil be removed The like we say concerning abuses in Church-discipline The Magistrate may command a resuming and re-examination of the case in another Synod but still the Synod ratisieth or reverseth the censure In which case it is betwixt the Magistrate and the Synod as betwixt the will and understanding for Voluntas imperat Intellectui quo ad exercitium yet notwithstanding determinatur per intectellum quoad specificationem actus Take for instance this also If it be a case deserving deposition or degradation In such a case saith learned Salmasius appar ad lib. de primatu pag. 298. the Prince or Magistrate cannot take from a minister that power which was given him in ordination with imposition of hands for he cannot take away that which he cannot give But if a Prince would have a minister for his offenceâ— to be deprived of his ministeriall power he must take care that it be done by the ministers themselves qui Judices veri ipsius sunt auferre soli possunt quod per ordinationem dederunt Who are his true Judges and they onely can take away what by ordination they have given Thus Salmasius 2. And further if Presbyteries or Synods exceed the bounds of Ecclesiasticall power and go without the Sphaere of their own activity interposing and judging in a civil cause which concerneth any mans life or estate The Magistrate may reverse and make null whatsoever they do in that kind and punish themselves for such abuse of their power As Solomon punished Abiathar and banished him to Anathoth he being guilty of high treason 1 Kings 2. 26. It was not a case of scandall onely or of Delinquency or mal-administration in his Sacerdotall office otherwise it had fallen within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin 3. Though the case be meerly spirituall and ecclesiastical the Christian Magistrate by himself and immediatly may not onely examine by the judgement of discretion the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court but also when he seeth cause either upon the complaint of the party or scandall given to himself interpose by letters messages exhortations and sharp admonitions to the Presbyterie or Synod who in that case are bound in conscience with all respect and honour to the Magistrate to give him a reason of what they have done and to declare the grounds of their proceedings till by the blessing of God upon this free and fair dealing they either give a rationall and satisfactory accompt to the Magistrate or be themselves convinced of their mal-administration of Discipline 4 And in extraordinary cases when the Clergy hath made defection and all Church discipline is degenerated into Tyrannie as under Popery and Prelacy it was it belongeth to the Magistrate to take the protection of those who are cast out or censured unjustly for extraordinary evils must have extraordinary helps And in this sence we are to understand divers of our Reformers and others groaning under the pressures of the Roman Clergy and calling in the help of the civil Magistrate for their relief But we deny that in a well constituted Church it is agreeable to the will of Christ for the Magistrate either to receive appeals properly so called from the sentence of an Ecclesiastical Court or to receive complaints exhibited against that sentence by the party censured so as by his authority upon such complaint to nullifiâ— or make void the Ecclesiastical censure The latter of these two Vâ—…delius pleadeth for not the former But Apollonius oppugneth the latter as being upon the matter all one with the former Now to ascribe such power to the Magistrate is 1. To change the Pope but not the Poâ—…edome the Head but not the Headship for is not this the Popes chief supremacy to judge all men and to be judged of no man to ratifie or rescind at his pleasure the decâ—ees of the Church Councels â—nd all and shall this power now be transferred upon the Magistrate Good Lord where are we if this shall be the up-shot of our Reformation Oâ— for it Shall we condemn the Papists and Anabaptists who give too little to the Magistrate and then joyn hands with the Arminians who give as much to the Magistrate as the Pope hath formerly usurpâ—d 2. Appeals lie in the same line of subordination and do not go de gâ—…nere
the Magistrate may command Church-officers to suspend or excommunicate all obstinate and scandalous persons he may command the Classis to ordain able and godly ministers and no other he may command a Synod to meet to debate and determine such or such a controversie Consequently also when the thing is examined judged resolved or done by the Ecclesiasticall power the Magistrate hath power and authority to adde his civil sanction confirmation ot ratification to make the Ecclesiasticall sentence to be obeyed and submitted unto by all whom it concerneth In all which the Christian Magistrate doth exceeding much for the conservation and purgation of Religion not eliciâ—…ndo actus doing or exercising by himself or by his owne authority acts of Church Government or discipline but taking care that such and such things be done by those to whom they do belong 3. Distinguish the directive part and the coercive part The directive part in the conservation or purgation of Religion doth belong to the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church assembled together In administring therefore that which concerneth Religion and peoples spirituall good the Magistrate not onely juvatur but dirigitur is not onely helped but directed by the Ecclesiastical directive power Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 6. Magistracy may say to Ministery as Moses said to Hobab Thou mayest be to us in stead of eyes Ad sacrae Religionis informationem fidâ—…lis Magistratus verbi divini administris veluti oculis uti debet and for that end he is to make use of consistoriall and Synodicall Assemblies say the Professors of Lâ—…yden Synopspur 〈◊〉 Disp. 50. Thes. 44. But the coercive part in compelling the obstinate and unruly to submit to the Presbyteriall or Synodicall sentence belongs to the Magistrate Not as if the Magistrate had nothing to do but to be an executioner of the pleasure of Church-officers or as if he were by a blind and implicite faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination God forbid The Magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compell men to do to judge of it not onely judicio apprehâ—…nsivo by understanding and apprehending â—right what it is but judicio discretivo by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion examining by the Word of God the grounds reasons and warrants of the thing that he may in Faith and not doubtingly adde his authority thereto In which judging he doth Iudicare but not Iudicem agere that is he is Iudex suarum actionum he judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to Church-officers and doth not concur therewith except he be satisfied in his Conscience that he may do so yet this makes him not supreme Judge or Governour in all Ecclesiastical causes which is the Prerogative of Jesus Christ revealing his will in his word nor yet doth it invest the Magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forensicall directive judgement in Ecclesiastical things or causes which belongeth to Ecclesiasticall not to civil Courts 4. Distinguish between a Cumulative and a Privativâ—… authority The Magâ—strate hath indeed an authoritative influence into matters of Religion and Church-Government but it is cumulative that is the Magistrate takes care that Church-officers as well as other Subjects may do those things which ex officio they are bound to do and when they do so he aideth assisteth strengtheneth ratifieth and in his way maketh effectuall what they do But that which belongs to the Magistrate is not privative in reference to the Ecclesiastical Government It is understood salvo jure Ecclesiastico for the Magistrate is a nursing Father not a step Father to the Church and the Magistrate as well as other men is under that tye 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth This Proviso therefore is justly made that whatever power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion it is not to hinder the free exercise of Church discipline and censures against scandalous and obstinate sinners As the Casuists in other cases distinguish Lucrum cessans and damnum emergens so must we distinguish between the Magistrate his doing no good to the Church and his doing evil to the Church between his not assisting and his opposing between his not allowing or authorizing and his forbidding or restraining It doth properly and of right belong to the Magistrate to adde a civil sanction and strength of a law for strengthning and aiding the exercise of Church discipline or not to add it And himself is Judge whether to add any such cumulative act of favour or not But the Magistrate hath no power nor authority to lay bands and restraints upon Church-officers to hinder any of Christs ordinances or to forbid them to do what Christ hath given them a commission to do And if any such restraints of prohibitions or lawes should be laid on us we ought to obey God rather than men 5. Distingue tempora Whatever belongs to the Magistrate in matters of Religion more then falls under the former distinctions is extraordinary and doth not belong to ordinary Government In extraordinary reformations the Magistrate may do much by his owne immediate authority when Synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine or from holinesse and godlinesse yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly Divines as can be had either in his owne or from other Dominions Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 5. And so much be spoken of the Magistrate his power and duty in things and causes Ecclesiasticall As we do not deny to the Magistrate any thing which the Word of God doth allow him so we dare not approve his going beyond the bounds and limits which God hath set him And I pray God that this be not found to be the bottome of the controversie Whether Magistracy shall be an arbitrary Government if not in civil yet in Ecclesiastical things Whether the Magistrate may do or appoint to be done in the matter of Church-Government admission to or exclusion from the Ordinances of Christ what ever shall seem good in his eyes And whether in purging of the Church he is obliged to follow the rules of Scripture and to consult with learned and godly Ministers although Erastus himself as is before observed and Sutlivius a great follower of him de Presbyt cap. 8. are ashamed of and do disclaim such assertions CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy â—r Civil Goveramâ—nt â—amely an Ecclesiastical Government properly so callâ—d in the hands of Church-officâ—rs THis Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament excluding all Government of Church-officers Ministers and Elders that is as he expounds himself all corrective government leaving them no power except what is meerly doctrinal and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate onely Mr. Hussey following him
owne house Mr. Hussey will make it no more but this one that goeth before his owne house by teaching them or by giving them good example though the very next words tell us there is more in it and that is authoritative government having his children in subjection So vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ruling their children well Pasor is not at all against my sence but for it for if Mr. Hussey will make Pasor to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive doth never signifie any more but praecedo then he makes him to say both that which is manifestly false and in so saying to contradict himself for Pasor tells us also the word signifieth praesum and for that he cites 1 Tim. 3. 4. where it is with a genitive Sometime indeed with a genitive it may be turned praecedo as Pasor saith but he citeth onely Tit. 3. 8. where it is not Genitivus personae as 1 Thes. 5. but rei and we may also read praestare as A. Montanus to excell or be chief in good works or to maintain as our books have it But furthermore I shall offer for answer to Mr. Hussey the observation of an excellent Grecian It is Salmasius de primatu Papae pag. 18 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak properly is another thing then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former signifieth a power of jurisdiction and government the latter a precedence or placing of one before another although they are sometimes used promiscuously and although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea they have the very names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you look to the native Etymologie of the words from their precedence or standing before even as Antistites quasi ante stantes and praetor quasi praeitor such names being chosen for mollifying and dulcifying of Government as might hold forth precedence rather then high sounding names of power and authority I shall adde but two testimonies of ancient Grecians Plato Epist. 7. near the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or if he that ruleth some great City and such as hath the dominion over many smaller Cities should unjustly distribute to his owne City the means and substance of those lesser Cities Dionysius Areopagita Epist. 8. speaking of Moses his supreme power of rule and government over Israel which was envyed by Korah and his faction calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Well Mr. Hussey will try if his Logick can help him if his Greek cannot Whatsoever this person is that is to be beloved ho is supposed not instituted in this place the subject is supposed not handled in any Science The like he saith afterward pag. 22. that we cannot prove from 1 Cor. 5. that Paul did institute excommunication but at most that he supposed an Institution For my part that Scripture which supposeth an Institution shall to me prove an Institution for I am sure that which any Scripture supposeth must be true And herein as I take it Mr. Coleman would have said as I say for in his fourth rule he proved the Institution of Magistracy from Rom. 13. yec Magistracy is not instituted in that place but supposed to be instituted A third Argument I take from Hebr. 13 7. Remember them which have the rule over you who have spoken unto you the Word of God Vers. 17. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account Bullinger and Gualther referre this 17th verse both to Magistracy and Ministery and so far they are ours in sharing the rule and government between both and in making obedience due to both But Calvin and many others doe better expound the Text of Ecclesiasticall Rulers or Governours onel wherein Salmasius followeth the Greek Scholiasts who expound the Text of Bishops or Elders who did in common govern the Church See Walo Messal pag. 137. 138. That it is not spoken of civil but of Ecclesiastical rulers may thus appear beside that it were hard to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 17 th verse in another sence then it hath verse 7. or the Rulers that watch for the soule vers 17. to be any other then the rulers that had spoken the Word of God vers 7. it is further to be noted that the Apostle speaks of such Rulers as the beleeving Hebrewes had at that time as is evident by vers 24. Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints and those Rulers did watch for their soules But they had no Christian or godly Magistrates that watched for their soules or whom the Apostle would thus salute with the Saints But the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Mr. Hussey pag. 18. which is ducum them that lead you The Apostle hath indeed chosen a word free of ambition yet saith Beza auctoritatis maximae it is a word of the greatest authority The Syriack hath the same word here by which he rendreth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. 28. And if you consult the Septuagints the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except very rarely where it signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu viae ducem and then to speak properly subjection and obedience is not due to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Exod. 23. 23. where yet it was an Angel that was the guide and so not without authority they do usually and in innumerable places use this word to expresse one invested with power and authority of Government and the same Hebrew words which they render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are likewise by by them translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which are names of superiority command and government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governour is Pilates highest Title Matth. 27. 2. And Erastus lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 312 saith The Magistrates of the Gentiles were called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same in signification Stephen in Theslinguae Gr. citeth out of Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generally is used for praesum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Iosephs greatest Title to expresse his government over Egypt Acts 7. 10. yea Christ himself is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse his governing or ruling power over his Church Matth. 2. 6. Salmasius doth at once shew us both that the Apostle means the Elders of the Church under the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the same name is used for civil Magistrates yea Emperours See Walo Messal pag. 219 220. Far be it from all the Ministers of Christ to arrogate or assume any such dominion as belongs to the
civil Magistrate or to lord it over the Lords Inheritance Nay here that rule must take place Luke 22. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is chief as he that serveth Onely the holy Ghost gives to Church-officers those names of authority which are given to civil Magistrates thereby to teach the people of God their duty and that there is another Government beside the civil whereunto they ought to submit and obey in the Lord. Master Husseys next answer is that where our Books have it Obey them that have the rule over you the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more but Be perswaded For proof whereof he tells us out of Pasor that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is verbum foreuse a word whereby the Advocates perswade the Judges yet we cannot say that the Judges obey the Advocates I answer Let him make of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what he can the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth frequently signisie I obey or obtemper For which signification H. Stephanus in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 citeth out of Xenophon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Plutaroh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we come to the Scripture phrase I am sure in some places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a thing of another nature then to be perswaded forensically as Iam. 3. 3 Behold we put bits in the horses mouthes that they may obey us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But here when we speak of the obedience of Church-members to Church-officers it is a free rational willing Christian obedience yet obedience it is which we owe to Spiritual Rulers as well as that which we owe to civil Magistrates Sure Gualther and Bullinger did understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be more then be perswaded for they apply this Text to the obedience due to Magistrates And M. Hussey might have also observed that Pasor renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by pareo obedio for which he citeth Gal. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to obey the truth And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he renders inobediens refractarius as Rom. 1. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedient to parents I know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used for to be perswaded but I verily believe M. Hussey is the first man that ever quarrelled the word obey in this Text and turned it to be no more but be perswaded Yet if he shall well observe that which followeth in the very next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and submit your selves which in Theodorets opinion noteth here intense obedience They must not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yeeld but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yeeld with subjection and submission This relateth to authority nor can we say that the Judges do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Advocates nor travellers to their guides he himself shall be perswaded to cast away this glosse and to seek a better And if he will stand to it he shall but do a disservice to Magistracy whiles he would weaken the power of the Ministery for though there be much in the New Testament concerning subjection or submission to Magistrates yet the clearest fullest yea to my remembrance the onely expresse word for obedience to Magistrates is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rightly translated in our Books to obey Magistrates but Master Hussey will make it no more but to be perswaded by Magistrates Yea the very simple and uncompounded Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fore-cited passages of Xenophon and Plutarch is used where they speak of obedience to Magistrates and masters If this must fail him he hath yet another answer Let the word stand saith he as it is translated obey yet it is not alway correlative to the command of a Superiour and the holy Ghost requireth obedience here not by an argument from the authority of him that leadeth them but from the benefit that cometh to themselves for that is unprofitable for you He divideth what the Apostle joyneth for there are two sorts of Arguments in the Text by which the Apostle perswadeth them to this obedience one is taken from the authority of the Ministery which is intimated both by that name of authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by their subordination or submission which the Apostle calls for another from the benefit that cometh to themselves by their obedience and the hurt which they shall do to themselves by their disobedience Both these Arguments are wrapt up in these words For they watch for your souls which is the very same with that Acts 20. 28. To all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers The Apostle doth also perswade Christians to be subject to the Magistrate by an Argument taken from the benefit that cometh to themselves Rom. 13. 4. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good yet that doth not weaken but rather strengthen the Authority of the Magistrate The fourth Argument shall be taken from 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before or under two or three witnesses Which is not a temporary charge laid upon Timothy as an Evangelist and so incompetent to ordinary Ministers for it is joyned with the rules of publike Rebuking of laying on of hands not partaking of other mens sins and such like things which are of ordinary concernment He is also charged to keep the Commandment till the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 5. 14 which cannot be otherwise understood then as spoken to him in reference to the Ministery Now what is an act of Government if this be not to receive accusations and that against Elders and that under two or three witnesses The Apostle intendeth here the avoiding of these two evils first upon the one hand because veritas odium parit and Elders doing their duty faithfully will certainly be hated and slandered and evil spoken of by some that therefore every Diotrephes pratling against a servant of Christ with malicious words may not be able to blast his Christian reputation and good name Next upon the other part because the offences and scandals of Elders are not to be connived at but to be aggravated and censured more then the offences of others that therefore an accusation be received against them if it be under two or three witnesses Now where accusations ought to be received and that under two or three witnesses and not otherwise with special charge also to observe these things without partiality or preferring one before another vers 21. there is certainly a forensical proceeding and a corrective Jurisdiction or Government More of this Argument in Malè audis pag. 14. Fifthly what is that else but a corrective Jurisdiction Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He speaks of a rejecting of persons not of things onely and of such a rejecting of persons as cannot be understood
that for that end one ought to give place to another upon the other hand that a boundlesse liberty and confusion and immunity from censure may not be introduced into the Church To this latter branch belongs vers 29. 32. 33. Let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other judge He will have two or at most three Prophets to speak in one Congregation at one diet or time of assembling and those Prophets saith he must be examined judged and censured by the other Prophets for the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets that is every particular Prophet distributively is subject to all the Prophets collectively or to the colledge of Prophets add and of other spirituall persons intrusted with the government of the Church together with the Prophets as from vers 37. and Gal. 6. 1. is well observed by our Country-man Mr. Dickson upon this place Therefore Walaeus Tom. 1 pag. 468. doth rightly collect from this place an authority of Church-Government Protestant Writers prove hence the authority of General-Councels above the Pope and that the Pope is a false Prophet because he refuseth to be subject to the Prophets Iunius in divers places applieth this Text to the authority of Presbyteries and Synods Gualther upon the place applyeth it against the Pope who will judge all men and be judged of no man whereas saith he the Apostle here will have no man how eminent soever to be free from censure when he is censurable So then we have in this Text a subjection and an authority of judging and censuring And this Judgement which the Apostle here speaks of is neither the Judgement of the civil Magistrate nor the Judgement of discretion common to the whole Church but it is the Judgement or censure of Prophets and that not School-wise according to Mr. Husseys notion of Schooles that is by the Prophets disputing a man out of his error and no more no vote no decision no result except he that hath taught an error do agree to the arguments of the other Prophets and so all end in a brotherly accord and in the unanimous consent of the whole Clergy for so doth he advise the Parliament so that he shall be no more subject to all the Prophets then all the Prophets to him Yea in Mr. Husseys sence the Pope will not refuse to be subject to a Councel of Prophets and then Protestant Writers have been far out of their way who have disputed against the Pope from this Text supposing it to hold forth a binding authoritative Judgement of the Prophets whereunto any one Prophet is bound to be subject the Judgement of his private discretion being alwaies reserved to him that he give not blind obedience Eighthly I argue from Revel 2. 14. 20. The Lord Jesus reproveth the Angel of the Church in Pergamus for suffering those that taught the doctrine of Balaam and the Angel of the Church in Thyatira for suffering Iezebel which called her self a Prophetesse to seduce his people The fault here reproved must be the neglect of Church-censures and corrective government which is so manifest that they who plead most for liberty of Conscience from the Magistrate do acknowledge that the Angels of these Churches are reproved for not censuring Ecclesiastically those that did thus seduce Gods people Neither is it said because thou art silent and dost not reprove nor convince but because thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam that is because thou dost not cast them out of the Church that they may not hurt others So the English Annotations upon the place referring us also to 1 Cor. 5. The Angel of the Church was guilty in this that those who had so much scandalized the Church by their Doctrine were still in the Church and not yet cast out of the Church And who can imagine that the Angels of those Churches whom Christ himself commendeth for holding fast his name and for their love service faith and patience were so void either of prudence as not to observe or of zeal as not to gainsay and confute by sound doctrine those soul and scandalous errors Certainly their sin was like that of Eli they did not together with the doctrinal and monitory part make use of that Jurisdiction and corrective power which God had put in their hands Ninthly We have another Argument from 1 Thess. 3. 14. And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man and have no Company with him that he may be ashamed Here the Syriack helpeth us much And if any man obey not these words which are contained in this Epistle let that man be separated from you neither have company with him that he may be ashamed Gualther upon the place saith the Apostle speaks de disciplina Ecclesiastica what discipline they ought to have in the Church and the end thereof So Calvin Beza Piscator Zanchius Diodati The Dutch Annotations Gomarus also Mariana Cajetan Salmeron Gorranus Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Sect. 7. and diverse others following Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Aquinas all these do apply it to Ecclesiasticall discipline and censure Some controversie there is whether this Text reach as far as Excommunication which doth not belong to this present Argument but certainly it reacheth to a publick Church-censure and is more then the withdrawing of private Company and Fellowship either because of personal or private injuries or because of prophanesse For 1. the offence spoken of by the Apostle is not a matter of Civil or Personal injury but of scandal he speaks of idle bodies that walked disorderly not working at all and if these must be noted and separated how much more saith Theoylact those who commit crimes and wickednesse 2. Here is contumacy added to the offence if any man obey not our word by this Epistle intimating that upon occasion of this Epistle those that walked disorderly were to be solemnly admonished and required to work in quietnesse and to eat their owne bread which if after admonition they would not do then to note them Aquinas clears it by 1 Sam. 15. 23 for rebellion is as the sin of witck-craft and stubbornesse is as iniquity and as idolatry 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note that man signate as Menochius rendreth it rather then either significate or notate set a mark upon him even as saith Erasmus we set a mark upon pushing oxen that we may avoid them which agreeth well with the Syriack Let that man be separated from you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is some what more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The latter usually signifieth no more but significo indico signum do but the former is signum notam imprimo obsigno insignio The Septuagints make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 levavit elevavit sustulit So Psal. 4. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. signatum est
office to bear rule It was their sin to support themselves in their ruling by the false Prophets 1 Chron. 9 11. Azariah the Ruler of the House of God 2 Chron. 31. 13. And Azariah the Ruler of the House of God 〈◊〉 11. 11. Serajah the Ruler of the House of God All the chief Priâ—sts or heads of the several Classes or Orders of Priests were called Principes Sanctuarii saith Matthias Martinius Lexic Philol. pag. 3268. So 2. Chron. 35. 8. Hilkiah and Zachariah and Jehiel Rulers of the House of God Act. 23. 5. Then said Paul I wist not brethren that he was the high Priest for it is written thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Finally Deut. 31. 28. where we find schoterim that is Officers Rulers or such as were set over the charge the 70. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome Doctores More plainly 2 Kings 11. 18. the Priest appointed Officers over the House of the Lord. Thirteenthly A corrective Ecclesiastical government in the Churches of Galatia seemeth to be intimated Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which trouble you Which many understand of Excommunication See Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Sect. 6. 7. Also Salmeron Menochius Vasquez Novarinus and of ours Bâ—…za Diodati Gomarus all upon the place beside diverse others Musculus upon the place doth paralell this cutting off with delivering to Sathan 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. and explaineth excindantur by abalienentur which best suteth to excommunication Certainly the words will easily admit this sence or rather invite to it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not properly perdo destruo consumo but amputo abscindo also minuo because that from which any thing is cut off is diminished and made lesse also repello abjungo separo ahstraho And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abscindor excindor separor abstraâ—…or Hunters and such as trace the Vestigies but cannot find them are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be cut off or abstracted Hâ—…sych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abscissus is not he who is cut off by death or destruction but he that hath his members cut off Which seems to have been the ground of Augustine his mistake of this Text conceiving the Apostles wish to be that those men should be made Eunuchs The Septuagints have sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circumcido and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demitto as synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now from the phrase to the purpose of the Text. That it is meant of Excommunication I have these reasons which confirme me 1. Because vers 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump are the very same words which he useth 1 Cor. 5. 6. where he presseth the excommunication of the incesâ—uous man as there one unclean person in life so here some few seducers especially that one who is singularly pointed at vers 10. is meant by the little leaven which was to be purged out lest it should leaven the whole Church 2. Interpreters do generally agree that the Apostle here alludeth to Circumcision which those Judaizing teachers pressed upon the Galatians as necessary wishing that they who would so fain have the Galatians circumcised were themselves cut off and cast out of the Church as rotten members or as a Gangren out of the body This allusion suteth best with excommunication 3. The words so understood will more fitly answer and be paralel unto the cutting off in the Law that soul shall be cut off from among his people which I have before proved to be meant of excommunication as likewise to that 1 Cor. 5. 14. Put away that wicked person from among you 4. Other Interpretations do not so well agree to the Text. This cutting off could not be expected nor any hopes had of it by the hand of Justice or of the Magistrate for the Magistrates of that time were themselves troublers of the Christians so far they were from cutting of those that troubled them Those that understand the words of an imprecation of eternal cutting off from God and being accursed from Christ draw themselves into thorny questions wherein they can hardly satisfie themselves or others To understand it of cutting off by death doth not well answer that allusion to Circumcision generally observed as hath been said by Interpreters which allusion doth intimate that it is not a cutting off out of the World but a cutting off from the body of the Church I would that they themselves were cut off as the praeputium from the Church that is cut off à consortio Ecclesiae saith Guâ—…lther If it be said why then doth the Apostle onely wish it Why doth he not prescribe or command to excommunicate them To this we may either answer as Bâ—…za The Apostle Pauls authority at that time was extreamly blasted and weakned in the Churches of Galatia Or thus the Apostle knew that as the Churches of Galatia then stood affected being bewitched with the Judaizing Zealots and in a manner moved away to another Gospel both Churches and Ministery were unwilling to excommunicate those that he means of for which cause he would not peremptorily command their excommunication renitente Ecclesiâ but forbeareth for that season wishing for better times Some think that the Apostle speaketh positively of excommunication vers 10. He shall bear his Judgement But others are of opinion the Apostle there speaks of the judgement of God which he certainly and positively denounces and that vers 12. he addeth this as a distinct purpose that he could wish them also cut off from the Church by excommunication It will be an Argument of more weight against Erastus his Interpretation of that Text if we object against him thus This cutting off which the Apostle wisheth to those that troubled the Galatians cannot be meant of a divine or miraculous judgement upon them such as he thinks to be meant 1 Cor. 5. which place he parallels with Gal. 5. 12. as to the punishment intended for if so why doth not the Apostle adjudge them positively to be cut off or destroyed as he did constitute and decree by his Apostolical power of miracles so thinks Erastus the incestuous Corinthian to be delivered to Satan To this Erastus replieth lib. 3. cap. 9 Because the Apostles had not power to work miracles quoties vellent as often as they would nor to afflictor stay any but when it seemed good in Gods eyes sed quando Deo visum fuit utile necessarium salutare But I ask Was it right and agreeable to the will of God that the Apostle should wish their cutting off Was it not profitable and necessary for the Churches good that they should be cut off Where shall we finde that the working of a miracle was profitable and necessary for the Churches good and that an Apostle did desire and thirst after the working of that miracle and yet had not power from God to work
Graecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same thing which Comitia to the Latines Therefore such Assemblies had a judicial power and their suffrages were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 firm and ratified Sentences Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence also cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rule or to have a dominion It was long ago observed by Dionysius Areopagita de divinis nominibus cap. 12. where after he hath put into the description of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominion that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 true and unshaken firmenesse he addes this reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Balthasar Corderius rendereth thus Quâ—…propter dominatio Graeâ—…è à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derivato nomine idem est quod firmatio firmamentum firmum ac firmans seu ratificans Pachimeres in his Paraphrase addeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath its name from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then it is not every confirming certifying or making sure a thing but when a thing is made sure or firm with fulnesse of authority and power The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is therefore rightly rendred by Stephanus Scapula and Pasor not onely firmamentum rata fides but auctoritas plena full authority Thirdly the same Apostle calls a ratified Testament which ratification is by a legal and judicial authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3. 15. Fourthly the opposite Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth anctoritate privâ—… omni imperio spolio irritum reddo As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth a privation of authority so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a giving of authority or ratification The sixteenth Argument to prove a distinct Church-Government is this The visible political ministerial Church is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and he is the Head King Judge and Law-giver thereof Isa. 9. 6. Isa. 22. 21 22. Psal. 2. 6. Luk. 1. 33. 1 Cor. 15. 24 Eph. 1. 21m 22 23. Dare any say that the Lord Jesus shall not governe the Church of England and reigne over the same Luk. 19. 14 27. Must he not be received both as Lord and as Christ Acts 2. 36. Now in the administration and government of a Kingdom these three things are necessarily required 1. Lawes 2. Officers Ministers Judges Courts 3. Censures and punishments of offences Which three being universally necessary in every Kingdom can 〈◊〉 of all be supposed to be wanting in the Church and Kingdom oâ— Jesus Christ who hath been more faithfull in the execution oâ— his Kingly office and hath provided better for the Government of his Church then ever any King or State in this world did for a Civil Government I adde the Lawes Judicatories and censures in the Kingdom of Christ must be spiritual and Beclâ—siastical because his Kingdom is not of this world and his servants cannot take the sword Iohn 18. 36. Neither are the weapons of our warfarre carnal but yet mighty through God and in readinesse to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10. 4. 6. I do not see what can be answerd to this Argument except any do so far deny the Kingly office of Jesus Christ as to say that the Church Political or Ministerial is not his Kingdom but onely the Church Mystical that is as he ruleth over our soules by his Word and Spirit To which purpose Mr. Hussey in his plea pag. 33. denyeth that the visible Church can be called the Body of Christ or he their Head and tells us that the government which Christ hath over the faithful is truely spiritual and of this Kingdom faith he he hath indeed no Officers but his Spirit I reply 1. The Scripture is plain that a visible ministeriall Church is the body of Christ Rom. 12. 4 5. 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 12. to 28. If we admit of a visible Church and visible Saints we must also admit of a visible body and a visible Kingdom of Christ. 2. The Political Ministerial Church were a body without a head The Analogie of a political head as well as of a natural head agreeth to Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he hath an influence upon the Church potestative as well as effective 3. He 〈◊〉 his Propheâ—icall office not onely in teaching us inwardly by his Spirit but in teaching the Church outwardly by his servants the Ministers of his Word Now iâ— he be a Prophet to the visible ministerial Church he is also a King to the same for his offices cannot be divided his Scholars are his Subjects and whosoever receive him as a Prophet must also receive him as a King Yea let us hear Mr. Hussey himself pag. 17. The Kingdom of Christ is 〈◊〉 ample as his Prophecy c. the Doctrine which they must teach commands noâ—… commands have alwaies power and authority 〈◊〉 So that either he must say that Christ gives no commands to the visible Church or confesse that the visible Church is the visible Kingdom of Christ. 4 That the Kingdom of Christ comprehendeth the Government and discipline of the Church I prove from Mattâ—… â—16 28. There be some standing here which shall not tastâ—… of death till they see the Son of man comming in his Kingdom Where first of all note Christ hath not onely an invisible but a visible Kingdom Next this visible Kingdom is not meant of his comming again in glory to judge the quick and the dead for all that were then hearing Christ have tasted of death and yet Christ is not come to judgement Nor is it meant of Christs tranfiguration mentioned Matth. 17. for that was six dayes after Matth. 17. 1. and if he meant that he would not have said so emphatically there be some here that shall not taste of death c. intimating what was to come to passe not after some daies but after some yeares as if he had said this age or generation shall not passe away till these things be fulfilled Neither is that transfiguration any where called the Kingdom of God nor can it be properly so called Nor lastly is the Kingdom of God in that place meant onely of the preaching of the Gospel for so they had seen Christ comming in his Kingdom Luk. 10. 9. 11. Nor is it meant of Christs working of miracles for so likewise they had seen his Kingdom Matth. 12. 28. Melius ergo Beda Gregorius quorum sententiam nostri sequuntur per illud Regnum Christi intelligunt constitutionem Ecclesiarum post Christi ascensum saith Tossanus upon the place Some of those to whom he spoke at that time lived to see Christ reigne in the gathering and governing of Churches Gregor Hom 32. in Evang. Et quia nonnulli ex discipâ—…lis usque adâ—…o in corpore victuri erant ut Ecclesiam Dei constructam conspicerenâ—… contra mundi hujus glorium erectam
his place against the holy Ghost the said holy Spirit bearing the contrary record to his Conscience Testimonies taken out of the Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the 〈◊〉 Churches Râ—printed at London 1643. Pag. 238. Out of the confession of Helvetia FUrthermore there is another power of duty or ministerial power limited out by him who hath full and absolute power and authority And this is more like a Ministry then Dominion For we see that some master doth give unto the steward of his house authority and power over his House and for that cause delivereth him his keyes that he may admit or exclude such as his master will have admitted or excluded According to this power doth the Minister by his office that which the Lord hath commanded him to do and the Lord doth ratifie and confirm that which he doth and will have the deeds of his ministers to be acknowledged and esteemed as his own deeds unto which end are those speeches in the Gospel I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest or loosest in earth shall be bound and loosed in heaven Again whose sins soever ye remit they shall be remitted and whose sins soever ye retain they shall be retained But if the minister deal not in all things as his Lord hath commanded him but passe the limits and bounds of Faith then the Lord doth make void that which he doth Wherefore the Ecclesiastical power of the Ministers of the Church is that function whereby they do indeed govern the Church of God but yet so as they do all things in the Church as he hath prescribed in his Word which thing being so done the faithful do esteem them as done of the Lord himself Pag. 250. Out of the confession of Bohemia THe 14th Chapter of Ecclesiastical doctrine is of the Lords keyes of which he saith to Peter I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and these keyes are the peculiar function or Ministery and administration of Christ his power and his holy Spirit which power is committed to the Church of Christ and to the Ministers thereof unto the end of the world that they should not onely by preaching publish the holy Gospel although they should do this especially that is should shew forth that Word of true comfort and the joyful message of peace and new tydings of that favour which God offereth but also that to the beleeving and unbeleeving they should publikely or privately denounce and make known to wit to them his favour to these his wrath and that to all in general or to every one in particular that they may wisely receive some into the house of God to the communion of Saints and drive some out from thence and may so through the performance of their Ministery hold in their hand the Scepter of Christ his Kingdom and use the same to the government of Christ his Sheep And after Moreover a manifest example of using the power of the keyes is laid out in that sinner of Corinth and others whom St. Paul together with the Church in that place by the power and authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Spirit threw out from thence and delivered to Sathan and contrariwise after that God had given him grace to repent he absolved him from his sins he took him again into the Church to the communion of Saints and Sacraments and so opened to him the Kingdom of Heaven again By this we may understand that these keyes or this divine function of the Lords is committed and granted to those that have charge of souls and to each several Ecclesiastical Societies whether they be smal or great Of which thing the Lord sayeth to the Churches Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven And straight after For where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the middest of them Pag. 253. Out of the French Confession VVE beleeve that this true Church ought to be governed by that regiment or discâ—pline which our Lord Jesus Christ hath established to wit so that there be Pastors Elders and Deacons that the purity of doctrine may be retained vices repressed c. Pag. 257. Out of the Confession of Belgia VVE beleeve that this Church ought to be ruled and governed by that spiritual Regiment which God himself hath delivered in his word so that there be placed in it Pastors and Ministers purely to preach and rightly to administer the holy Sacraments that there be also in it Seniors and Deacons of whom the Senate of the Church might consist that by these means true Religion might be preserved and sincere doctrine in every place retained and spread abroad that vicious and wicked men might after a spiritual manner be rebuked amended and as it were by the bridle of discipline kept within their compasse Pag. 260. Out of the Confession of Auspurge AGain by the Gospel or as they term it by Gods Law Bishops as they be Bishops that is such as have the administration of the Word and Sacraments committed to them have no jurisdiction at all but onely to forgive sin Also to know what is true doctrine and to reject such Doctrine as will not stand with the Gospel and to debarre from the communion of the Church such as are notoriously wicked not by humane force and violence but by the word of God And herein of necessity the Churches ought by the law of God to perform obedience unto them according to the saying of Christ He that heareth you heareth me Upon which place the Observation saith thus To debar the wicked c. To wit by the judgement and verdict of the Presbyterie lawfully gathered together c. A Testimony out of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France Cap. 5. Art 9. THe knowledge of scandals and the censure or judgement thereof belongeth to the Company of Pastors and Elders Art 15. If it befalleth that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistories to such as have done amisse there be some other punishment or more rigorous censure to be used It shall then be done either by suspension or privation of the holy communion for a time or by excommunication or cutting off from the Church In which cases the Consistories are to be advised to use all prudence and to make distinction betwixt the one and the other As likewise to ponder and carefully to examine the faults and scandals that are brought before them with all their circumstances to judge warily of the censure which may be required Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum Cap. 14. Art 7. 8. 9. PEccata sua natura publica aut per admonitionis privatae contemtum publicata ex Consistorii totius arbitrio modo formâ ad aedificationem maximè accomodatis sunt Corrigenda Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit à S. Coenae communione
suspendetur Si suspensus post iter atas admonitiones nullum poenitentiae signum dederit ad Excommunicationem procedet Ecclesia Melchior Adamus de vitis Germanorum Theologorum Pag. 342. CUmque sub id tempus Anno 1545. Fredericus Elector Palatinus qui Ludovico successerat de Ecclesiarum agitaret Reformatione composuit Melanchthon cum evocato venire integrum non esset scriptum de reformandis Ecclesiis cujus Synopsin aliquot regulis comprehendit quas addimus Vera salutaris gubernatio Ecclesiae Christi praecipuè in his sex Membris consistit PRimum In vera pura Doctrina quam Deus Ecclesiae suae patefecit tradidit doceri mandavit Secundo In legitime usu Sacramentorum Tertio In conservatione Ministerii Evangelici obedientiae erga Pastores Ecclesiarum sicut Deus vult postulat conservari Ministerium Evangelii servat ipse sua potentiâ presentiâ Quarto In conservatione honestae pia Disciplinae retinendae per judicia Ecclesiastica seu jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam Quinto In conservandis studiis necessariae doctrinae Scholis Sexto Ad haec opus est defensione corporali facultatibus ad personas quae sunt in efficiis necessariis alendas The Irish Articles of Religion Art 58. NEither do we give unto him the Supreme Magistrate hereby the administration of the Word and Sacraments or the power of the keyes And Art 69. But particular and visible Churches consisting of those who make profession of the Faith of Christ and live under the outward means of Salvation be many in number wherein the more or lesse sincerely according to Christs Institution the Word of God is taught the Sacraments are administred and the authority of the keyes is used the more or lesse pure are such Churches to be accounted Laurentius Humfredus de Religionis conservatione Reformatione vera Ad Nobilitatem Clerum Populum Anglicanum PAg. 23. Nec satis mirari possum nec satis dolere cum intellgam in his locis repudiari disciplinam Ecclesiasticam vel nullam esse vel nimis laxam vel non satis vigilanter administratam in quibus tamen alioqui Religionis sincera efâ—igies cernitur quasi Evangelium esse possit ubi non vivitur Evangelicè aut quasi Christus laeto carnali voluptuario delectetur Evangelio c. At in Ecclesia manere debet censura jurisdictio non minus quam gladius in Repub. Pag. 25. Sit ergo haec prima Reformationis perfectae ratio nostri ac peccatorum recognitio emendatio Deinde severior adsit in Ecclesia castigatio animadversio ut illa laxit as remissio frnaeetur quo minus levius deinceps peccetur FINIS THE THIRD BOOKE OF Excommunication from the CHURCH AND Of Suspension from the LORDS TABLE CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles HAving now by the light of Scripture and other helps asserted a Church-government distinct from civill Magistracy both in the Old and New Testament the last part of my present undertaking shall be to vindicate the particular Ordinances of Excommunication and Suspension called by the Schoolmen Excommunicatio major minor Of which also I have before spoken divers things occasionally for I have asserted an Excommunication and Suspension in the Jewish Church Booke 1. Chap. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. The nature grounds reasons uses and ends whereof were not proper to the Old Testament but such as concerne the Christian Church I have also brought arguments Booke 2. Chap. 9 10. which conclude not onely Church-government but Excommunication And so much of my worke is done Neverthelesse there is more to doe M r Prynne first in his foure grand Quaeres and thereafter in his Vindication of the same hath argued much both against the Suspension from the Sacrament of a person not Excommunicated and wholly cast out of the Church and against some of the most pregnant Scripturall proofes for Excommunication it selfe In his Vindication he hath branched forth the controversie into ten points of difference Two of these viz. the fifth concerning suspension from the Sacrament of the Passeover and the ninth concerning casting out of the Synagogue I have discussed before in the first Book Where I have also examined other assertions of his concerning the Jewish Sanhedrin Temple confession of sinne The other points of difference not handled before I am as the Lord will help me now to speak to The first point of difference is whether in those foure Quaeres of his he stated the Controversie aright He is offended that I in a Sermon of mine before the honourable House of Commons charged the Questionist with mistakes and that I did not take notice of the question concerning suspension from the Sacrament as he stated it Vindic. pag. 3. I had reason because he had mis-stated it and since it pleased him to interpose in a matter depending between the Honourable houses of Parliament and the Reverend Assembly of Divines and to publish a paper plainly reflecting upon a Petition of the Assembly I hope he can not think either the Assembly or me tied to his stating of the question If he will meddle with the businesse of the Assembly he must speak to it as it is And that it may now appeare how just cause I had to charge his Queres with mistakes of the state of the question which he still mistaketh I shall endeavour a more particular and full discovery of these his mistakes And first that which was desired by the Assembly was that such a rule may be established by authority of Parliament as may keep off all scandalous and notorious sinners from the Sacrament The question was not what Texts of Scripture doe warrant this thing It did not concerne me to debate whether the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament quoted by him prove suspension from the Lords Table The controversie was of the practicall conclusion and of establishing such a rule as may keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament If the thing be done if the conclusion be consented to there is the greater liberty for men to abound in their own sence concerning the mediums to prove it Secondly and if he would needs debate what Texts of Scripture doe prove the thing and what precept or president in Scripture doth warrant it me thinks he had done better to have informed himselfe on what Scripturall proofs the Reverend Assembly had grounded the suspension of scandalous sinners from the Sacrament though not yet cast out of the Church The proofes from Scripture voted in the Assembly were these Because the Ordinance it selfe must not be prophaned And because we are charged to withdraw from those who walk disorderly And because of the great sinne and danger both to him that comes unworthily and also to the whole Church The Scriptures from which the Assembly did prove all
Intention and it being accordingly declared and Resolved by them That all sorts of notorious scandalous Offenders should be suspended from the Sacrament Which is the very point so much opposed by Master Prynne for the controversie moved by him is not so much concerning the manner or who should be the Judges as concerning the matter it selfe he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the Sacrament but onely such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the Word Prayer and all other publique Ordinances Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question that which is in controversie is plainly this Whether according to the word of God there ought to be in the Elderships of Churches a spirituall power and authority by which they that are called brethren that is Church members or Officers for the publique scandall of a prophane life or of pernicious doctrine or for a private offence obstinately continued in after admonitions and so growing to a publique scandall are upon proofe of such scandall to be suspended from the Lords Table untill signes of repentance appeare in them and if they continue contumacious are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the Church and their sinnes pronounced to be bound on earth and by consequence in Heaven untill by true and sincere repentance they turne to God and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the Church The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed Churches whereunto I adhere The first part of it concerning Suspension is utterly denyed by M r Prynne which breaketh the concatenation and order of Church discipline held forth in the question now stated Whether he denieth also Excommunication by Elderships to be an Ordinance and Institution of Christ and onely holdeth it to be lawfull and warrantable by the word of God I am not certaine If he do then he holds the totall negative of this present question However I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principall Scripturall foundations and pillars upon which Excommunication is builded As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated it is meant positively and exclusively that such a gradation not onely may but ought to be observed ordinarily which M r Prynne denieth although I deny not thaâ— for some publique enormous haynous abominations there may be without such degrees of proceeding a present cutting off by Excommunication But this belongs not to the present controversie CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15 16 17. prove Excommunication THe second point of difference is concerning Matth. 18. M r Prynne in the first of his foure questions told us that the words Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican are meant onely of personall private trespasses between man and man not publique scandalous sinnes against the Congregation and that t is not said Let him be to the whole Church but let him be to Thee c. This I did in my Sermon retort For if to thee for a personall private trespasse much more to the whole Church for a publique scandalous sinne whereby he trespasseth against the whole Congregation Yea it followeth upon his interpretation that he may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans if all the members of the Church doe him a personall injury whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding whether if a private man may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans for a personall injury done to himselfe alone it will not follow that much more the whole Church may account a man as a Heathen and Publican for a publique scandalous sinne against the whole Church M r Prynne in his Vindication pag. 3. glanceth at this objection but he takes notice onely of the halfe of it and he is so farre from turning off my retortion that he confirmeth it for pag. 4. he confesseth that every Christian hath free power by Gods word to esteeme not onely a particular brother but all the members of a Congregation as Heathens and Publicans if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries after admonition Now my exception against his Quere remains unanswered If I may esteem the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans when they doe me an injury and continue impenitent therein may not the whole Church esteem me as an Heathen man and a Publican when I commit a publique and scandalous trespasse against the whole Church and continues impenitent therein Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans and shall not the whole Church have power to cast off one man as an Heathen and Publican I know he understands those words Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican in another sence then either the reformed Churches doe or the ancient Churches did and takes the meaning to be of avoyding fellowship and familiarity with him before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender But however my argument from proportion will hold If civill fellowship must be refused because of obstinacy in a civill injury why shall not spirituall or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spirituall injury or trespasse against the Church If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury why shall not publique fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a publique scandall given to the Congregation Are the rules of Church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civill fellowship or are they straiter Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civill communion or is it narrower Peradventure he will say that the whole Church that is all the members of the Church have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother that is to have no fraternall converse or private Christian fellowship with him Well then If thus farre he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated how shall the whole Church together be bound to keepe fellowship with him till he be excommunicated Instead of loosing such knots M r Prynne undertakes to prove another thing that this Text of Matthew is not meane of Excommunication or Church censures and that the Church in this Text was not any Ecclesiasticall Consistory here he citeth Iosephus as if he had spoken of that Text but onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice But though all this were true which he saith yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this Text to prove Excommunication Which
Gentiles did not eat any thing which the Jewes were forbidden to eat it was lawfull for the Jewes to eat with the Gentiles saith Tostatus in 2. Paral. 6. Quest. 21. So likewise Grotius de Jure Belli ac pacis lib. 2. cap. 15. Sect. 9. where he referreth the Jewes their not eating with the Heathens to the Law of meats or the peculiaris victus which was prescribed to the Jewes But otherwise the Law did not make it unlawfull for them to eat with any of another Nation which he thinks is proved by Christs own example who took a drink of water from the woman of Samaria being yet most observant of the Law That the unlawfulnesse of eating with the Heathens was understood in reference to the ceremoniall Law I prove from Gal. 2. 12. 14. Peter having before eaten with the Gentiles to avoid the scandall of some Jewes that came from Iames did withdraw and separate himself from the believing Gentiles What to keep no more any civill company with them I hope no man will imagine that But the Text expounds it selfe vers 14. If thou being a Iew livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as doe the Iewes why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as doe the Iewes This was Peters fault that having formerly lived as the Gentiles that is eating with them all sorts of meats freely thinking himself liberate from the Yoke of the ceremoniall Law afterward he withdrew and separated himself from that manner of fellowship with the Centiles and bound up himselfe to live as doe the Jewes and to observe the distinction of meats according to the Law And in so doing whiles he avoided the scandall of the Jewes he gave a greater scandall to the Gentiles in compelling them by the authority of his example to Judaize and to thinke the ceremoniall Law necessary Thirdly The foresaid place Act. 10. is to be understood of such fellowship as was not meerely civill but religious and sacred as may appear 1. by the exposition formerly given of these words God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean 2. by the invitation of the men that were sent from Cornelius to Peter who did not call him to civill but to sacred fellowship Act. 10. 22. And they said Cornelius the Conturion a just man and one that feareth God and of good report among all the Nation of the Jewes was warned from God by an holy Angell to send for thee into his house and to heare words of thee 3. Peter calls in the men and lodgeth them that being a civill fellowship he doth it freely v. 23. but when he comes to Cornelius and those that were assembled with him to heare words from Peter here was the case of conscience and here Peter beginneth to apologize v. 28. ye knew how that it is an unlawfull thing c. The Syriak hath it thus ye know that it is not lawfull for a man that is a Jew to joyn himself unto a man that is a stranger who is not a sonne of his generation as it were intimating a religious and Church fellowship 4. That which gave offence to them of the circumcision at Ierusalem was that they heard Peter had so gone in to men uncircumcised that they had also received the word of God from him Act. 11. 1. 3. And as soone as they were satisfied in that point that God had given unto the Gentiles repentance unto life vers 18. they held their Peace and made no further scruple concerning eating with them I hope I have sufficiently answered the strongest objection which can be made against that which I did begin to prove namely that the Jewes might and did keep civill company and fellowship with Heathens Which that I may now further consirme let it be observed with Schindlerus in lexic. pentaglo p. 297. that there were two sorts of Proselytes among the Jewes Some that were circumcised and received the Law of Moses and such a one was even as a Jew and was called Proselytus justitiae or faederis a righteous or a true Proselyte or a Proselyte of the Covenant Others that did onely renounce ldolatry and keep the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah not being circumcised nor keeping the Law of Moses were permitted to dwell with the Jewes and therefore such a one was called Proselytus portae or Proselytus incola a Proselyte of the Gate or a Proselyte indweller who dwelt within their Gates See for the same thing L'Empereur de legibus Ebraeorum forensibus pag. 72 Buxtorflexic Rabbin p. 408. 409. Grotius de Jure belli acpacis lib. 1. cap. 1. Sect. 16. Henr. Vorstius observ ad chronol R. Ganz pag. 279. Georgius Genzius in annot ad Maimon canon Ethic. p. 91. 92. To the same purpose Master Ainsworth annot in Gen. 9. 4. and on Exod. 12. 45. and on Levit. 22. 10. hath noted out of the Hebrew writers that such of the Heathens as did observe the seven precepts given to the Sonnes of Noah though they were not circumcised neither did observe the Ordinances of the ceremoniall Law nor were admitted to the holy things of the Children of Israel yet they were permitted to cohabit and converse with the people of God in the holy Land And that it was so may be proved from Levit. 25. 6. 45. 47. where the Chaldee hath an uncircumcised indweller Deut. 14. 21. yea such a one might dwell in the Priests house Lev. 22. 10. The Jewes receive no Proselyte now except one that undertakes to keep the whole Law to the least jote as Doctor Buxtorf informes us in the place last cited and so they are a great deale more strict in reference to the Gentiles then the Antient Jewes were Notwithstanding they doe without scruple familiarly converse and keep company with Gentiles who keep not the last of the seven precepts which bind as they think all the Sonnes of Noah namely that concerning the not eating of blood How much more may we suppose that the Antient Jewes did keep civill company and fellowship with such Gentiles as did observe all these seven precepts And this comparison the Jewes have made between themselves and the Gentiles in reference to the Law of Moses It is our inheritance not theirs as for them let them observe the seven precepts Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 7. Sect. 6. So that the Jewes were not scandalized at the Gentiles their not observing of the whole Law of Moses not being circumcised c. but at their not keeping of those seven precepts which were also a part of the Law of Moses This to me appeareth to be a chief reason if not the reason why the Synod of the Apostles Elders at Ierusa did impose upon the Churches of the Gentiles no other burthen of Jewish rites Ceremonies but to abstain from blood things strangled they did not impose circumcision nor holy dayes nor the like because that which was intended was to draw together the
was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or it was a white stone by which they did loose remit and absolve and that stone was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the thing that Tully calleth Solvere crimine So where it is said her iniquity is pardoned Isa. 40. 2. the 70 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her iniquity is loosed And because there is usually some kind of expiation before a loosing and remitting of sinnes which expiation being performed the loosing follows therefore the Graecians called such necessary and râ—quisit expiation by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is loosing and they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they expiatory Gods who did chiefly take care of those expiations That in Scripture the power of binding is judiciall and authoritative is cleared by my Reverend and Learned Colleague Maâ—er Rutherford in The Divine right of Church Government pag. 234. 235 I adde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto which Grotius sends â—s is â—sed for that binding or incarceration which is an act of 〈◊〉 authority as Gen. 40. 3. Gen. 42. 16. 19. 24. Num. 15. 34 Levit. 24. 12. 2 Kings 17. 4. Isa. 42. 7. Jer. 40. 1. Ezek. 3. 25. It is also used for an authoritative prohibition Num. 11. 28. my Lord Moses forbid them Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interdictum a decree forbidding somewhat Dan. 6 7 8 9. As binding and loosing are Acts of authority and power such as doth not belong to any single person or brother offended so the binding and loosing mentioned Matth. 18. 18. are Acts of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall authority belonging to the Kingdom and Government of Christ in his Church but not belonging to the civill Magistrate And as the authority is Ecclesiasticall and spirituall so it is more than Doctrinall it is a power of inflicting or taking off Church Censures These two things I will endeavour to prove 1. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers 2. That this power is juridicall or forensicall and not Doctrinall onely that is that Church-Officers are here authorised to bind with censures or to loose from censures as there shall be cause In both which we have Antiquity for us Which I doe the rather observe because Erastus and Grotius alledge some of the Antients for their exposition of Math. 18. 18. that this binding or loosing is by the offended brother That which Augustine Origen and Theophylact say of one brother his binding or loosing is but spoken tropologically and not as the literall sence of the Text yea Theophylact in that passage cited by Erastus and Grotius doth distinguish between the Ministeriall or Ecclesiasticall binding and loosing and the party offended his binding and loosing Non enim solùm quae solvunt sacerdotes sunt soluta sed quaecunque nos c. Theophylact doth also find excommunication in that Text Illam autem Ecclesiam si non audierit tunc abjiciatar ne suae malitiâ—… participes faciat alios I further appeal to Augustine himself Epist. 75. where speaking of Excommunication and Anathema he distinguisheth it from corporall punishment and after he hath spoken of the temporall sword he addeth Spiritualis autem paena qua fit quod scriptum est Quae ligaveris in terra erunt ligata in caelo animas obligat But the spirituall punishment by which that thing is done which is written What thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven doth bind soulâ—… Againe in his sixth Tome lib. 1. contra adversarium legis prophetarum â—…ap 17. he doth most plainly interpret Math. 18. 18. of Church discipline and binding by Censure Hierome both in his Commentary upon Matth. 18. and in his Epistle to Heliodorus speaketh of this power of binding as a judiciall forensicall power belonging to the Ministers or Officers of the Church by which they judge and censure offenders But to save my self the labour of more citations I take help from Bishop Bilson of the perpetuall Government of Christs Church cap. 4. where though he expound the binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. to be Acts of the Magistrate yet he acknowledgeth hat the Antient writers leane vere much another way and understand that Text of the ministeriall and spirituall power of Excommunication for which he citeth Chrysost. de sacerdotio lib. 3. Ambros. de paenitent lib. 1. c. 2. Hierom. in Matth. cap. 18. Hilar. in Mat. can 18. Vnto these I also adde Isidorus Polusiota in the third Book of his Epistles Epist. 260. where he applieth this Text Matth. 18 19. to this sence that impenitent finners are to be bound and penitent sinners loosed and thence argueth against the absolving of a perjured person who had not declared himself penitent but had purchased his absolution by a gift Nor can I passe Chrysostome upon this very Text where he tells that Christ will have such a one to be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both with a present Chastisement and with a future punishment or both in earth and in heaven and would have the offender to fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 casting out of the Church He addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cuts not off immediately but after admonitions I will now proceed to a further confirmation of the two propositions afore mentioned Touching the first That this binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. belongeth nei her to private Christians nor to civill Magistrates but to Church Officers I clear it thus There are two things by which as Schoolemen observe mens soules and consciences are bound 1. They are bound by their sinnes Prov. 5. 22. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself he shall be holden with the cords of his sins Act. 8. 23. thou art in the bond of iniquity 2. Men are bound by precepts Matth. 23. 4. They bind heavy burthens and grievous to be born and lay them on mens shoulders This binding by precept or law some take to be meant Ezech. 3. 25. O Sonne of man behold they shal put bands upon thee shall bind thee with them that is thou shalt in vision see thy self bound with bands upon thee to signifie that I have forbidden thee to be a reprover to the rebellius house So the Chaldee paraphrase But thou a Sonne of man behold I have put my word upon thee as a band of cords with which they bind and thou shalt not goe forth into the midst of them Now in both these respects the Scripture elsewhere doth ascribe to Church-Officers a power of binding and loosing 1 In respect of sinne Io. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sin s ye retaine they are retained It is spoken to the Apostles and their successors in the Ministery of the Gospell Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalâ—… bind on earth shall be
of Joh. 20. 23. not of the Jewish Church It maketh the more against him I am sure that it s spoken to and of Christs Disciples for this proveth that the Church vers 17. is not the Jewish Sanhedrin but the Christian Presbytery then instituted and afterwards erected and that the thing which makes one as an Heathen and a Publican is binding of his sinnes upon him And for the context immediatly after Christ had said If he neglect to heare the Church let him be unto thee c. he addeth Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on earth c. The dependency is very cleare A Christian having first admonished his brother in private then having taken two or three witnesses after this having brought it to the publique cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Consistory and after all that the offender being for his obstinacy excommunicate here is the last step no further progresse Now might one thinke what of all this what shall follow upon it Nay saith Christ it shall not be in vaine it shall be ratisied in Heaven And as the purpose cohereth so that forme of words Verily I say unto you is ordinarily used by Christ to signifie his continuing and pressing home the same purpose which he had last mentioned as Matth. 5. 26. Matth. 6. 2. Matth. 8. 10. Matth. 10. 15. Matth. 11. 11. Matth. 18. 3. Matth. 19. 23 28. Matth. 21. 31. Matth. 23. 36. Matth. 26. 13. Matth. 24. 34 47. Marke 10. 15. 12. 43. 13. 30. Luke 12. 37. and many the like passages To my best observation I have found no place where Christs Verily I say unto you begins a new purpose which hath no coherence with nor dependency upon the former This coherence of the Text and the dependency of vers 18. upon that which went before which dependency is acknowledged by Erastus who perceiving that he could not deny the dependency fancieth that the binding and loosing is meant of the offended brothers pardoning or not pardoning of the offender Confirm Thes. pag. 157. doth also quite overthrow Master Prynnes other answer that this binding and loosing is onely meant of preaching the Gospell and of denouncing remission of sinnes to the penitent and wrath to the impenitent Nay That potestas clavium conoionalis is instituted in other places but here its potestas clâ—…vium disciplinalis as is evident First by the coherence of the Text and by the taking of two or three more and then telling of the thing to the Church all which intimateth a rising as from one or two or three more so from them to the Church which cannot be meant of one man as hath been argued against both Pope and Prelate for no one man can be called a Church neither hath one man the power of jurisdiction but one man hath the power of preaching Secondly the Apostles and those who succeed them in the worke of the Ministery have the same power of the Keys committed from Christ to them ministerially which Christ hath committed from the father to him as Mediator authoritatively For in the parallel place Ioh. 20. v. 21 23. where he gives them power of remitting or retaining sinnes he saith As my Father hath sent me even so send I you But the Father gave Christ such a power of the Keyes as comprehends a power of Government and not meerely doctrinall Isa. 22. 21 22. I will commit the government into his hand c. And the Keyes of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder Thirdly It may be proved also by that which immediately followeth vers 19. Againe I say unto you that if two of you shall agree on earth c. which cannot be meant of the power of preaching for neither the efficacy of preaching nor the ratification of it in Heaven nor the fruit of it on Earth doth depend upon this that two preachers must needs agree in the same thing But it agreeth well to the power of Discipline concerning which it answereth these two objections First it might be said the Apostles and other Church-governours may fall to be very few in this or that Church where the offence riseth shall we in that case execute any Church-discipline Yes saith Christ if there were but two Church-officers in a Church where no more can be had they are to exercise Discipline and it shall not be in vaine Againe it might be objected be they two or three or more what if they doe not agree among themselves To that he answereth there must be an agreement of two Church-officers at least otherwise the sentence shall be null we can not say the like of the doctrinall power of binding or loosing that it is of no force nor validity unlesse two at least agree in the same doctrine as hath been said two must agree in that sentence or censure which is desired to be ratified in Heaven and then they binding on Earth and unanimously calling upon God to ratifie it in Heaven it shall be done Fourthly this binding and loosing can not goe without the Church it is applicable to none but a Church member or a Brother So the threed of the Text goes along from vers 15. If thy Brother trespasse against thee and vers 16. thou hast gained thy Brother And when it is said Tell the Church it is supposed that the offender is a member of the Church over whom the Church hath authority and of whom there is hope that he will heare the Church And when it is said Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican it is supposed that formerly he was not unto us as an Heathen man and a Publican For these and the like reasons Tostatus in Matth. 18. quaest 91. and divers others hold that this rule of Christ is not applicable to those who are without the Church But if the binding and loosing be meant onely of preaching the Gospell as Master Prynne would have it then it were applicable to those that are not yet baptised nor made Church members for unto such the Gospell hath been and may be preached The binding and loosing which is proper to a Brother or to a Church member must be a juridicall power of censures of which the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge them also that are without Doe not ye judge them that are within Therefore Chrysostome Hom. 61. in Matth. according to the Greeke Hom. 60. doth parallel Matth. 18. with 1 Cor. 5. proving that this rule of Christ is not applicable to one that is without but onely to a brother Which Paul also saith in these words What have I to doe to judge them also that are without But he commandeth us to convince and reduce brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to cut off the disobedient this he Christ doth also in this place Theophylact also on Matth. 18. noteth the same restriction of this rule of Christ to a Christian Brother Fifthly this binding power is
discipline against them that certainly makes us partakers of their sin I mean in a reformed and well constituted Church where the thing is feasible But where it cannot be done because of persecution or because of the invincible opposition either of authority or of a prevalent profane multitude in that case we have onely this comfort left us Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse and in magnis voluisse sat est Fifthly neither doth this Question concerning the pollution or profanation or abuse of the Sacrament concern those peccata quotidianae incursionis such sins of infirmity as all the godly or at least the generallay of the godly are subject unto and guilty of as long as they are in the world for then the Sacrament should be polluted to all for Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but onely grosse and scandalous sins such as make the Name of God and the profession of Religion to be evil spoken of and reproached those roots of bitternesse which spring up whereby many are like to be defiled those that are guilty of such sins and have given no evidence of true Repentance if they be received to the Sacrament it is a profaning of the Ordinance Now that the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament in a reformed and constituted Church is a profanation or pollution of that Ordinance may be thus proved First Paraeus upon the 82 Question in the Heidelberg Catechism where it is affirmed that by the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament the Covenant of God is profaned giveth this reason for it Because as they who having no Faith nor Repentance if they take the sâ—als of the Covenant do thereby profane the Covenant so they who consent to known wicked and scandalous persons their taking of the seals or to their coming to the Sacrament do by such consenting make themselves guilty of profaning the Covenant of God for the doer and the consenter fall under the same breach of law yea so far do they sin by such consenting as that they do thereby acknowledge the children of the devil to be the children of God and the enemies of God to be in Covenant and to have fellowship with God He distinguisheth these two things who ought to come to the Sacrament and who ought to be admitted None ought to come except those who truely believe and repent None ought to be admitted except such as are supposed to be believers and penitent there being nothing known to the contrary If any impenitent sinner take the Sacrament he profanes the Covenant of God If the Church admit to the Sacrament any known to live in wickednesse without repentance the Church profaneth the Covenant of God Secondly that Ordinance which is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance which is not appointed for the conversion of sinners but for the communion of Saints is certainly profaned and abused contrary to the nature institution and proper end thereof if those who are manifestly ungodly profane impenitent and unconverted be admitted to the participation thereof But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance c. which I have proved by infallible demonstrations Ergo. Thirdly That use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the name of Christ is a prophaning of the Sacrament But to give the Sacrament to those who are known to live in grosse sins without repentance is an use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the Name of Christ. Ergo. I suppose no man will denie that if we truly and faithfully preach the Word we may and ought to pronounce and declare such as live in sin impenitent and unconverted to be under Gods wrath and displeasure as long as they continue in that estate Be not deceived saith the Apostle neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor theeves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9. 10. See the like Ephes. 5. 5 6 7. Whence it is that doctrinally we warn the ignorant and scandalous and all such as live in known sins without repentance that they presume not to come and prophane that holy Table Of which Ministers are appointed by the Directory to give warning How then can we by giving the Sacrament to such as these give the lye to the Word For what other thing shall we do if those whom the Word pronounceth to have no part in the Kingdom of God nor of Christ shall be admitted as well as the Godly to eat and drink at the Lords Table while known to continue in the committing of their damnable sins or while it is known that they have not repented of the uncleannesse and fernication and lasciviousnesse which they have committed 2 Cor. 12. 21. What is this but to absolve in the Sacrament those who are condemned in the Word and to open the Kingdom of Heaven in the Sacrament unto those on whom the Word shutteth it Fourthly That use of the Sacrament which strengtheneth the hands of the wicked so that he turneth not from his wickednesse is an abuse and profanation of the Sacrament But the giving of the Sacrament to any known prophane impenitent person is such an use of the Sacrament as strengtheneth the hands of the wicked so that he turneth not from his wickednesse Ergo. I appeal to the experience of all godly and faithful ministers whether they have not found it a great deal more difficult to convince or convert such prophane men as have been usually admitted to the Sacrament then to convince or convert such as have been kept back from the Sacrament No marvel that such prophane ones as have usually received the seals of the Covenant of grace and joyned in the highest act of Church-communion live in a good opinion of their souls estate and trust in lying words Have we not eaten and drunken at thy Table The Sacrament The Sacrament as of old The Temple The Temple Mr. Prynn thinks that the Minister hath fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incurre by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table Vindic. pag. 28 29. But he may be pleased to receive an answer from himself pag. 43. The things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts then the things we hear The Word preached is Verbum audibile the Sacrament is Verbum visibile How shall prophane ones be perswaded by their ears to beleeve that whereof they see the contrary with their eyes they will give more credit in Mr. Prynns own opinion to the visible Word then to the audible Word Fifthly If it were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme to baptize a
from the Sacrament now in publike agitation is a matter of great moment much difficulty and very circumspectly to be handled established to prevent proâ—anation and scandal on the one hand and arbitrary tyrannical papal domineering power over the Consciences the spiritual priviledges of Christians on the other These are his own words in the preface of his Quaeries whether hath he gone in an even path to avoid both these evills Or whether hath he not declined to the left hand while he shunned the error of the right hand Whether hath he not so gone about to cure the heat of the liver as to leave a cold and phlegmatick stomack uncured And whether doth he not trespasse against that rule of his owne last cited when he adviseth this as the best and onely way to suppresse all kind of sins and to reform and purge the Churches of this Kingdom that the sword of excommunication and suspension be not drawn but onely the sword of the spirit and the sword of the Magistrate Vindic. pag. 57. Finally Whether in this Kingdom there be more cause to fear and apprehend an arbitrary tyrannical papal domineering power over the Consciences of Christians where Church discipline is to be so bounded by authority of Parliament that it be not promiscuously put in the hands of all but of such against whom there shall be no just exception found yea are or shall be chosen by the Congregations themselves who have also lately abjured by a solemn Covenant the Popish and Preâ—atical Government Or whether we ought not to be more afraid and apprehensive that the Ordinances of Christ shall hardly be kept from pollution and the Churches hardly purged from scandals there being many thousands both grossely ignorant and grossely scandalous 4. I desire it may be upon a review seriously considered how little truth wisdom or charity there is in that suggestion of Mr Prynn pag. 57. that the lives of the generality of the people are more strict pious lesse scandalous and licentious in our English Congregations where there hath been powerful preaching without the practice of Excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament then in the Reformed Churches of France Germany Denmark or Scotland for which I appeal to all Travellers c. I confesse it is a matter of great humiliation to the servants of Christ that there is occasion to exercise Church discipline and censures in the Reformed Churches yet this is no other then what was the condition of the Apostolique Churches 2 Cor. 12. 21. I fear saith the Apostle lâ—…st when I come again my God will humble me among you and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already and have not repented of the uncleannesse and fornication and lasciviousnesse which they have committed And this is not the onely Testimony concerning scandals and disorderly walking in those primitive Churches But as for those who are so rigid in their censures against the government of the Reformed Churches I answer to them as Hierome did of the Montanists They are rigid not to the end that themselves also might not commit worse sins but this difference there is between them and us that they are ashamed to confesse their sins as if they were righteous We while we repent do the more easily obtain mercy Mr. Prynn and others of his profession are not very willing that such an Ecclesiastical discipline be established in England as is received and setled in Scotland and other Reformed Churches But if once the like sin-searching sin-discovering and sin-censuring discipline were received and duely executed in England then and not till then such comparisons may if at all they must be made between the lives of the generality of the people in England with those in other Reformed Churches which of them is more or lesse licentious and scandalous A Testimony of Mr. Foxe the Author of the Book of Martyrs taken out of a treatise of his printed at London 1551. entituled De Censura Ecclesiastica Interpellatio J. Foxi the eighth Chapter of which Treatise is here translated out of Latin into English What the are chief obstacles hindering Excommunication THat the thought and care of excommunication hath now so far waxed cold almost in all the Churches is to be ascribed as appeareth unto three sorts of men The first is of those whose minds the wealth of this world and high advancement of dignity do so lift up that they are ashamed to submit the neck to the obedience of Christ. What say these shall that poor fellow lay a yoke on me What should I be subject to this naughty and rude Pastor But let go good Sir your vain swelling empty words how rude soever he be yet if he be your Pastor you must needs be a sheep of the flock whom if he doth rightly instruct so much the more dutifully you must submit But if otherwise it is the fault of the man not of the Ministry To those at least yeeld thy self to be ruled whom thou knowest to be more learned But go to thou which canst not suffer a man to be thy Pastor to whom then wilt thou submit thy self unto Christ himself thou sayest very well forsooth This then is of such importance that Christ for thy cause must again leave the heavens or by his Angels or Arch-Angels feed and govern thee whom these mean men the Pastors do not satisfie But what if it so pleased the Lord by these mean Pastors as thou callest them to cast down and confâ—und all the highest statelynesse and pride of this World even as of old by a few and comtemptible Fishers he subdued not onely the high and conceited opinion of Philosophers but even the Scepters of Kings also Now what will thy boasting magnificence say But hear what Christ himself saith of them whom thou from thy high loftinesse lookâ—st down upon as unworthy He that despiseth you despiseth me saith he And moreover who so despiseth Christ despiseth him from whom he is sent and who said unto him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Ask of me and I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the utmost ends of the earth for thy possission Thou shalt rule them with a rod of yron and break them in peâ—…ces like a pâ—…tters vessel Wherefore seeing thou dost acknowledge so great a Lord so many wayes above all Maiesty whatsoever can be named let it not be grievous to thee my brother whosoever thou art or with how great power soever thou art highly advanced laying aside thy high looks and pride to be humbled under his mighty hand And do not think it a light matter whereas thou entertainest with so great applause and honourable respect an earthly Kings Ambassadors that thou shouldest disdain the Ambassadors of him who alone hath power over all Kings and Lords If thou yeeldest unto a mortal Physitian thy wounds to be handled yea to be cut also and to be burned and seared if need be how commeth
Judgement-hall I perceive would he say that this man is accused of such things as concerne your Law and your Religion therefore take him and judge him according to your Law They reply in reference to that which Pilate did drive at It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death If they had meant for causes which concerned Caesars Crown it had been not onely an impertinent reply but a yeelding to Pilates intention for he might have said I doe not meane that ye shall judge him for that which concerneth Caesar but for that which concerneth your owne Law and Religion Therefore certainely the answer which the Jewes made to Pilate did reply that though they had power to judge a man in that which concerned their Law and Religion yet they had no power to put any man to death no not for that which concerned their Law 4. There are severall passages in the story of Paul which shew us that though the Jewish Sanhedrin might judge a man in matters of their Law yet they were accusers not Judges in civill or capitall punishments I meane when a man was accused as worthy of bonds or of death though it were for a matter of their Law they had no liberty to judge but onely to accuse The Jewes drew Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio even for a matter of their law This fellow say they to Gallio perswadeth men to worship God contrary to the Law Acts 18. 13. If they had intended onely an Ecclesiasticall censure their recourse had been either to the Sanhedrin or at least to the Synagogue but because they intended a corporall temporall punishment which neither the Sanhedrin nor the Synagogue had power to inflict therefore they must prosecute Paul before Gallio whose answer was to this purpose that if it had been a matter of wrong or wicked leudnesse it had been proper for him to have judged it but that since it was no such thing he would not meddle in it knowing also that the Jewes had no power to doe it by themselves Againe Acts 23. 28 29. Claudius Lysias writeth to Faelix concerning Paul thus and when I would have knowne the cause wherefore they accused him I brought him forth into their Councell Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their Law but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds That which made Lysias interpose in the businesse and rescue Paul from the hands of the Jewes was the Jewes designe to put Paul to death under colour of judging him according to their Law which was the pretence made by Tertullus Acts 24. 6. Now in that which was to be punished either by death or so much as by bonds Lysias conceives the Jewes to be no competent Judges therefore he brings Paul into the councell of the Jewes not to be judged by them but to know what accusation they had against him For the same reason Paul himselfe did decline going to Ierusalem to be judged there no not of matters concerning the Religion and Law of the Jewes that accusation being so far driven on as to make him worthy of death His accusers saith Festus to King Agrippa brought none accusation of such things as I supposed but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition and of one Iesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive And because I doubted of such manner of questions I asked him whether he would goe to Ierusalem and there be judged of these matters Acts 25. 18 19 20. This Paul had declined vers 10. I stand at Caesars judgement seat said he where I ought to be judged And why but because his accusation was capitall even in that which concerned the Law of the Jewes and he knew the Jewes at that time had no power of capitall judgements Some have alledged this example of Paul for appeales from Presbyteries or Synods to the civill Magistrate by which argument themselves grant that the Jewish Sanhedrin then declined by Paul was a Ecclesiasticall not a civill Court 5. Besides all this Erastus his opinion is strongly confuted by that which Constantinus L'Empereur Annot. in remp Jud. pag. 404. to 407. proving that the Jewes after the thirtieth yeere of Christ had no power of punishing with death for proofe hereof citeth a passage of Aboda zara that forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin which had in former times exercised capitall judgements did remove from Hierusalem quum viderent se non posse judicia capitalia exercere when they perceived that they could not exercise capitall judgements they said let us remove out of this place lest we be guilty it being said Deut. 17. 10. according to the sentence which they of that place shall shew thee whence they collected that if they were not in that place they were not obliged to capitall judgements and so they removed And if you would know whe ther he tels us out of Rosch Hasschana they removed from Hieru salem to Iabua thence to Ousa thence to Scâ—…aphrea c. He that desires to have further proofes for that which hath been said may read Buxtorf lexic. Chald. Talmud rabbin pag. 514 515. He proves that Iudicia criminalia criminall judgements did cease and were taken away from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple This he saith is plaine in Talmud Hierosol in lib. Sanhedrin cap. 7. in Talmud Babyl in Sanbedrin fol. 41. 1. in Aboda zâ—…ru fol. 8. 2. in Schab fol. 15. 1. in Iuchasin fol. 51. 1. Majenâ—…on in Sanhedrin cap. 14. sect 13. He cites also a passage in Berachos fol. 58. 1. concerning one who for a hainous crime even for lying with a beast ought to be adjudged to death but when one said that he ought to die it was answered that they had no power to put any man to death And this saith D r. Buxâ—…orf is the very same which the Jewes said to Pilate John 18. 31. Now this power being taken from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City which was in the 71 yeere of Christ his death being in the 34. Hence he proveth that this power was taken from the Jewes neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. And I further make this inference that since the Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Hierusalem forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple for which see also Tzemach David edit Hen. Vorst pag. 89. and so about three yeeres before the death of Christ it must needs follow that the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes mentioned so often in and before Christs passion was not a civill Magistracy nor the civill Sanhedrin but an Ecclesiasticall Sanâ—edrin Whence also it follows that the Church Matth. 18. 17. unto which Christ directs his Disciples to goe with their complaints was not the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes as M r Prynne takes it for that
civill Court of Justice had then removed from Hierusalem and had lost its authority in executing Justice I. Coch annot in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 1. sâ—…ct 13. beareth witnesse to the same story above mentioned that forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin did remove from its proper seat where he also mentions the ten stations or degrees of their removing and Iam tum cessarunt judicia capitalia saith he Now at that time the capitall judgements did cease Thus we have three witnesses singularly learned in the Jewish Antiquities Unto these adde Casauâ—…on exerc 16. anno 34. num 76. He holds that though the Councell of the Jewes had cognizance of the offence for otherwise how could they give a reason or cause when they demanded justice in which respect the Councell did judge Christ to be guilty of death Marke 14. 64. yet their Councell had then no more power of capitall punishments which saith he the more learned moderne writers doe demonstrate è Iuchasin and from other Talmudicall writings he addeth that this power of putting any man to death was taken from the Jewes some space before this time when they said to Pilate It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death for this power was taken from them saith he forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple as the Rabbinicall writers doe record I have thus largely prosecuted my last argument drawn from the New Testament mentioning the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes And I trust the twelve arguments which have been brought may give good satisfaction toward the proofe of an Ecclesiasticall Jewish Sanhedrin The chiefe objection which ever I heard or read against this distinction of a Civill Sanhedrin and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes is this That neither the Talmud nor the Talmudicall writers mention any such distinction but speake onely of one supreme Sanhedrin of 71 and of other two Courts which sate the one at the doore of the Court before the Temple the other at the gate which entereth to the mountaine of the Temple There were also Courts in the Cities where capitall cases were judged by three and twenty pecuniall mults by three Answ. It must be remembred that not onely the Talmudicall Commentators but the Talmud it selfe is much later than the time of the Sanhedrin and the integrity of the Jewish government Yea later by some Centuries than the destruction of the Temple and City of Ierusalem So that the Objection which is made is no stronger than as if one should argue thus There is no mention of Elderships constituted of Pastors and Ruling Elders without any Bishop having preeminence over the rest neither in the Canon Law nor decretals of Popes nor in the Booke of the Canons of the Roman Church Therefore when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church of Rome there was no such Eldership in that Church constituted as hath been said But if the Ecclesiasticall Government either of the Church of Rome or of the Church of the Jewes can be proved from Scripture as both may it ought to be no prejudice against those truths that they are not fouâ—d in the Writers of afâ—ertimes and declining ages Howbeit there may be seen some footsteps of a Civill and Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin even in the Talmudicall writers in the opinion of Constantinus L'Empereur and in that other passage cited by D. Buxtorf out of Elias Of which before And so much concerning an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes If after all this any man shall be unsatisfied in this particular yet in the issue such as are not convinced that there was an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes distinct from their civill Sanhedrin may neverthelesse be convinced not by the former arguments but by other Mediums that there was an Ecclesiasticall government among the Jewes distinct from their civill government For it belonged to the Priests not to the Magistrates or Judges to put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and cleane And the Priests not the Magistrates are challenged for not putting difference between the holy and prophane Ezech. 22. 26. And this power of the Priests was not meerly doctrinall or declarative but decisive binding and juridicall so farre as that according to their sentence men were to be admitted as cleane or excluded as uncleane Yea in other cases as namely in trying and judging the scandall of a secret and unknown murther observe what is said of the Priests Deut. 21. 5. by their word shall every controversie and every stroke be tried Yea themselves were Judges of controversies Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgements Where the Ministers of the Gospell are principally intended but not without an allusion unto and parallel with the Priests of the old Testament in this point of jurisdiction Suppose now it were appointed by Law that Ministers shall separate or put difference between the holy and prophane that by their word every controversie concerning the causes of suspension or sequestration of men from the Sacrament shall be tried that in controversie they shall stand in judgement and judge according to the word of God Would not every one looke upon this as a power of government put into the hands of Ministers And none readier to aggravate such government then the Erastians Yet all this amounts to no more then by the plaine and undeniable Scriptures above cited was committed to the Priests Suppose also that men were kept backe from the Temple and from the Passeover not for any morall uncleannesse but for ceremoniall uncleannesse onely which is to be afterwards discussed yet the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies concerning mens legall uncleannesse according to which judgement and decision men were to be admitted to or kept backe from the Temple and Passover yea sometime their owne houses as in the case of leprosie could not choose but entitle them to a power of government which power was peculiar to them and is not in all the old Testament ascribed to Magistrates or Judges And as the exercise of this power did not agree to the Magistrate so the commission charge and power given to those who did keepe backe the uncleane was not derived from the Magistrate for it did belong to the intrinsecall sacerdotall authority 2 Kings 11. 18. The Priest Iehojada appointed Officers over the house of the Lord. The 70 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Officers or overseers over the Temple were appointed by Iehojada for keeping backe the uncleane as Grotius upon the place following Iosephus hath observed Compare 2 Chro. 23. 19. And he Iehojada set the Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in For the same end did he appoint these overseers over the Temple 2 Kings 11. It was also appointed by the Law that the man who should doe any thing
by the Word of God and by the Confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches doth belong to the Christian Magistrate in matters of Religion Which I do but now touch by the way so far as is necessary to wipe off the aspersion cast upon Presbyterial Government The particulars I refer to Chapter 8. Our sixth Concession is That in extraordinary cases when Church-government doth degenerate into tyranny ambition and avarice and they who have the managing of the Ecclesiastical power make defection and fall into manifest Heresy Impiety or Injustice as under Popery and Prelacy it was for the most part then and in such cases which we pray and hope we shall never see again the Christian Magistrate may and ought to do diverse things in and for Religion and interpose his Authority diverse wayes so as doth not properly belong to his cognizance decision and administration ordinarily and in a Reformed and well constituted Church For extraordinary diseases must have extraordinary remedies More of this before A seventh Concession is this The Civil Sanction added to Church-government and Discipline is a free and voluntary Act of the Magistrate That is Church-government doth not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessitate the Magistrate to aid assist or corroborate the same by adding the strength of a Law But the Magistrate is free in this to do or not to do to do more or to do lesse as he will answer to God and his conscience it is a cumulative Act of favour done by the Magistrate My meaning is not that it is free to the Magistrate in genere moris but in genere entis The Magistrate ought to adde the Civil Sanction hic nunc or he ought not to do it It is either a duty or a sin it is not indifferent But my meaning is The Magistrate is free herein from all coaction yea from all necessity and obligation other then ariseth from the Word of God binding his conscience There is no power on Earth Civil or Spiritual to constrain him The Magistrate himself is his own Judge on Earth how far he is to do any cumulative Act of favour to the Church Which takes off that calumny that Presbyterial Government doth force or compel the conscience of the Magistrate I pray God we may never have cause to state the Question otherwise I mean concerning the Magistrate his forbidding what Christ hath commanded or commanding what Christ hath forbidden in which case we must serve Christ and our consciences rather then obey Laws contrary to the Word of God and our Covenant whereas in the other case of the Magistrate his not adding of the Civil Sanction we may both serve Christ and do it without the least appearance of disobedience to the Magistrate Eighthly We grant that Pastors and Elders whether they be considered distributively or collectively in Presbyteries and Synods being Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth ought to be subject and obedient in the Lord to the Magistrate and to the Law of the Land and as in all other duties so in Civil subjection and obedience they ought to be ensamples to the Flock and their trespasses against Law are punishable as much yea more then the trespasses of other Subjects Of this also before Ninthly If the Magistrate be offended at the sentence given or censure inflicted by a Presbytery or a Synod they ought to be ready in all humility and respect to give him an account and reason of such their proceedings and by all means to endeavour the satisfaction of the Magistrate his conscience or otherwise to be warned and rectified if themselves have erred CHAP. IV. Of the agreements and differences between the nature of the Civil and of the Ecclesiastical Powers or Governments HAving now observed what our opposites yeeld to us or we to them I shall for further unfolding of what I plead for or against adde here the chief agreements and differences between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers so far as I apprehend them They both agree in these things 1. They are both from God both the Magistrate and the Minister is authorized from God both are the Ministers of God and shall give account of their administrations to God 2. Both are tyed to observe the Law and Commandments of God and both have certain directions from the Word of God to guide them in their administration 3. Both Civil Magistrates and Church Officers are Fathers and ought to be honoured and obeyed according to the fifth Commandment Utrumque scilicet dominium saith Luther Tom. 1. fol. 139. both Governments the Civil and the Ecclesiastical do pertain to that Commandment 4 Both Magistracy and Ministery are appointed for the glory of God as Supreme and for the good of men as the subordinate end 5. They are both of them mutually aiding and auxiliary each to other Magistracy strengthens the Ministery and the Ministery strengthens Magistracy 6. They agree in their general kinde they are both Powers and Governments 7. Both of them require singular qualifications eminent gifts and endowments and of both it holds true Quis ad haec idoneus 8. Both of them have degrees of censures and correction according to the degrees of offences 9. Neither the one nor the other may give out sentence against one who is not convict or whose offence is not proved 10. Both of them have a certain kind of Jurisdiction in foro exteriori For though the Ecclesiastical power be spiritual and exercised about such things as belong to the inward man onely yet as Dr. Rivet upon the Decalogue pag. 260. 261. saith truly there is a two-fold power of external jurisdiction which is exercised in foro exteriori one by Church-Censures Excommunication lesser and greater which is not committed to the Magistrate but to Church-Officers Another which is Civil and coercive and that is the Magistrates But Mr. Coleman told us he was perswaded it will trouble the whole World to bound Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction the one from the other Maledicis pag. 7. Well I have given ten agreements I will now give ten differences The difference between them is great they differ in their causes effects objects adjuncts correlations executions and ultimate terminations 1. In the efficient cause The King of Nations hath instituted the Civil power The King of Saints hath instituted the Ecclesiastical power I mean the most high God possessor of Heaven and Earth who exerciseth Soverainty over the workmanship of his own hands and so over all mankind hath instituted Magistrates to be in his stead as gods upon Earth But Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church whom his Father hath set upon his holy Hill of Zion Psal. 2. 6. to reigne over the House of Jacob for ever Luke 1. 33. who hath the key of the House of David laid upon his shoulder Isa. 22. 22. hath instituted an Ecclesiastical power and goverment in the hands of Church-Officers whom in his name he sendeth forth 2. In the matter Magistracy or Civil