But the King is head of the Church Ergo he maketh lawes to regulate the Family Ans The Antecedent is false if not blasphemous it is proper to Iesus Christ only Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. The King is the head of men who are the Church materialiter he is not formally as King Head of the Church as the Church and therefore we see not how this Statute agreeth with the Word of God Henric. 8. Stat. 37. c. 17. The Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by under and from the Kings Royall Majesty the onely and undoubted supream head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by holy Scripture is given all authority and power to hear and determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever for neither is the subject the Archbishops Bishops c. lawfull nor is the limitation of the subject lawful for Ecclesiasticall officers are the Ambassadors of Christ not of the King Obj. All Christians are to try the Spirits Ergo Much more Magistrates Ans This proveth that Christians as Christians and Magistrates as Christians may judge determine of all things that concerneth their practise and that they are not with blinde obedience to receive things Mr. Pryn cannot say that 1 Iohn 4. 1. is meant of a Royall Parliamentary or Magistraticall tryall Iohn speaketh to Christians as such But this is nothing to prove the power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate for thought the man were neither King nor Magistrate he ought to try the Spirits 1 Iohn 4. 1. The speciall objection moved for Appeals is that which Paul did in a matter of Religion that we may do in the like case but Paul Acts 25. did appeal from a Church Iudge to a civill and a heathen Iudge in a matter of Religion when he said before Festus Acts 25. I appeal to Cesar Ergo so may the Ministers of Christ far more appeal to the Christian Magistrate and that Paul did this jure by Law not by Priviledge but by the impulsion of the Holy Ghost is clear in that he saith He ought to be judged by Cesar so Maccovius so Videlius so Vtenbogardus so Erastus Ans 1. This Argument if it have nerves shall make the great Turk when he subdueth people and Churches of the Protestant Religion to be the head of the Church and as Erastus saith by his place and office as he is a Magistrate he may preach and dispense the Sacraments and a Heathen Nero may make Church constitutions and say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me and by this Nero by office is to excommunicate make or unmake Pastors and Teachers judge what is Orthodoxe Doctrine what not debarre hereticks Apostates and mockers from the Table and admit the worthie and Paul the Apostle must have been the Ambassador and Deputie of Nero in preaching the Gospel and governing the Church and Nero is the mixt person and invested by Iesus Christ with spirituall jurisdiction and the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven This Argument to the Adversaries cannot quit its cost â—or by this way Paul appealed from the Church in a controversie of Religion to a Nero a Heathen unbaptized Head of the Church and referred his faith over to the will judgement and determination of a professed Enemy of the Christian Church and Paul must both jure by the Law of God and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost appeale from the Church to a Heathen without the Church in a matter of Religion and Conscience then Nebuchadnezzar was head of the Church of Iudah and supreame judge and governour in all causes and controversies of Religion how can we beleeve the adversarie who doe not beleeve themselves and shall we make Domitian Dioclesian Trajan and such heads of the Church of Christ 2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour or civill judge as is clear Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten dayes he went downe to Cesarea and the next day sitting in the judgement seat commanded Paul to be brought vers 10. And Paul said I stand at Cesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged he refused v. 9 10. to be judged by Festus at Ierusalem but saith v. 11. I appeal to Cesar Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar for the Iews laid many grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove vers 7. And it is said vers 8. That Festus was willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure and so was manifestly a partiall Iudge and though the Sanedrim at Ierusalem could have judged in point of Law that Paul was a blasphemer and so by their Law he ought to die for so Caiphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Iesus Christ yet his appeal from the Sanedrim 1. corrupted and having manifestly declared their bloodie intentions against Paul 2. From a Sanedrim in its constitution false and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution Deut. 17. 8 9 10. it now usurping civill businesse which belonged not to them Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloodie and degenerating Church judicature acting according to the bloodie lusts of men against an innocent man to a more unpartiall judge and yet be no contemner of the Church this is nothing against our Thesis which is that it is not lawfull to appeal in a constituted Church from a lawfull unmixt Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death 3. Paul appealed from the Sanedrim armed with the unjust and tyrannicall power of Festus a man willing to please the bloodie accusers of Paul as is clear v. 9. And Festus willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure answered Paul and said Wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me 3. The cause was not properly a Church businesse but a crime of bodily death and sedition I deny not but in Pauls accusation prophaning of the Temple teaching against the Law of Moses was objected to him Materialiter the enemies made the cause of Paul a Church businesse but formally it was sedition 1. It was a businesse for which the Sanedrim sought Pauls life and blood for which they had neither authority nor Law by divine Institution therefore they sought the helpe of Felix Festus and the Roman Deputies so Lysias vvrote to Felix Act. 23. 29. I perceived Paul to be accused of questions of their law but to have nothing layd to his charge worthy of death or of bonds Now it is clear the Roman Deputies thought not any accusation for the Iewish Religion a matter of death and bonds and therefore Gallio the Deputie of Achaia Acts 18. 14. saith
such Now this is against sense and reason and confoundeth all callings on earth but if Erastus grant that Moses judgeth as a civill judge and teacheth the people the Law of God as a prophet then to make this Sanedrim a mixt company both to judge civilly and to teach as spirituall men by office must all the Priests and Levites in this Sanedrim be both Priests and Levites and also civill Iudges And all the civill Iudges must be both civill judges and also Priests and Levites which is expresly against the Text that speakes Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Iudge as two distinct offices and so God must have chosen the Iudge no lesse then the Priest to minister before him So it is false that teaching and judging are copulatively ascribed to these same persons and to the same judicature as Erastus saith Erastus He saith Deut. 17. he shall die who standeth not to the sentence of the Priest or judge by way of disjunction in regard of divers times for the Princes or Iudges were not alwayes the same for often onely the Priests governed and for the same reason he saith not Deut. 17. ascend to Ierusalem but to the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse for the Arke was not alwayes in one place or city So Deut. 19. when he speaketh of the false witnesse he saith and they shall stand before the Lord that is before the Priests and Iudges that shall be at that time Who vvould thinke that there are here distinct and divers Iudicatures Ans It is a conjecture of Erastus that Moses speaketh Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Iudge by way of disjunction because of divers times not of divers and distinct Tribunals for all Moses his time and Ioshua's time and for the most part there were both Iudges and Priests and we had rather beleeve the Spirit of God then Erastus for 2 Chron. 19. under Iehoshaphat at one and the same time there were both civill Iudges and Priests and Levites and these two Judicatures had two different sorts of causes and two different Presidents if then at one and the same time the man was to be put to death who did not stand to the sentence of the Priest though he should stand to the sentence of the civill judge and so if hee was to be put to death who should stand to the sentence of the Priests and give an outside of obedience to the Ceremoniall Law if he should not stand to the sentence of the civill Judge then were there at the same time these two sentences in these two judicatures but the former is true by the expresse Law of God Ergo so is the latter when God saith Goe up to the place that the Lord shall chuse he meaneth Ierusalem and one determinate place at once and if Moses had said Goe up to the place that the Lord shall chuse or to some other place that the Lord shall not chuse then could I inferre well that at one and the same time they might have gone to either places or to both places having two sorts of causes as there be ever two sorts of causes in the Church some Civill some Ecclesiasticall 3. Erastus should have shewen a time when onely the Priest as the Priest did governe and there neither was a civill Iudge nor was that Priest who governed the civill judge If Erastus shew not this he sheweth nothing for his owne cause which is to make one confused Judicature of civill and Ecclesiasticall Iudges and causes which the Scripture doth carefully distinguish 4. In the place Deut. 19. nothing is said against us but that onely the civill Iudge put to death the false Witnesse which is much for us that though the false witnesse was to stand before the Priests and incurre an Ecclesiastick censure yet the Priest as Priest had no hand in putting him to death Erastus Sometime the Priest vvas president in this Sanedrim as Eli and Samuel vvithout a judge therefore vvhen it is said the chiefe Priest vvas â—ver them in all the matters of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings matters they made not tvvo different Iudicatures and the high Priest and Zebadiah vvere both over the same Iudicature Iosephus excellently versed in the Ievvish lavvs saith antiq lib. 9. c. 1. they vvere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellovves or companions then they vvere not in divers Senats The Levites vvere equally servants to both though it may be the Priests were more diligently to goe about the canses of God and the Iudges the causes of the King Ans Were Eli and Samuel presidents in the Sanedrim without a Iudge that is as much as to say Eli and Samuel who undoubtedly by the Testimony of the Spirit of God were civill Iudges of Israel 1 Sam. 4 18. and 7. 15. and 8. 1. 7. were Judges without Iudges I conceive Eli was both a Priest and a Judge and Samuel both a Prophet and a Iudge whether Samuel was a Priest or not let Erastus determine Samuel was of the Tribe of Ephraim not a Priest though he sacrificed by an extraordinary Priviledge nor was Moses a Priest 2. I see no reason to say Eli was a Priest without a Iudge more then to say he was a Iudge without a Priest for he was both But this may shew the Reader that Erastus alwayes confoundeth the office of the Priest and the Civill judge so as he maketh them not only subjectively one which God himself did in the person of Eli but also one formally for as I shew before Erastus must say Eli sacrificed as a Iudge and he condemned ill doers to die exercised the sword as a Priest Samuel prophesied as a Magistrate Samuel did judge Israel as a Prophet for the Magistrate as the Magistrate to Erastus doth both the part of a Iudge of a Priest and Prophet of old and now of a Pastor and Teacher 3. It is enough to us that Amariah and Zebadiah were over diverse causes in divers Courts and differenced 2 Chro. 19. in that the one was for the kings matters the other for Gods matters Erast saith right down they were both for these same matters But the one was to care more for the Kings matters the other more for Gods matters so Erastus is forced to make a difference But he maketh it in the comparative degree and the spirit of God maketh the difference in the positive degree But 1. Erastus saith without the Text Amariah was to care for the matters of the King but more for the matters of God The Text saith no such thing but the contrary he saith Zebadiah the Civill Magistrate was to care for the matters of God but more for the matters of the King 4. This is against Erastus his his way which is that the Magistrate hath a supreame principall and only care of Church-Government and the Priests and Levites and Pastors and Teachers only as the servants of the Magistrates A sub
not subordinate to the Ministers of the Gospel as Ministers far lesse to the Magistrate as the Magistrate because it dependeth upon none on earth Minister or Magistrate but the only good pleasure of him who when he ascended to heaven gave gifts unto men that there is such an office as Minister Pastor or teacher And the Church cannot create a new office of a Prelate because of its nature it tendeth to a supernaturall end the governing of Christs body in a way to life eternall purchased by Christ Now the question in this sense whether the power of the Ministery be subordinate to the Magistrate in its constitution it is alike in its subordination to Magistrate and Minister certain it is subordinate to neither Other lawfull and profitable offices and Arts are from God mediately possibly by the intervening acts of rationall nature though Magistracy be from God Rom. 13. 1. yet it would seeme God by the naturall reason of men might devise and constitute the very office of Magistracy in abstracto and the Art of sayling painting c. yet is there no subjection of power to power here by way of dominion Hence the question must be of the subordination of the power quoad exercitium whether Ministers in the exercising of their Ministeriall calling be subordinate to the Magistrate as the Magistrate 5. Dist A judge is one thing and a just judge another thing so here are we to distinguish between a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate As 1. a husband is one thing and a Christian husband another thing a Captaine is one thing and a Christian and a beleeving Centurion or Captain such as Cornelius Acts 10. is another a Physitian is one thing and a gracious Physitian is another thing sure a heathen Husband hath the same jus Maritale the same Husband power in regard of Marriage union that a Christian and beleeving Husband hath 2. A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate may be one and the same Magistrate with one and the same Magistraticall power as being first heathen Magistrate as Sergius Paulus Act. 13. 7 12. and there after converted to the faith Paulus was no lesse a civill Deputie when Heathen then when Christian and not more a Deputy as touching the essence of a Magistrate when a Christian beleever then he was before when a Heathen yet to be a Magistrate and to be a beleeving Magistrate are two different things even as Christianity is a noble ornament and a gracious accident and to be a Magistrate is as it were the Subject even as a man and the accidents of the man are two different things 6. There be two things here considerable in the Magistrates office 1. There is his jus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistraticall power or the authority officiall the power of office to beare the sword 2. There is aptitudo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speciall heavenly grace of well governing this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift or grace of God to use that power for Christ These two make one Christian husband one Christian captain Physitian Master in relation to to the wife souldiers sick servants Now the Magistrate heathen as Magistrate even Nero when the Church of God is in his court and dominions hath the same jus the same Authority and Officiall power to be a keeper of both Tables of the Law and to defend the Gospell and to command the Preachers and Synods to fulfill their charge and to see that the officers doe their dutie and to punish dumbe dogs Idolaters excommunicated persons to drive away with the sword false Teachers from the flock he hath I say the same Magistraticall power while he is a Heatheâ— and when he is converted to the Christian faith and he is equally head of men that professe Christ when Heathenish as when Christian but in neither States is he the Head of the body the Church and you give not to Cesar the things that are Cesars if you make converted Nero because a Magistrate now the head of the Church and deny non-converted and heathenish Nero to be the Head of the Church for he is a Magistrate with compleat power of the Sword in the one case as in the other that he neither doth nor can use the sword for the Church it is from Nero his state of infidelity that he is in as a man and not the fault of his office for when Paul saith the Husband is the head of the Wife doth hee meane a Christian husband onely and exclude all heathen Husbands No for then the wife were not to be subject to the Husband if a Heathen and an unbeleever which is against Pauls mind 1 Cor. 7. and the Law of Nature But the converted Magistrate who was before a heathen Magistrate hath a new aptitude faculâ—y and grace to keep both Tables of the Law and to govern in a civill way and indirectly the affaires of Christs Kingdome Hence the adversaries clearly contradict themselves by confounding those two a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate one while they give supream power over the Church to the Magistrate as the Magistrate sometime to the Magistrate as Christian So Vtenbogard in his book De officio authoritate supremi Magistratus Christiani in rebus Ecclesiasticis p. 7. and p. 8. hoc addo ut intelligatur Magistratum cum religioneÌ„ Christianam amplectitur non acquirere novam authoritatem sed quod eam authoritatem quam ante etiam in rebus religiâ—nis â—ultus divini habebat authoritateÌ„ rectè utitur If the Magistrate when he becommeth a Christian acquireth no new authority as a Magistrate but onely useth well his old Authority in matters of Religion and of Gods worship which he had before while he was Heathen as he saith then the Heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate hath a supreame power in Church matters and yet in the same place he draweth the state of the question to a Christian Magistrate De solo Christiano Magistratu acturus The Arminians in their Apologie fol. 297. as saith their Declaration speake onely of the Christian Magistrate and yet page 298. potestati enim supremae sive Architectonicae qua potestas suprema est jus hoc ut competat ratio ordinis sive boni Regiminis natura sua postulat si Magistratui qua tali jus hoo competit â—rgo multo magis competit Magistratui Christiano Sure if the Magistrate in generall and as the Magistrate have a supream Authority in the Government of the Church such as the Adversaries contend for then the Christian Magistrate farre more must be Head of the Church and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be supreame Governour and judge in all Ecclesiasticall causes and in these same causes he must not be Iudge as a Magistrate but as a Christian Nor can they make a Christian Magistrate à medium per participationem utriusque extremi a middle betweene a Magistrate and a Christian 1. For where is there such an
he calls David his Prince a bloody murtherer and saith this evill is come on him for rising up against Saul his Master The Magistrate may not punish him with the Sword for railing against the Lords anoynted 2. And if the Magistrate ought not to strike with the sword any Prophet for preaching according to his conscience for that is persecution to this Author how shall the Prophets judge and condemne the Magistrate for those same decrees which he hath given out according to his conscience for this is a persecution with the tongue Mat. 5. 11. Iob 19. 22. and it is one and the same spirituall cause saith this Author 3. The same very Author and the Parliament do reciprocally judge and condemne one another for the Parliament make warre against Papists for drawing the King on their side and causing him make warre against the Lambe and his followers that is against godly Protestants Now suppose Priests and Iesuits preach this to the Queen and other Papists and they according to their conscience make warre against the flock of Christ and the Parliament according to their conscience make warre against them this Author sitteth downe and judgeth and condemneth both sides as bloody persecutors for point of conscience Now though the Author in his Bench with his penne condemneth and judgeth both according to his conscience yet if the Papists or possibly the Parliament had this Author in their fingers might not they reciprocally judge and condemne him I think he cannot deny how justly they should reciprocally judge the Author I cannot say 3. This Author would have a contradiction such as is to make East and West both one that one and the same man both sit in the Bench and stand at the barre that the Church judge the Magistrate and the Magistrate judge the Church But I hope contradictions were no more under the Old Testament to be admitted nor under the New Now in the Old Testament the King might put to death the Prophet who should prophecy blasphemies and again the Prophet might judge the King by denouncing the judgement of the Lord against the King let the Author say how the King both did sit in the Bench and stand at the baâ—â—e in divers respects I think Aâ—hab might judge and punish Micaiah unjustly for prophecying that he should dye at Ramoth Gilead and Micaiah might in prophecy give out the sentence of death justly against him but here be two contrary sentences the like may fall out in Synodicall constitutions 2. To answer to his reasons 1. It followeth not that in one and the same spirituall respect one and the same person judgeth on the Bench and is judged at the Bar for the Churches judging is in a spirituall respect as the officer ordained may promote the building of Gods House the Magistrates suppressing him is no spirituall respect but as it disturbeth the peace of the State that so unworthy a person is an officer in Gods House and is hurtfull to the Church of God in their ediâ—icatioâ— which the Magistrate is to promote not in spirituall but in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 3. That one judge on the Bench and the same stand at the Barre and be judged at divers and sundry times is not so impossible by farre as to reconcile East and West together Aâ—â—â—b may judge Naboath to be condemned and stoned for his vineyard to day and immediately after Elias the Prophet may arraigne him before the Barre and tribunall of God to be condemned and adjudged to dye in the portion of Iezreel where the dogs may lick his blood It is true Elias is not properly a judge but a declarer in a propheticall and authoritative way of the judgement of God but this is all the judiciall power which we ascribe to Church or Presbytery and Pastors they are meer Ministers or servants to declare the will and sentence of God When the Minister preacheth wrath against the King for his sins he judgeth the King in a Pastorall and Ministeriall way which is all we contend for in many officers united in a Church way and at that same time the King hath power after that to judge him for preaching treason for â—ound Doctrine if it be found to be treason by the Church and this reciprocation of judging we maintaine as consistent and necessary in Ministers of Gospel and Magistrates But such a distance betweene them as between East and West we see not The Author should have shewne it to us by his owne grounds The Church may excommunicate a Magistrate as a persecutor who cutteth off Idolaters for their conscience yet the godly Magistrate may judge and punish them with the sword for abusing the ordinance of Excommunication so as to excommunicate the godly Magistrate because he doth punish evill doing with the Sword Rom. 13. 4. 4. The Author infers that tumults and bloods do arise from these two But that will not prove these two to be inconsistent and contrâ—dictorious tumults and blood arise from preaching the Gospel what then Ergo the Gospel is a masse of contradictions â—â— followeth not The â—umulâ—s and blood have their rise from mens lusts who are impatient of the yoak of Christ not from these two powers to judge Ecclesiastically in the Church and to be judged civilly by the Magistrates The Author draweth his instance to the actuall judging of the same thing contradictory wayes for example the Church ordaineth one to be a preacher and this they do Ecclesiastically and the Magistrate actually condemneth the same man civilly as unworthy to be a preacher It is one thing to say that the Church hath power to judge righteously in an Ecclesiasticall way any matter and another that the Christian Magistrate hath power in a civill way to judge righteously the same matter and a â—ar other thing it is to say The Church hath a power Ecclesiastically to judge a matter righteously according to the word and the Magistrate hath power to judge the same matter civilly in a wrong and unjust way the former we say God hath given a power to the Church to ordaine Ecclesiastically Epaphroditus to be a preacher of the Gospel because these graces and gifts are in him that are requisite to be in a faithfull preacher and God hath also given a power to the Christian Magistrate to adde his civill sanction to the ordination and calling of the same Epaphroditus But we do not teach that God hath given to the Church a power to call Epaphroditus to the Ministery in an Ecclesiasticall way and that God hath given a power to the Christian Magistrate to anull this lawfull ordination of Epaphroditus Now the Author putteth such a supposition that Church and Magistrate have two lawfull powers toward contrary acts the one of them a power to give out a just sentence the other a power to give out an unjust sentence in one and the same cause which we teach not God gave to none either in Church
glory on every Assembly on Mount Zion for we are witnesses of Your Honours Travels for both that glory may dwell in our Land Your Honours at all respective observance in the Lord S. R. To the Ingenuous and Equitable Reader IT lieth obvious to any ordinary underderstanding worthy Reader that as alwayes we see a little portion of God so now the Lord our God in his acting on Kingdoms and Churches maketh Darknesse his Pavilion to finde out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Demonstrative Causes and true Principles of such bloody conclusions and horrible vastations as the Soveraign Majesty of Heaven and Earth hath made in Germany Bohemiah and the Palatinate as if they were greater sinners then we are and why the windows of Divine Justice have been opened to send down such a deluge of blood on Ireland and why in Scotland the Pestilence hath destroyed in the City and the Sword of the Lord not a few in the fields their Lovers and Friends standing aloof from their calamities is from the Lord who is wonderful in Counsel but to finde reasons to quiet the understanding is not an easie scrutiny matters are rolled on invisible wheels It is enough to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Men no Angels can hunt out the tracings of Divine Providence Nor can we set a day of Law nor erect a Court to implead this Lord who is not holden in Law to answer for any of his matters It were our wisdom to acknowledge that the actions of our Lord ad extrà are so twisted and interwoven thred over thred that we can see but little of the walls and out-works of his unsearchable counsels sure Divine Providence hath now many irons in one fire and with one touch of his finger he stirtâ—â—h all the wheels in Heaven and Earth I speak this if happily this little piece may cast it self in the eye of the Noble and Celebrious Judges and Senators who now sit at the â—eâ—m for I hope they consider it is but a short and sorry Line or rather a poor Circle Job 1. 21. Gen. 3. 19. between the Womb and the Grave between Dust and Dust and that they then act most like themselves Psal 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods when they remember they are sinful men and when they reckon it for gain that the King of Ages gives them a Diurnal of 24 hours to build the House of the Lord to cause the heart of a Widow Church though her Husband live for evermore to sing for joy and are eyes to the blinde and legs to the lame and withall do minde that when the Spirit is within half a Cubit or the sixth part of a Span to Eternity and Death cannot adjouâ—n for six hours to repent or do any more service to Christ in the body the welcom and testimony of God shall be incomparably above the Hosanna's of men Undeniable it is that we destroy again what we have builded if we behead the Pope and divest him of his Vicarious Supremacy and soader the Man of Sins head in the Ecclesiastical Government to the shoulders of any Man or Society of men on Earth It is not an enriching spoyl to pluck a Rose or Flower from the Crown of the Prince of the Kings of the Earth Diamonds and Rubiâ—s picked out of the Royal Diadem of Jesus Christ addeth but a poor and sorry Lustre to Earthly Supremacy it is Baldnesse in steaâ— of Beauty An Arbitrary power in any whether in Prince or â— relats is intolerable Now to cast ouâ— Domination in one and to take it in in another is not to put away the Evil of our doings but to Barter and Exchange one sin with another and mockingly to expiate the Obligation of one Arrear to God by contracting new Debt Again how glorious is it that Shields of the Earth lay all their Royalty and Power level with the dust before him that sitteth on the Throne and to make their Highnesse but a Scaffold to heighten the Throne of the Son of God Yea if Domination by the Sword be the Magistrates Birth-right as the Word of Truth teacheth us Luke 22. 25 26. Psal 82. 1 6. Rom. 13. 4. and the Sword can never draw blood of the Conscience It is evident that the Lord Jesus alloweth not Carnal weapons to be used within the walls of his Spiritual Kingdom and if Power be an enchanting Witch and like strong Drink which is dolosus luctator a cosening Wrestler we are to be the more cautelous and circumspect that it incroach not upon Jesus Christ for fear that we provoke the eyes of his glory and cause Jerusalem to be plowed and Zion become heaps and many houses great and fair desolate Let the Appeal be to the Spirit that speaketh to the Churches in the Word The Golden Reed can measure every Cubit of the Temple as well the outer Porch as the Holy of Holiest and all the dimensions the length and bredth of the City which is named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord is there If the Scripture be no Rule of Church Government but the Magistrates Sword be upon the shoulders of Christ as the prime Magistrate we come too near to the Jewish Earthly and Temporary Mesâ—iah And if Excommunication and Censures and that Ministerial Governing which was undeniably in the Apostolick Church be Fictions we are in the dark I confesse we know not whether the Vessels of the House should be of Gold and Silver or if they should be but Earthen Pitchers It is said That all this is but a Plea for a Dominion of an higher Nature even over the Consciences of men by Censures But why a Dominion Because a power of Censures Surely if they were not Spiritual Censures and such as hath influence on the Conscience we should yield a Domination were the businesse But this power of Censuring Spiritually is as strong as Authoritative in Dispensing Rebukes Threats Gospel-charges and Commands in the Word Preached as in Censures The power is Ministerial only in the Word not Lordly and why should it be deemed a Dominion and an Arbitrary power in the one and not in the other If the will of the Magistrate may carve out any Government that seems good to him and the Word of God in this plea be laid aside as perfect in Doctrine but imperfect and uselesse in Government we fall from the Cause But if the Word of God stand as a Rule in matters of Church-Government then the Question is only on whose shoulders the Ark should be carried and by whose Ministery doth Jesus the Lord and King of the House punish if I may use this word Scandalous men And whether doth the Head of the Church Christ in laying Judgement to the Line and Righteousnesse to the Plummet use the Magistrates Sword for a Spiritual and Supernatural end of the Service and Ministery of his Church or doth he send Pastors and Teachers as his Ambassadors for this end But if you were not
not a first converting ordinance yet a confirming one ibid. The Lords Supper presupposeth Faith and Conversion in the vvorthy Receiver in a Church-profession p. 523 c. The Magistrate subject to the Church p. 528 The Church a perfit society without the Magistrate p. 529 530 God efficacious by Preachers not by Magistrates p. 532 Differences between the Preachers and the Magistrate p. 532 c. The Magistrate cannot limit the Pastors in the exercise of their calling p 535 That Magistrates are more hot against the Churches punishing of sin then against sinful omissions argueth that they are unpatient of Christs yoke rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the Subject p. 536 c. Of the Reciprocation of the Subordinations of Magistrates and Church-Officers to each other ibid. Not any power or office subject to any but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons p. 538 A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate different p. 539 Two things in a Christian Magistrate jus authority aptitudo hability p. 539 c. Christianity maketh no new power of Magistracy p. 542 A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary upon which and the former distinction followeth ten very considerable assertions page 542 c. The Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth the exercise of the Ministerial power but not the spiritual and sincere manner of the exercise p. 544 Magistrates as godly men not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of Ministerial power p. 545 c. A twofold goodnesse in a Christian Magistrate essential accidential p. 548 The Magistrate as such commandeth onely in order to temporary rewards and punishments nor holdeth he forth commands to the conscience p. 549 c. Magistrates as Magistrates forbid not sin as sin under the pain of eternal wrath p. 550 Two sorts of Subordinations Civil Ecclesiastick p 553 Subordination of Magistrate and Church to each others p. 554 c. Church Offices as such not subordinate to the Magistrate ibid. What power Erastians give to Magistrates in Church matters p. 557 The minde of Arminians touching the power of the Magistrate in Church matters ibid. A threefold consideration of the Magistrate in relation to the Church p. 558 Reciprocation of subordinations between Church and Magistrate p. 560 The Ministers as Ministers neither Magistrates nor Subjects p. 564 c. The Magistrate as such neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator nor under Satan but under God as Creator ibid. The Prince as a gifted Christian may Preach and spred the Gospel to a Land where the Gospel hath not been heard before page 570 c. The King and the Priest kept the Law but in a far different way p. 572 c. The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another p. 574 c. God hath not given power to the Magistrate and Church to Iudge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause p. 577 Whether Appeals may ly from Church-assembles to the Civil Magistrate p. 578 Of Pauls appeal to Caesar ibid. Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in Causes Ecclesiastical p. 579 c. It is one thing to complain another thing to appeal p. 580 What an appeal is ibid. Refuge to the Magistrate is not an Appeal p. 581 A twofold appeal p. 582 The Magistrates power of punishing or his interest of faith proveth him not to be a Iudge in Synods p. 585 c. Pauls appeal proveth nothing against appeals for appeals from the Church to the Christian Magistrate p. 587 Paul appealed from an inferiour Civil Iudge to a superior Civil Heathen Iudge in a matter of his head and life not in a controversie of Religion p. 588 What power a conqueror hath to set up a Religion in a conquered Nation p 590 There were no appeals made to the godly Emperours of old p. 594 To lay bands on the conscience of the Magistrate to ty him to blinde obedience the Papists not our Doctrine p 595 Subjection of Magistrates to the Church no Papal tyranny p. 600 c. The Magistrate as a Magistrate cannot forbid sin as sin ibid. The Magistrate pomoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom ibid. The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediator Christ p. 601 The Adversaries in the Doctrine of the Magistrate Popish not we at all ibid. Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates in their whole Ministery by the Adversaries p. 603 c. Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiastical Administration p. 604 The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediatory Kingdom ibid. Heathen Magistrates as such are not oblieged to promote Christs mediatory Kingdom p. 606 Magistracy from the Law of Nations p. 608 The Adversaries must teach universal Redemption p 610 Magistrates as such not members of the Church p. 613 Christ mediator not a temporary King p 614 The Magistrat not the servant of the Church p. 616 The adequate and complete cause why the Magistrate is subject to the Church p. 617 That the Magistrate is subject to the Rebukes and censures of the Church is proved from the Word p. 618 c. The supreme and principal power of Church-affairs not in either Magistrate or Church p 620 Though the Magistrate punish Ecclesiastical scandals yet his power to Iudge and punish is not Ecclesiastical and spiritual as the Church censureth breaches of the second Table and yet the Churches power is not Civil for that p. 622 People as people may give power to a Magistrate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church to judge and punish offenders therein p. 625 A Governour of or over the Church a Governour in the Church a Governour for the Church different p. 628 The distinction of a Doctrinal or Declarative and of a Punitive part of Church-Government of which the former is given to Pastors the latter to the Magistrate a heedlessâ— and senselesse notion p. 629 c. That the Magistrates punishing with the sword scandalous persons should be a part of Church-government a reasonlesse conceit p. 631 There is neither coaction nor punishment properly so called in the Church p. 632 Bullinger not of the minde of Erastus p. 634 The Iudgement of Wolfâ—ag Musculus Aretius and Gualther p. 634 c. The Errour of Gualther to please the usurping Magistrate p. 638 Their minde different from Erastus p. 639 The Christian Magistrates sword cannot supply the place of Excommunication in the Church p. 640 The confessions of the Protestant Church for this way p. 642 c. The testimony of Salmasius p. 644 Of Simlerus p. 645 Lavater Ioan. Wolphius ibid. Of Râ—b Burhillus 646 The Contents of the Tractate or Dispute touching Scandal WHether things indifferent can be commanded Introduction p. 1 Indifferent things as such not the Matter of a Church-constitution Introd Actions are not indifferent because their circumstances are indifferent Introd Marrying not indifferent Introd Indifferency Metaphysical and Theological Introd Necessity of obeying the Church
an offence before God to despise the church Yea saith our Saviour with a grave asseveration Verily I say unto you they that despise the sentence of you the Ministers of the Gospel being according to truth given out they and their sinnes shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith he is said to bind who doth retaine the sinne when he maketh the obstinate brother unexcusable and he looseth who remitteth or pardoneth the injury and gaineth to repentance his brother by a brotherly admonition for except he speake of a brotherly composing of private injuries to what end should Christ subjoyne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again I say to you if two agree c. Answ 1. Christ doth argue from the lesse to the more he proveth what the Church bindeth on earth shall be bound in Heaven because if the prayers of two or three gathered together in the name of God and agreeing together on earth are not rejected in Heaven farre more shall that be ratified in heaven which the whole church of Christ decreeth on earth in the name of the head of the Church Iesus Christ 2. When in the chapter going before Christ had ascribed to the Apostles and Pastors which are the eyes of the Church a power of the keyes and here he ascribeth to them the power of binding and loosing there was no cause to dreame that he speaketh here of a private forgiving of private finnes betweene Brother and brother for then he might have said at the first step Thou hast gained thy brother that gaining or convincing of thy brother shall be bound or loosed in heaven no lesse then the Churches judiciall binding and loosing in heaven which yet is set downe as an higher degree of power But I may here say with Beza in the whole Scripture the word of binding and loosing is never spoken of any other but of these who are in publike places and by a borrowed speech here it is spoken in regard of Spirituall power To bind and to loose is by a judiciall power in subordination to Christ the King to remit and retaine sinnes So Iosephus saith the Pharisees ruled all so that they would banish or recall from banishment loose and binde whom they pleased and upon the Authority according to the which Christ sent his Disciples as the Father sent him so he instructed his Ministers with power to remit and retaine sinnes Ioh. 20. 23. and Mat. 16. 19. What thou bindest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on earth shall be bound in heaven what thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So doth Lucian bring in that prisoner speaking to Iupiter Loose me O Iupiter for I have suffered grievous things Mat. 22. 13. Then the King said to his servants take him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binde him hand and foot binding here you see is done by the command of the great King Acts 21. 11. So shall the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binde Paul they bound Paul with Law and authority such as it was Iohn 18. 12. The Captaine and Officers tooke Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bound him they bound him not by private authority Mat. 27. 2. and Act. 24. 27. Felix left Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bound if Lictors binde any Malefactors they doe it by authoritie and Law So do the Hebrews speake Psal 105. 20. The Ruler of the people loosed him Psal 102. 20. The Lord looketh downe from heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to open or loose the children of death Psal 146. 7. The Lord looseth the Prisoners Iob 12. 18. 3. It cannot be denyed but when one private brother pardons another repenting Brother God ratifieth that in heaven But it is cleare the pardon here holden forth by our Saviour is such a loosing as hath witnesses going before 2. Such an one as cometh higher to the knowledge of the Chuuch Nor doth the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again signifie any thing but pretereà moreover 4. And who can say that binding and loosing here is some other thing then binding and loosing in the Chap. 16. ver 9. Where the same very phrase in the Greeke is one and the same except that the Lord speaketh Mat. 16. 19. in the singular number to Peter as representing the teachers and Governours of the Church and here Mat. 18. He speaketh in the Plurall number relating to the Church Now Mat. i6 i8 19. binding on earth and loosing which is ratified in heaven is evidently the exercise of the power of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven I will give to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven What be these keyes he expoundeth in the same very verse and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven then binding and loosing on earth must be in these to whom Christ hath committed the power of the keyes but 1. Christ hath not committed the keyes to all but to Church-rulers that are the Stewards of the House and the dispensers of heavenly Mysteries Hence the keyes in Scripture signifie authority and officiall dignity that is in Rulers not in private men as Esa 22. 22. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder So Christ is said to have the key of David to open and no man shutteth to shut and no man openeth By which out of doubt saith Camero is pointed forth the kingly authority and power of Christ so saith Vatablus And our owne Calvin Musculus Gualther Piscator Beza Pareus agree that the keyes are insigne potestatis an Ensigne of power given to the Steward or Master of a Noblemans house who is a person in office The giving of the keyes saiâ—h worthy Mr. Cotton is a giving power for the preaching of the word the administring of the seales and censures by which these invested with power doe open and shut the gates Now we desire any Word of God by which it can be made good that the keyes and power to binde and loose is given to all that are in the house even private Christians But we can shew the Keyes and binding and loosing and opening and shutting to be given to the Officers and Rulers of the house Hence I argue that interpretation that confoundeth the key-bearers and the Children with the Servants of the House and the Governours that are over the people in the Lord with the governed and putteth the Characters proper to the Officers and Stewards conâ—usedly upon all that are in the house is not to be holden but this interpretation is such Ergo c. also to binde and to loose is expounded by Christ Ioh. 20. 21. to be a power to retain and remit sins on earth which are accordingly retained and remitted in Heaven and that by vertue of a calling and Ministeriall mission according to which the Father sent Christ Jesus and Iesus Christ
sendeth his Apostles and Pastors to the end of the world as is clear if we compare Matth. 18. 18. and Matth. 16. 19. with Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. 23. Mar. 16. ver 15 20. Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Luk. 24. 45 46 47 48. 5. It is against the course of the Text that we should restrain this to private pardoning of light injuries between brother and brother 1. Becase Christ labours to decline this that one shall be both his brothers judge to put him in the condition of an Heathen and Publican and binde his brothers sins in Heaven and Earth and also that he should be his party and accuser Now Christ will have the private brother do no more personally but admonish his brother and gain him 2. If that prevail not then he is to admonish him before two or three witnesses See here the brother is not both party and judge but witnesses have place 3. If that prevail not the businesse is to ascend higher even to the Church which undoubtedly is an Organicall body 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 8. 6 7 c. Act. 20. 28 29 30. Whereas two or three private Christians are not a Church but an homogeneal body Now who would believe that Christ is to bring down the businesse which is so high as before the Church to the lowest step again to a private binding and loosing to one brother who both as judge and party judgeth his brother yea and may do this though there were no Chuâ—ch on earth What power hath the Church above the offended brother or the offender if the one may binde the other under guiltinesse in earth and heaven 2. Erastus will have light and private offences only spoken of here Now Christ speaketh of offences that God taketh notice of in Heaven and earth 3. Christs way is a wise and meek way that that which one cannot do and the offence that two three four cannot remove the Church shall remove but Erastus maketh one private man to remove it and to Excommunicate and binde in heaven and earth I might cite Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom The ophylact Hyeronimus and all modern interpreters both Popish and Orthodox for this interpretation not any of them dreaming of the insolent opinion of Erastus who misapplieth Augustine and Theophylact for his own way as Beza cleareth CAP. IV. Quest 1. That the place 1 Corinthians 5. doth evince that Excommunication is an Ordinance of God THE Argument for Excommunication may be thus framed from 1 Cor. 5. If Paul command that the incestuous man should be delivered to Satan ver 5. purged out of the Church least as leaven he should corrupt the Church ver 6 7. That they should iudge him ver 12. And put him avvay from amongst them ver 13. So as they vvere not to eat vvith him ver 9. 10. Then is there a divine command for Excommunication for the Commandments of the Apostles are the Commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2. But the former is true Ergo so is the latter There is no ground or shadow of reason to expound this expelling of the incestuous man by the preaching of the word without any Church-censures for all that is required in Excommunication is here 1. This putting out was not done by one single Pastor as putting out by the preaching of the word is done but by a company and Church ver 4. In the name of the Lord Iesus vvhen ye are gathered together and my spirit 2. Paul should have written to any one Pastor to cast him out by preaching but here he writeth to a Church 3. He forbiddeth company or eating with such like men v. 10. Now this is more then rebuking by preaching 4. This is a judging of the incestuous man and a casting of him out of their society which is another thing then preaching the word Erastus and others expound the giving to Satan of a delivering of the man to Satan to be miraculously killed as were Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. 5. And because at this time there was no Christian Magistrate to use the sword against the man therefore he writeth to the Church that they by their prayers would obtain of God that Satan might take him out of the midst of them Ans This insolent interpretation wanteth all warrant of the word For 1. To deliver to Satan hath no Scripture to make this sense of it to pray that Satan would destroy the man 2. It wanteth an example in the old or new Testament that the whole Church are fellow-Agents and joynt causes in the bodily destruction of any or in working of miracles such as was the killing of Ananias and Saphira The Apostles wrought miracles and that by their Faith and Prayers and Christ and the Prophets but that the Believers who should have mourned for this scandall 1. Who were puffed up 2. Who were in danger to be leavened with the mans sin and had their consent in Excommunication should joyn in a miraculous delivering to Satan is an unparalleld practise in the word 3. To deliver to Satan cannot be expounded here but as 1 Tim. 1. 20. Where Paul saith he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan now that was not to kill them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might receive instruction and be disciplined by this medicinall Church-revenge not to blaspheme I know of no instructing of these who are dead if there be two deliverings to Satan let Erastus and his expound it to us 4. The Apostle expresly saith he wrote to them not to keep company with such men nor with Fornicators covetous men Drunkards Extortioners Idolators Now Erastus his minde must be that the Apostles and Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica grievouâ—ly sinned against God in that they did not miraculously kill all the Drunkards the covetous persons the fornicators whereas they are commauded to admonish them as brethren 2 Thess 3 14 15. and to pray for them if they sin not against the holy Ghost 1 Ioh. 5. 16. 1 Tim. 2. 3. 5. Paul rebuketh this as a morall fault amongst the Corinthians such as is not to mourn for this mans fault and to keep him as leaven in the midst of them and not to cast him out Whereas in all the Scripture you finde none ever rebuked because they put not forth in Acts an extraordinary and miraculous power to work miracles working of miracles came upon persons called thereunto by extraordinary rapts and were in men not as habits under the power of free-will but as immediate Acts of God even as fire-flaughts are in the Aire So I conceive while I be better informed 6. And shall it not follow that now when the Churches have Christian Magistrates it is the will of our meek saviour that they kill with the sword all the Drunkards Fornicators and all that walketh unorderly which should make the Church of Christ a Butcher-house whereas we are to admonish all such as brethren 2 Thess 3.
the preaching of the word in which Commandments Promises and threatnings are proposed to all in generall there be rebukes of the Church the sentencing of such and such persons by name as Hymeneus and Philetus and other Blasphemers the Authoritative Declaration that such a brother is to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican and brotherly fellowship of eating and drinking with such an one denied that he may be ashamed if these be then are some debarred from the holy things of God by Church-Censures beside the preaching of the word of God But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is proved because all wicked persons and heart-hypocrites are excluded from the holy things of God by the Preaching of the Word But only these that are notoriously and by testimony of witnesses convinced to be scandalous or contumacious in atrocious sins after they are by name rebuked and are declared to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans and from whom we are to withdraw brotherly fellowship are excluded from the holy things of God by Discipline and Church Censures The Assumption I prove Because the word is preached to all by one in office and that a Steward and dispenser of the mysteries of God and he excludeth all unworthy ones known to be such or invisible only from the kingdom of God But the Censure 1. Is inflicted by many 2 Cor. 26. by the Church Matth. 18. 17. conveened together 1 Cor. 54. 2. It is applied to such persons by name 1 Cor. 5. 5. He that hath done such a deed ver 2. Hymeneus Alexander 1 Tim. 1. 20. Jezabel Rev. 2. 20. 3 The whole congregation is not to eat or Table with such an one 1 Cor. 5. 11. We are to note and observe him and to have no company with him that he may b ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. to esteeme him as an Heathen and a Publican and exclude him from the Seals of the Covenant so long as he remaineth in that state 3. Arg. If a person may for not hearing the Church be judged as an Heathen and a Publican and his sinnes bound in heaven by the Church then by discipline he is excluded from the holy things of God in a peculiar way in the which contumacious persons uncircumcised in heart are excluded in foro interno Dei in Gods secret Court But the former is true Matt. 18. 15. 16 17 18. Ergo c. Now if there be two Courts one before God Rom. 2. 16. Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Ioh. 3. 21. Another of the Church Mat. 18. 15. 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 6 11 12. and two sorts of bindings two sorts of Witnesses two sorts of Sentences then can it not be dedenyed but the Church hath a spirituall Court for censures as well as for preaching the Word 4. Arg. Exclusion of an offender from the societie of the Saints and not to eate or drinke with him is some other reall visible censure accompanied with shame then any censure by the preaching of the Word but there is such a censure inflicted by the Church Ergo The Proposition is cleare from Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you brethren marke them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which yee learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and avoid them Here is a reall visible and personall note of shame put on Schismaticks a bodily declining and avoiding of their company which could not possibly be done by preaching of the Word But some may say this was not done by the Church court but every one as private christians were to eschew the society of Schismaticks and by this you cannot conclude any Church censure Answ Not to say that it were unjustice to decline any and renounce society with him before he were convinced to be factious according to Christs order Mat. 18. which to Erastus is a way of common and naturall equity And so in order to some publique censure before the Church Paul wâ—iâ—eth to a constitute Church at Rome in which he prescribeth Rom. 12. the Officers duty as what Pastor Doctor Elder Deacon ought to doe in a Church body We cannot imagine he could command every private Christian to inflict the censure and punishment for a punishment it is in order to a publike sin of avoiding any in Church communion professing they serve the Lord Iesus Christ as these doe verse 18. upon their owne private opinion Iesus Christ and his Apostles must have left men loose in all order and discipline by this way howbeit the adversary would deny a church punishment here is a punishment inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And it is not inflicted by way of preaching so 2 Thes 3. 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man have no company with him that he may be ashamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the learned is to put a publike church note on him that he may be confounded make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a publike wonder that he may be ashamed as Piscator and P. Baynes observe on the place expounding it of excommunication and the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is here is used toward the incestuous man who was to be excommunicated 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to keepe company with fornicators the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 1. is ascribed to the incestuous man and here they are not to be mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fornicators vers 11. But now I have written unto you not to keepe company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or an extortioner with such a one no not to eate And that we may know that this is a church censure he addeth ver 12. For what have I to doe to judge them also that are without Ergo this no keeping company with such is a Church judging 5. Arg. The Church of Pergamus is rebuked for having amongst them such as hold the doctrine of Balaam and Revel 2. 14. and Thyatira that they suffered Iezabel to preach and seduce the servants of God ver 20. as the Church of Ephesus is praised v. 2. that they cannot beare with them that are evill but had tryed such that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them liars Rev. 2. 3. Here is it clearely supposed that these churches were to censure false teachers if any shall say they were to censure them no other waies but by preaching against their errors 1. This would establish a Prelate above the Church contrary to that of Mat. 18. Tell the Church and 1 Cor. 5. Where the Church gathered together was to excommunicate 2. The Angel of the Church is taken collectively for all the Rulers and the whole Church to whom Christ writeth as is cleare in that he saith so often He that hath an eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to
the Sacraments to a Turk and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also conclude we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments being both uncapable of them as also because they can but trample on these pearls no lesse then the Turk should do the Argument then is just nothing We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven whom we do not excommunicate on earth But he should say we Excommunicate many whom we do not exclude out of Heaven Erastus These two are not one to declare a person hatefull in Heaven to God and to be cast out of the visible Church for if they be both one then one private Pastor may Excommunicate for he may declare from Gods word that an offender is excluded out of Heaven hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude also why should this be as good a consequence God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God Ergo he is to be cast out of the visible Church as this God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall Ergo God will not have him to live in this temporall life Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not worthy of life eternall to whom he hath given power to cast out devils in his name Matth. 7. Ans All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication So Iudas might have Excommunicated himself and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church he is cast out of the invisible Church But that is not Excommunication except it be done for a publick scandall that offendeth the Church 2. Except it be done by the visible Church 3. According to the rule of Christ Matth. 18. 4. That he may be ashamed and repent and be saved Gods binding of the offender in Heaven is a part of Excommunication but not all nor the very same with Excommunication 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor and yet the Conscional casting out by one insuo genere is as valid as the other subordinata non pugnant 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule God thinketh those who walketh inordinately and causeth divisions not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints and must binde them in heaven to that censure in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word Rom. 16 17. 18. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these he may deny salvation to the wicked and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath Ergo he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish This consequence dependeth on the meer dispensation of God nor is this our Consequence God judgeth such unworthy of heaven Ergo they must be cast out of the visible Church we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommunicated and only these which is false for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ and yet they are to be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the Church as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy and many whom God judges unworthy of life eternall may so belie a Profession as they deserve not to be excommunicated and both these may fall out and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ Erastus 4. objecteth Excommunication must exclude men from only the externall society of the Church for he only can joyne us to Christ or separate us from internall and spirituall society of Christ who can beget lively faith in us and extinguish lively faith when it is begotten for by faith only we are made living members of Christs body and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie But no Church no creatures can either beget lively faith in us or extinguish it in us or thus men can neither give to us nor take from us salvation therefore Excommunication should not be defined by cutting men off from salvation Ans This is the only Argument of Erastus that seemeth to bear weight But it is false and groundlesse it supposeth the false principle that Erastus goeth on that Excommunication is a reall separation of a member from Christs Invisible and Mysticall body and that the Excommunicated person who may be an Invisible member of Christ and regenerated may be an Apostate and fall from Christ and leave off to be a member The contrary of which all our Protestant Divines teach against Papists whereas Excommunication is only a Declarative but withall an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church and no reall cutting off of a believer from Christ But you will say It presupposeth a cutting off in heaven from Christ and therefore the Excommunicated person is declared to be cut off Let me Answer I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation Regeneration or non-Regeneration for its object or terminus but only it cutteth a contumacious person off from the Visible Church on earth and from the head Christ in heaven not in regard of his state of Regeneration as if Christ ratifying the Sentence in heaven did cut him off so much as conditionally from being a member of his body No but in regard of the second Acts of the life of God and the sweet efficacy and operation of the spirit by which the Ordinances are lesse lively lesse operative and lesse vigorous the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton saith As a palsie Member in which life remaineth but a little withered and blunted and he in Satans power to ve◠his spirit and therefore I grant all to wit that Excommunication is not a reall separating of a member from Christs body only unbelief doth that but it followeth not Ergo it is a separation only from the externall society of the Church For 1. This externall cutting off is ratified in heaven And 2. Christ hath ratified it by a real internal suspension of the influence of his spirit in heaven But I deny that this universall doth follow from Christs binding in heaven That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven all these are to be cast out of the Church he cannot prove this consequence from our grounds Erastus Argueth thus If God dam any as
in the Idoll-Temple to come to the Lords Table except they repent and try themselves Hence it must follow that if Christ have commanded his Stewards to dispense the word of promise and threatnings and comforts according to the temper of the flock so must they dispense the Seals and so by good consequence Paul said I will not have the Lord and Satan mingled nor a partaker of Satans Table admitted to the Lords Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God spared not idolaters and murmurers yet they eat we and they of the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke and so had the same Sacraments otherwise the Argument of the Apostle were nothing if ours and their Sacraments were not all one if then those that were idolators fornicators were admitted to their Sacraments then also to ouâ—â— under the New Testament Ans Beza answereth well to that Manna and the water ouf of the Rock as they had a spirituall Relation to Christ were holy things and types of Christ just as our Sacraments are signes of Christ already come in the flesh and so agreed in the kinde of holy signes with our Sacraments yet Manna and the water out of the Rock were also ordained to be bodily food for the famishing and thirsty people good or bad holy or unholy these two Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Priests to the people both as Gods people in Covenant with God and to them as men starving in the wildernesse and dying for thirst for they had not plowing earing harvest bread vineyards wine fountains in the wildernesse and therefore no marvell then such holy things being also beside that they were holy things such as were necessary to keep them from starving and bodily death as the shewbread which was also a type of the word of life revealed to the Ministers of God was given to keep David and his men from starving No marvell I say then these bodily helps though in another higher signification they were Sacramentalls were by Gods command bestowed on many wicked men who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famishing because they are mixt with the people of God But Erastus if he would prove any thing against us should have proved that circumcision the Passeover and other holy things of God ordained for the visible Saints to shew forth our spirituall Communion with Christ and which were never ordained for necessiry helps to sustain the naturall life were to be administred to those that were openly prophane and wicked and therefore we deny this connexion Manna signified the very same thing to wit Christ our food of life which bread and wine signifies Ergo As Manna was given both as a holy signe to figure out Christ our life and to feed the bodies of openly holy or openly prophane to sustain their bodily life so also baptisme and the Lords Supper which serve for no bodily use should be administred to those that are openly prophane Erastus is put to a poor shift with this solid Answer of that Reverend Learned and holy Divine Theod. Bezâ— he saith Vis dicam quod sentio Tui ubique similises The sea and the cloud saith he were not necessary to feed the body It is true Erastus the Physician would think the cloud and pillar of fire can neither be Physick for the sick nor food for the whole yet Physitians say Manna is apt for both not is the dvided Red-Sea food or Physick But good man he knowes the cloud was their guide and convey by night and day through the wildernesse and appointed by God to convey the Leapers the unclean and all those who were Excommunicated from the holy things and the Idolators and openly wicked as well as the clean and the holy and he knew the sâ—me that the people had no food but Manna a holy signe that those who were unclean seven dayes and often many times longer were not to starve for hunger but must eat Manna though a holy yet their only necessary food then without which they could not live But I hope Erastus cannot prove while they were unclean or put out of the Camp or yet extreamly wicked that they might eat the Passeover which was a meer holy Sacrament not ordained for the feeding of the body as Manna and water out of the Rock were Erastus may know the dividing of the Sea was necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean God being pleased for his Churches cause to bestow Temporall deliverances on wicked men mingled with the godly from being drowned with the Egyptians and that God who will have mercy and not sacrifice may well by a positive Law appoint that holy and unholy clean and unclean shall have the use of such holy things as are not meerly holy but mixt being both means of Divine institution and also necessary Subsidies for mans life but it followeth not therefore holy things that are purely holy should be prostitute to holy and unholy the clean and unclean Erastus God in the Church of the Jews punished wicked men with bodily punishments not with Exclusion from the Sacraments and Paul threatneth death and sicknesse not Excommunication to those that did eat and drink unworthily Ans Then putting out of the Campe was no Exclusion from the holy things of God all the world not onely will cry shame on this Divinity But they will say Erastus his Logick is bad God punisheth some wicked men with death and the sword of the Magistrate and stoning Ergo he appointed no Ecclesiasticall debarring of the unclean from Circumcision 2. It is false that Paul threatneth death to unworthy Communicants only he saith God â—lew many of them for that sin and hence it follows well the Officers should hinder the scandalous to rush into such a sin as is the not discerning the Lords body which bringeth death and diseases on the actors What consequence is this God punisheth wicked men Ergo the Officers should not rebuke them for those sins nor the Magistrate or Church punish wicked men God punisheth â—â—ubborn Rebels to parents Ergo the judge should not stone them the contrary Logick is the arguing of the Spirit of God Erastus Every one is to try himself therefore there is no need of any other to try him for Paul speaketh of that which is proper to every mans conscience Ans It is an unlearned and vain consequence It is commanded that every one try if he be in the Faith or no for the peace of his conscience and this is so proper to a man himself and so personall that no man can try or know certainly whether be in the state of grace but he himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rev. 2. 17. None can joyn with him in this as none can joyn with a man to try if he have faith to discern the Lords body and eat worthily
as Christ did forgive as man those that Crucified him though they did not repent 1 Pet. 2. 21 22 23. Luk. 24. 35 36 5. Erastus cannot deny but great injuries should be brought before the Magistrate and a little injury when an offender refuseth to obey the Christian Magistrate must be a great injury which maketh the man as a heathen and a publican What is before answered I shall not need to trouble the Reader withall to repeat Erastus The reason vvhy Christ speaketh here of the transaction of private iniuries is because he speaketh alvvaies in the singular numher if thy brother offend thee rebuke him betvveen him and thee alone take tvvo other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell thou the Church Let him be to thee as a Publican he that is Excommunicated is not Excommunicated to one only but to all the Church Ans This shall make the whole ten Commandments Exod. 20 and the whole Gospel and the profession of it Rom. 10. 9. which are all spoken to one in the singular number often in the second person to command private vertues and forbid private sins only and not to be Laws obliging the Church in publick duties and to eschew publick sins Erastus Answereth Let him be to thee vvho art injured and to all that are injured as a Publican not to the vvhole Church for there be some lawes that agree privatly to the Magistrate and to none other some to Parents not to children to Masters not servants so neither is this precept to all Christians as the Decalogue is and such like but only to those that are privately hurt he saith not rebuke every brother thou meetest with but the brother that sins against thee Christ speaketh not in the third person nor to the Church for the Disciples were not the Synedrie or that Church Ans 1. It s most false that all the precepts of the Decalogue are all of them spoken to all and every man Honour thy Father and mother that begat thee is one of the Commandments and it is not spoken to those that are onely Parents themselves and have their naturall parents dead but doth it follow that that Command doth injoyne private obedience and forbid onely private not publick disobedience to naturall Parents So the sixth Command saith If thy brother fall in a Lyons den to the hazard of his life pull him out if thou cannot rescue him thy self alone take three with thee and assay it if thou cannot so rescue him tell it to twenty The man is not to rescue every brother here but onely the brother that is in danger to be devoured with the Lyon will any say the Law of the sixth Commandment is given here to one private man to help another in a private danger This rebuke thy brother is the Law of nature and it is under this Levit. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart And if I rebuke him not for sinne any sinne and the most publick and so most offensive and scandalous to many I hate him nay I am not so much to rebuke him and gain his soul because the sin is an injury done to me as because it is done against the Majesty of God and destructive to the offenders soule and I must labour to gaine his soule 2. Erastus dreames that that is a private sin which is done to one man or one ranke of men to a Magistrate not a subject he is beguiled an offence and publick stumbling-block may be laid before one man and it is often a publick sin 3. The speaking of it in the second person is nothing for If thou beleeve thou art saved Rom. 10. 9. is as publike and universall as Iohn 3. 16. Whosoever beleeveth he is saved The second person in all precepts of Law and Gospel and this rebuke an offending brother is both is as broad as the third person and as large in extent except you say the verse Iohn 3. 16. comprehendeth some more beleevers that are saved then Rom. 10. 9. which is against sense 4. Christ ought not to have spoken to his Disciples as a Church because he is directing them as members and parts of a Church how to deale with an offender but if he heare not the Church that is the Christian Magistrate he should die saith Beza Erastus answereth But the Church or Iewish Synedrie had not power of life and death now they were under the Roman Empire Ans Christ here then sheweth not a way to remove Scandals because the Roman Emperors sword is not Christs Spirituall way 2 Cor. 10. The weapons of our warfare are not carnall but mighty through God Erastus By this same place I cannot prove there is such a thing as Excommunication what is said to one is said to the whole Church but it is said to one that he should forgive an offending brother seventy seven times in one day if he acknowledge his fault Ergo there can be no just cause vvhy the vvhole Church should not doe that vvhich every member is obliged to doe but your Presbyters vvill punish though any one should confesse his fault Ans There is a twofold forgiving one private in passing the private revenge of the fault and grudge against the person of the offender thus the whole argument is granted for Members and Church both are to pray Forgive us our sinnes as vve forgive them that sin against us I hope the Synedrie the Roman President the Magistrate thus are obliged to forgive those whose heads they justly take from them so Luke 17. We are to forgive our brother seventy seven times a day though he neither repent nor crave pardon but far more if he crave pardon But by this Argument the Christian Magistrate should use the sword against no bloody Parracide for he is thus to forgive him and much more if he say he repenteth 2. To forgive is to remit all punishment and so what is said to one Member of the Church is not said to the whole Church Private men have not power of Church-punishment to forgive it The Church hath a power limited by Christ that is to forgive and open heaven in so farre as they see Christ goe before and see the man penitent and therefore Erastus his consequence is short it followes not that the Church should no more excommunicate then one Member Erastus looks farre beside the booke in that he thinkes it is all one to forgive an injury and to remove a scandall in the way of Christ in labouring to gaine a brother I may forgive one that offendeth me and not labour at all to gaine his soul Erastus We cannot expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against thee against the Church because he saith after tell the Church then the sense should be O Church tell the Church Ans It is not denyed by us but that the Scandall in the rise may be private but Erastus will have our Saviour to speake onely of private Scandals 2.
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
Heathen Give a place of Scripture for this 1. Let him be as such Heathen onely as acknowledge Cesar and his Deputies for lawfull Iudges 2. A parallel for this we seek Let him be as a Heathen that is convene him before an heathen Iudge 3. What Scripture expoundeth delivering to Satan for edification and not destruction 1 Cor. 5. to be a Magistraticall killing by the power of the Devill that others may feare 4. Put out purge out judge those only that are within are expounded by Erastus pray for a miraculous destruction by the devill as the lictor and hangman of the Apostle that none may be killed miraculously for enormous scandals no not such as Elimas the sorcerer who was never within the Church but those that are within And did the company of the Saints pray with the Saints that signes and wonders and so miraculous killing might be wrought not on any but on those that are within the visible Church not on the enemies and Iews haters of Christ and without the Christian Churches when the Apostles miraculously escaped out of their prisons Act. 4. 29 30. Act. 5. 19 20 21 22. Act. 12. 7 8 9. Act. 16. 25 26. 27 28 I might alledge many other such like interpretations of Erastus 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament signifieth to instruct and chastise the living never any such thing is ascribed to the dead Gal. 5. 22 30. Tit. 2. 20. Rev. 3. 19. Heb. 12. 10. Luk. 23. 16 22. 2. Cor 6 9. Act. 22. 3. Act. 7. 22. as they that are taught to sinne no more by being killed 6. Robert Stephan citeth in the margent 1 Cor. 5. 5. to expound it of excommunicating of Hymeneus and Alexander so doth Piscator so Calvin Beza Marlorat so Vatablus saith Quos ejeâ—i ex ecclesia et censui magis dignos esse ecclesia Satane quam Christi si non resipiscant 7. Beza De Presbyt p. 87. learnedly observeth that it is no Grammer for if the effect of learning not to blaspheme be suspended upon the miraculous killing of Alexander then he was first killed then learned not to blaspheme But so Paul could have said he was killed ut non blasphameret that he might not blaspheme not that he might learn not to blaspheme CHAP. XII Quest 8. The eschewing of company with the scandalous vindicated from Erastus his exceptions BEsides other arguments from Mat. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. for excommunication we argue thus Those upon whom the Church is to put such a publike note of shame or a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they are to withdraw from their company and not to eat and drink with them those are cast out of the Church and so cut off from the body of Christ and excommunicated But the Church is to put such a note of shame as to withdraw from the company of and not to eat with those that are named brethren and yet are fornicators covetous idolators extortioners railers 1 Cor. 5. 11. and cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel who serve not the Lord Jesus but their owne belly Rom. 16. 17 18 who walk disorderly are busie-bodies idle and obey not the Doctrine of the Apostles 2 Thes 3. 11 12 13 14 15 Ergo. The proposition I prove 1 Cor. 5. 11. he saith v. 9. I wrote to you in an Epistle not to keep company with fornicators the same word that in the abstract is spoken of the incestuous man v. 1. by which it is clear Paul had forbidden any company with such incestuous men Now he had not forbidden them to keep company with dead men if the man was to be miraculously killed Ergo it was his will before that such a one should be judged and put out else he could not so sharply rebuke them for not casting him out and if now only he had first taught and written to them to cast him out as if excommunication had been in this same very Chapter instituted by Paul and v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now I have written unto you not to keep company with one named a brother who is a fornicator this must be in the same Chapter for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now I have written must be in relation to this v. 9. I wrote unto you in a Epistle before now if here at this present he wrote to them not to keep company with him it must be when he commandeth to cast him out v. 13. and to judge him v. 12. so that not to keep company with such fornicators must necessarily presuppose a casting out and that the fornicator with whom we are not to keep company in a familiar manner is a man cast out of the Church and so excommunicated 2. Paul would never forbid brotherly familiarity with any remaining a brother a member of the Church and of a body with us in visible profession of the truth as partakers of one body and blood of Christ as all the members of the Church eating at one Lords table are 1. Cor. 10. 16 17. 3. The Apostle saith such a fornicator is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 named a brother and so in the esteem of the Church no brother and so not of the visible body of Christ 4. Paul bringeth in this as a reason why they should cast out the incestucus man v. 9. did not saith he I write to you before and do I not now write v. 11. even now that you are not to kâ—ep intimate familiarity with such titular brethren who are brethren in name only Therefore put out from amongst you this man v. 13. the Apostles argument to infer they ought to judge and put such a man out of the Church because they are not to eat with him were of no weight if this â—schewing of familiarity with one who is a brother only in name did not infer the Churches casting of him ouâ— Erastus it is false that Paul forbiddeth to eat with him who is cast out for he forbiddeth not eating with a dead man Ans This is to beg the question Erastus should teach us how Pauls argument cohereth for the text saith he must be cast out why you must not eat with him then he supposeth he must be a living man for Paul needed not fear they would eat with dead men nor can this be Pauls consequence you are not to eat with the incestuous Ergo he must be delivered to Sathan that he may be miraculously killed for that is a false consequence for then all covetous persons all drunkards all idolators all extortioners should have been killed by Paul because with none of these we are to eat Erastus It is false that Paul forbiddeth as to eat meat with such Yea in no place he forbiddeth to eat with heathen but elsewhere granteth it to be lawfull and in this Chapter he permitteth private commerce with them Ans 1. Let the reader judge whether Erastus resuteth Paul or Beza Paul forbiddeth to eat with a
brother that is a fornicator Erastus saith he forbiddeth no such thing 2. Though I think Christians may eat with heathens 1. Cor. 10. 27. and that Paul did eat with heathen yet it is no argument to say it is therefore lawfull to eat with one cast out of the Church because we may eat with heathens to gain them and we are not bidden abstain from heathens company that they may be ashamed of their religion though Christians are to use no heathens with intimate familiarity as we do our brethren in Christ But we are to eschew intire fellowship with a scandalous and cast out brother to gain him that he may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. and in this a scandalous brother is in worse case then a heathen But in other respects he is in better condition as being under the medicine of the Church 3. Though we may have commerce and buy and â—ell with heathens and neglect no dutieâ— of humanity to them as to receive them into our house and to be hospitall to them Heb. 13. 2. Iob 31. 32. Yet this will conclude intire fellowship with neither heathen or scandalous brethren Yea we are not to receive a false teacher into our house 2. Ioh. ver 10. Yet are we not forbidden to neglect duties of common humanity to false Teachers though we be forbidden intirenesse of Brotherly fellowship with them Erastus There is not the same reason of holy things and of private civill things for this not eating belongeth to private conversing with men not to publike Communion with them in the holy things of God One saith It is in our liberty Whether we converse familiarly with wicked men or not But it is not in our power Whether we come to the Lords Supper or not And Paul will not have us to deny any thing that belongeth to Salvation and therefore he saith 2 Thess 3. Admonish him as a Brother and none I hope can deny but the Sacraments are helps of godlinesse and Salvation Ans 1. It is true that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren hath in it something civill but it is a censure-spirituall and a Church-censure two wayes 1. Objectively in its tendency Respectu termini ad quem 2. Effectively in its rise and cause Respectu termini à quo it is a spirituall censure Objectively because it tendeth to make the party ashamed that he may repent and become a Brother with whom we are to converse and therefore is destinated for no civill use but for the good of his soul that is a member of a Church that he may return to what he was 2. This censure though one private Brother may exercise it upon another yea a woman on a man who yet hath no Authority over the man is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause a Church-censure 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemne another while first he rebuke him and if he be not convinced while he do the same before two or three witnesses and if he yet be not gained one private Brother may not after conviction before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen or complain of him before an Heathen Iudge as Erastus saith How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother by his own private Authority while he first be sentenced before the Church And the Church shall convince him to walk disorderly to cause divisions and offences to be a Fornicator a Covetous person and so to be unworthy of the intire Brotherly fellowship of another For if this order were not in the Church every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother and so break all bands of Religious Communion and Brotherly fellowship and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches Now certain it is These Texts Rom. 16. 17 18. 2 Thes 3. 11 12 c in the letter intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed as clear by other Scriptures we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother but after such an order Now the places in the letter except we expound them by other Scriptures do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother before we withdraw from him contrary to Levit. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother all Brotherly fellowship by these places then I am to esteem him as a Heathen and as a Brother in name not in reality 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I esteemed him a Brother and did keep Brotherly fellowship with him now this is materially Excommunication I do no more in this kinde to one who is formally Excommunicated yea I am not so strange to a Heathen Ergo This I must have done upon some foregoing sentence of the Church otherwise I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath nor can un-Church and un-Brother 3. Eschewing of Brotherly fellowship to any is an act of Government distinct from the Preaching of the Word tending to make a Brother that walketh disorderly ashamed that he may repent and of a Brother in name only may become a Brother in reallity 2 Thes 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Christian Magistrate for every Brother saith Erastus may exercise it toward his Brother Ergo here is Church-Government that the Magistrate hath no hand in contrary to the way of Erastus and not in the hands of Pastors for it is distinct from Preaching nor is it in a Colledge of Pastors Doctors and Elders for Erastus denyeth any such Colledge Ergo here every one must govern another the man the woman and the woman the man the son the father if he walk unorderly and the Father the Son this can be nothing but the greatest Confusion on Earth 4. To put any to shame especially publikely by way of punishment for publike sins must come from some Iudges or others armed with Authority Iudg. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apostles sense cannot be that every one hath power of himselfe without the Church or any authority there from to put his brother to shame for when a brother is not to eat with a scandalous brother he must be convinced by the Church to be scandalous and so cast our 1 Cor. 5. 11 12 13. as we have proved before and every man here should be his owne judge and party in his owne cause except he put his brother to some shame by an higher authority then his owne The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to put a publike note or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the offender So Stephanus So Piscator Nota ignominiosâ excommunicationis Pomponius laetus de Magistr Rom. â— 21. Censores quintoâ— quoque anno creari solebant hic prorsus cives sic notabantur ut qui Senator esset ejeceâ—etur Senatu qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet c. Mathaeus Harnish Gec Gabellus who adde to Zanchius his Commentary in 2
with them Isa 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations c. All which holdeth forth that not only those who have the charge of the house of the Lord to see that no Swine and Dogs prophane the holy things of God but they are forbidden all private Ordinances and publike in so far as they can make no other use of them but to defile them Erastus saith They be wickedly forbidden to come to the Lords Supper who desire to Celebrate the memoriall of his death Beza Replieth well 1. What if he know not what he desireth who cometh 2. What if there be just suspition or clear evidence that he playeth the Hypocrite 3. What if it concern the whole Church that his desire be suspended Erastus The first cause is not to purpose because we speak of those that are well instructed 2. The second is bred in the brain of Beza I am compelled to think that he that publikely professeth he is grieved for his sins and that he purposeth to live a holy life in time to come that he thinketh as he speaketh if he remain not in that purpose I also remain not alwayes in my good purpose his desire is an Argument of Piety which should not be smothered and oppressed but excited and nourished And this opinion of Beza dependeth on the Iudgement of men neither hath the Lord committed the Examination of some to Elders And it is folly to say It concerns the Church to delay to do that which the Lord hath Commanded me to do Ans 1. Erastus professeth he standeth for their admission to the Lords Supper who are Recte instituti profitentur dolere se propter peccata sua who are instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion and repenteth of their sins or professeth it And he said before as I observed it If any shall be found who shall trample on the Sacraments Ego hunc minime admittendum censeo I judge such a man should not be admitted to the Sacraments Whence it is clear That Erastus professeth that the ignorant and the scandalous should be debarred from the Lords Supper But good Reader Observe that Erastus contradicteth himself in all his Arguments for he proveth that not any one Christian in the Visible Church ignorant or not ignorant who professe their Repentance or not professe it can be excluded from the Sacraments but that all are commanded by Christ to come But Erastus saith Scriptura illos de quibus nos loquimur nec à sacrificiis arcet nec à sacramentis aliis ullis Imò sub penâ capitis mandat ut universi mares c. The Scripture excludeth none from Sacrifices or any other Sacraments But commandeth that all the Male Children Jews and strangers who are not legally unclean and from home should compear at Ierusalem thrice a year before the Lord And pag. 104. In sacris literis non tantum non inveniri aliquos à sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem ab actos esse sed contrarium potius probari And Iohn Baptist saith he Baptized all that came to him Pharisees and Sadduces whom he affirmeth to be a Generation of Vipers Ex quo intelligimus Whence we understand that Ministers are not to deny the Sacraments to those who seek them and the Iudgement is to be left to God Whether he who professeth Repentance dissemble or deal truly and sincerely Yea when Erastus saith That it is not in all the Scripture to be found Aliquos a Sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem abactos esse That any were debarred from the Sacraments for only wickednesse of life but rather the contrary may be proved either ignorance of God opposed to due instruction and professed impenitency is no wickednesse of life which is most absurd or then in Scripture some must be debarred from the Sacraments for wickednesse of life only But Erastus saith plainly None in Scripture are debarred from the Sacraments for only wickednesse of life And so they are not debarred because they professe not Repentance And Erastus saith Christ said Drink ye all of this and Iudas was not excepted Christ went into the Temple with most wicked men the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized with the same Baptisme of Iohn vvith them Then Erastus will exclude none at all no not those whom Christ pronounced to sin against the Holy Ghost and the convincing light of their own minde Matth. 12. 31 32. Ioh. 9. 39 40 41. and 15. 24. and 7. 28. Yea pag. 117. He will have none excluded in Corinth not those that are impenitent and those that vvere partakers of the Table of Devils Pag. 116. When Christ commandeth all to eat and all to drink he excludeth none that professeth themselves to be Disciples But many professe no Repentance Who professe themselves Disciples See pag. 117 118. and the following pages 2. Erastus saith He is compelled to think That he that publikely professeth sorrovv for sin doth think as he speaketh But to whom shall he professe it To the Church Then hath the Church power to accept the confession of scandalous men ere they be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus will stand at this for it is Government in the hands of the Church if he must confesse to the Civill Magistrate who made him a Steward of the Seals and Mysteries of the Gospel Nor is the Church to think as Erastus is compelled to think manifest Hypocrites and those that trample the Sacraments under their feet will make profession of sorrow for sin and Erastus thinketh such are not to be admitted Erastus saith they may change their purpose of Repentance and so may he doe himselfe Valeat totum granting all that is nothing to us for any Divinity we have proofe of in Erastus his booke I should humbly conceive when he speaketh so ignorantly of the worke of Repentance and preparations for the Lords Supper he hath been a man non rectè institutus not well instructed and so without the lists of the disputation by his owne word and so not to have beene himselfe to be admitted to the Sacraments 2. Nor is it in Beza his head onely that those who desire the Sacrament have true piety for Christ saith Wicked men are known by their works otherwise if tramplers of the Sacrament and the ignorant desire the Sacrament as ignorance is neighbour to arrogance and presumption let Erastus give us a rule in the Word by which they are to be debarred all his arguments will prove that they are to be admitted and if Erastus deny that the judgement of men either of Church or Magistrate is to be interposed in the excluding of those who are non rectè instituti not rightly instructed and doe not professe sorrovv for their sin he must speake against sense if he grant some must judge who are ignorant and openly impenitent then I say to Erastus what hee saith to Beza your opinion dependeth on the opinion and judgement
the sinnes of wicked Magistrates in heaven is this good Thoma no Ecclesiasticall coaction no jurisdiction and this is to receive the distinction whether you will or not 2. The rejecting of this distinction is a tenet of Royalists for certainly we use no defensive armes against the King as King but as he is a misled man and I think the King will say he useth not offensive armes against the Parliament as the Parliament but under another very undeserved notion as Rebels 3. It is lesse that we may not rail on rulers which is a sinne for to rail upon any cursing-wise is unlawfull then that we cannot punish the ruler which is more To punish the ruler as a sinfull and wicked man is a work of justice and so lesse unlawfull then sin Erastus taketh for confessed as his custome is that which we deny that to punish rulers with an Ecclesiastick censure is a sin as to rail on them and curse them is a greater sin But to binde the rulers sinnes in heaven is a punishment and this the Elders may lawfully do and to eschew the company of a ruler if he be a fornicator an extortioner and idolater is either to punish him or put shame upon him 2 Thes 3. 14. But one private Christian farre more a Church may do that Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 2 Thes 3. 14. except Erastus except the Magistrate from being under a Divine and Apostolick command this he must say and so we have the Apostles meaning withdraw from those that cause divisions and walk unordinately and are fornicators coveteous extortioners least they infect you and that they may be ashamed and repent except they be Magistrates though in the lowest rank if they be Magistrates they are gods and you their subjects and you may in no sort shame them I should think God both accepted persons and would not have us to indeavour the repentance and gaining of the souls of Magistrates because they are above Gospel-rules by this way of Erastus and because the Presbytery may not rail on Magistrates for that is sinne it followeth not the Presbytery may inflict no Ecclesiasticall censure on them Yea let me retort this The Magistrate may not rail on or curse and revile the Priests So Paul expoundeth it Act. 23. 5. against reviling of Priests nor may the Magistrate revile or curse any subject for I conceive reviling to be sinne Mat. 5. 11. and 27. 39. Joh. 9. 28. 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. 1 Cor. 6. 10. Isai 51. 7. Zepha 2. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 9. Jude 9. and the Magistrate is under the Moral Law Hence I inferre by Erastus his reasoning that the Magistrate may not punish Priests Prophets Pastors or any subject though they most hainously trespasse against all Lawes which is absurd 3. That the Magistrate is made a servant not a Magistrate if the Elders may use the rod of Christ against him is a vaine consequence Paul preached himself a servant in a spirituall Ministery to all the Christians in Corinth 2 Cor. 4. 5. and all Elders are thus servants to Magistrates and flock Yet Erastus knoweth that Paul had a rod of miraculous killing the disobedient as Erastus expoundeth 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye shall I come unto you with a rod or in love Suppose there had been a Christian Magistrate at Corinth that should fall in incest as one did 1 Cor. 5. 1. Paul could not come to him with the rod or suppose the Roman Emperour had been a Christian and within the Church and should have his Fathers wife Paul could use no rod against him and should he not have in readinesse revenge against all disobedience 2 Cor. 10 6. and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given him by the Lord for edification v. 8. against all offenders within the Christian Church in regard that Christ is head and King of the Church but he should have neither rod nor revenge in readinesse against the disobedience of the Emperour why is not the rod of Paul the rod of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. yea certainly is not then the Christian Emperour the subject of Christs Kingdome and subject to the King Christ and his rod No but saith Erastus Paul Is the Emperour subject to thee and if Paul should have a rod to punish the Emperour then the Apostle could not be the Emperours subject nor obey him as a God on earth for saith Erastus no subject may punish the Magistrate This is downe right to make God an accepter of persons nor can Erastus deny but sharp rebuking was a punishment Tit. 1. Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the â—aith And this the Apostle urgeth all Ministers and watchmen to do not being afraid of the faces of Kings Iere. 1. 17 18. Joh. 2. 1 2 3 4. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. Erastus teacheth Magistrates to break Christs bounds and to say we will not have this man to reigne over us he needed not employ a wicked pen for this they need no teacher vitia discuntur sine Magistro Erastus Some of yours say there is need of the Magistrates consent to Excommunication but certainly he will never consent to be Excommunicated himself Theodosius was not willing nor will good Magistrates consent when they see the danger on themselves you would not bring in again the Church-penances of the ancients Ans 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate is necessary to Excommunication Because he is obliged to joyne his sanction and authority to all Christs Ordinances but we think not the privative or negative consent is required so as no mans sinnes should be bound in heaven except the Magistrate say Amen 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in forme and you shall see their weaknesse as thus He whose consent is required to Excommunication cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe because no man will consent not Theodosius nor the godliest man that he be punished himselfe But the Magistrates consent say the Presbyterians is to be had to Excommunication Ergo the Magistrate cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe Ans I retort it he whose consent is required for threatning wrath â—o and rebuking of offenders and scandalous men he is not to be threatned with wrath and rebuked for his own offences and scandals because no man no Theodosius no godly Magistrate when he seeth the present danger will consent that he be threatned with the wrath of God and rebuked himselfe We know Nathan was afraid to rebuke a Magistrate according to Gods heart but in the third Person But Erastians teach that the Magistrate when he scandalously offends should be threatned and rebuked Ergo the Magistrates consent is not requisite to threatnings and rebukings of Pastors But the conclusion is against Erastus for the Pastors preach and rebuke and threaten as the deputies and servants of the Magistrate and as sent by him and the Magistrate preacheth rebuketh threatneth all offenders and
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
man to be a Priest we can say something but that all the lame in Israel were debarred from the Temple and the holy things of God we dare not say and a difference of things and men we acknowledge but that is nothing to weaken the argument 6. How proveth Erastus the tares are not to be plucked up by men Mat. 13. will bear no such thing ill men are to be cast out of the Church before the day of judgement both by the Magistrate and miraculously by the Apostles and by Excommunication say we Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Erastus He that possesseth the price of the whore is not to be debarred out of the Temple though the money could not be offered to God The Pharisees would not have the price of blood cast in the treasure of the Temple yet they cast not Judas out of the Temple which these patrons of Ceremonies would have done if there had been any Law for it Ans This is to beg the question the whore who sold her body for a price was unclean and more unclean then the innocent money and so in that case excluded from the holy things of God 2. They admitted doves oxen and money changers into the Temple and prophaned it and why should they cast Judas out of the Temple will their practises prove any thing they used all divine ceremonies and Lawes of God to their owne carnall ends Erastus Heathens vvere not admitted into the Temple But a scandalous man is a heathen Ezech. 16. Your Father was an Ammorite also if thou be a transgressour of the Law thy circumcision is become uncircumcision Rom. 2. he is vvorse then an Infidell 1 Tim. 5. Erastus ansvvereth but if vve look to Gods estimation vvicked brethren are vvorse then pagans But if vve consider the externall face of the Church there be many things in vvicked men that agreeth not to heathen vvicked circumcised men might go in to the Temple Gentiles might not so the assumption is most false 2. A circumcised man and a Baptisedman can never turn non-circumcised or non baptised Ans I say nothing to the cursing and blessing Deut. 27. Nor do I owne that Argument it is not ours 2. Those which are so our argument runneth as Heathens and Publicans as Pagans Ammorites whereas they were sometimes Brethren and Members of the Church are not to be admitted to the Sacraments nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church more then Heathen Ammorites Pagans are to be be admitted to the Sacraments and Members of the Church But wicked men amongst the Iewes and amongst us Christians who will not hear the Church and are fornicators idolaters railers drunkards and extortioners and walke inordinately and cause divisions contrary to the Gospell of our Lord Iesus are to be esteemed as Heathens Pagans Amorites and worse then Infidels therefore such amongst the Iewes were not admitted to the Temple and holy things of God and amongst us not to be admitted to the Sacraments nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church Erastus answereth not to this Argument either Major or Assumption but propoundeth an Argument of a namelesse Author as he knoweth best to answer and remove himself 2. Many things saith he agree to Pagans and Turks which agree not to scandalous Christians True scandalous Christians are not Amorites and Pagans simpliciter they differ in profession the one being baptized not the other and once being baptized they can never be unbaptized but that is not our Argument but they agree in this that they are no more really Christians being fornicators railers drunkards extortioners c. then Pagans but have the onely name and title of such and are to be esteemed so by us and are to us quoad hoc in regard of Church priviledges as heathens and publicans and so the Lord of old termed his Apostate people Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. and as the children of the Ethiopians and Philistines Amos 9. 7. and as uncleane and uncapable in a Church way of the Passeover and now of the Lords Supper to us as Ethiopians Sodomites of old and this day Turks and Pagans are to us 3. That the wicked that were circumcised might go into the Temple amongst the Iews de facto they might but de jure by Law they might not Ier. 7. 9. Ezek. 23. 39. Esa 66. 3. no more then by Law they might prophane the holy Name of God or kill a man or sacrifice a dog to God or offer swines blood or blesse an Idoll The argument from sanctifying the Sabbath I passe it hath no sense nor reason as Erastus propoundeth it Erastus Christ Mat. 5. commandeth him who is to offer a gift to leave his gift at the Altar and first to be reconciled to his brother Ergo he will have us not to use the Sacraments while we be first reconciled to our Brother But so saith Erastus we should not pray to God nor seeke forgivenesse of sinnes while we first forgive those that have wronged us Christ doth not here speake of the externall governing of his Church but of the perfection of a Christian man else wee could doe nothing that is good and just and we were all to be Excommunicated he saith not if the Presbyters shall command leave thy gift but if thou shalt call to minde thy selfe he speaketh not of a prohibition of others discharging an instituted vvorship but of that which a mans owne minde doth enjoyne him you may as easily prove the Papists Masse from this as Excommunication Ans Surely this is to me convincing if I be discharged by the Holy Ghost to meddle with the holy things of God or offering a gift to God at his Altar while I first be reconciled to my brother then those who have by office power to steward those holy things in wisedome and fidelity putting a difference betweene the precious and the vile knowing that I am at wrath wiâ—h my brother and having convinced me before two or three Witnesses that I have highly trespassed against my brother are to deny to Steward or dispense any such holy thing to me while I be first reconciled to my brother and the like I say of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 2. To Erastus his Argument I answer it is not alike here as in praying for praying is so absolutely necessary that it obligeth by a command of God even a Simon Magus to pray while he is in the gall of bitternesse that the thoughts of his heart may be forgiveâ— Act. 8. 22. But Erastus as if he had set himselfe to contradict Christ would insinuate as much as Christ were not to be obeyed for his Exposition holdeth forth this sense When thou bringest thy gift unto the Altar and remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee leave not thy gift depart not goe not about to be reconciled to thy Brother but first offer thy gift But Simon Magus though he should remember that he was in the gall of bitternesse
the Magistrate under the New Testament because they were killed in the Old Then are we to stone the men that gathereth sticks on the Lords day the childe that is stubborn to his Parents the Virgins daughters of Ministers that committeth fornication are to be put to death Why but then the whole judiciall Law of God shall oblige us Christians as Carolosladius and others teach I humbly concieve that the putting of some to death in the Old Testament as it was a punishment to them so was it a mysterious teaching of us how God hated such and such sins and mysteries of that kinde are gone with other shadows But we read not saith Erastus where Christ hath changed those Laws in the New Testament It is true Christ hath not said in particular I abolish the debarring of the leper seven dayes and he that is thus and thus unclean shall be separated till the evening nor hath he said particularly of every carnall Ordinance and judiciall Law it is abolished But we conceive the whole bulk of the judiciall Law as judiciall and as it concerned the Republick of the Iews only is abolished though the morall equity of all those be not abolished also some punishments were meetly Symbolicall to teach the detestation of such a vice as the boaring with an Aâ—le the ear of him that loved his Master and desired still to serve him and the making of him his perpetuall servant I should think the punishing with death the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was such and in all these the punishing of a sin against the Morall Law by the Magistrate is Morall and perpetuall but the punishing of every sin against the Morall Law tali modo so and so with death with spitting on the face I much doubt if these punishments in particular and in their positive determination to the people of the Iews be morall and perpetuall As he that would marry a captive woman of another Religion is to cause her first pare her nailes and wash her self and give her a moneth or lesse time to lament the death of her Parents which was a Iudiciall not a Ceremoniall Law that this should be perpetuall because Christ in particular hath not abolished it to me seems most unjust for as Paul saith He that is Circumcised becomes debter to the whole Law sure to all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law So I Argue à pari from the like He that will keep one judciciall Law because judiciall and given by Moses becometh debter to keep the whole judiciall Law under pain of Gods eternall wrath We do not teach that men are to be Excommunicated for whatever scandalous sins deserve death at the hand of the Magistrate whether they openly repent or not if any give evident signification of their repentance for murther they are not to be Excommunicated for the end of Excommunication being once obtained which is the visible and known repentance and saving of the offenders soul the mean is not to be used which is Excommunication But if any commit murther whether he repent or repent not the Lord hath made no exception of regenerate or not regenerate of men repenting or not repenting he should die by the sword of the Magistrate Gen. 9. 9. It is true some are to be Excommunicated for the very atrocity of the sin it being parricide but that is because he giveth no positive signes of repentance to the Church which is contumacy added to his parricide Erastus would prove That God would not have men dedebarred from the Sacraments because they commit haynous sins to be punished with death by the Judge 1. Facinora saepe sunt occulta such crimes are often unknown to the world Ans That which is denied is not concluded a fault in Logick for only scandals as scandals to the Church and so known to the Church are to be censured with Excommunication Erastus He thus would prove the same often these crimes cannot be punished as David durst not punish the murther of Ioab 2 Sam. 3. Often for other causes they are neglected by the Magistrate as David neglected to punish the incest and murther of Absolon but shall we think such were not to come to the Temple and Sacraments so Psal 14. David saith There was not one that doth good those were not all punished by the Magistrate yet were they not removed from the Sacraments Ans Let Erastus argue here and we shall see his logick Those that commit parricides sorceries and do trample the holy things of God under feet whom yet the Magistrate dare not punish because of their power and greatnesse those are not to be debarred from the Sacraments But there be many scandalous persons in the Church such as Ioab whom the Magistrate dare not punish for their greatnesse Ergo Ans The Major is manifestly false and a begging of the question For Erastus saith pag. 207. He thinketh such ought not to be admitted to the Sacraments who will trample on the Sacraments and prophane them For though the Magistrate dare not punish them which is his sinfull neglect if they be dogs and swine as often they are and bloody men such as Ioab they ought not yea they never were by any Law of God admitted to the Temple and Sacraments what they did de facto or the Priests permitted is not the question It was Davids sinne that he took not away the head of bloody Ioab when he killed Abner and Amasa 2. How doth Erastus prove that David neglected to punish the incest of Absolon his sinfull neglect in not punishing his murther I yield for Absolon was never in Davids power to punish after he committed that incest possibly he neglected to punish his owne Concubines that is but a conjecture It is as like Absolon forced the Concubines to that incest as any other thing 3. For that Psal 14. There is none that doth good it is spoken of the naturall corruption of all mankind who therefore cannot be justified by the works of the Law as Paul expoundeth it Rom. 3. 9 10 11 19 20 21. and not of scandals punishable by the Magistrates and where this corruption did break out in bloods within the Church it ought to have been punished both by the Magistrate and Church so it is an argument yet a facto ad jus and a great inconsequence 4. I aske for what cause doth the Spirit of God rebuke killing of the Children to Molech and coming that same day to the Temple Because it was a sinne and particularly a prophaning of the Sanctuary which was one speciall holy thing to God Ezek. 23. 38 39. Ier. 7. 8 9 10 11. It was no sin to come to the Temple Sure it was commanded of God in his Law as Erastus yieldeth What was the sin then to come with their hands full of blood and of the unnaturall blood of their owne Children was the sinne and yet if they had repented to come after they had killed their Children was
and God inviteth them to repentance and the staying in the Church And the Sacraments are to Erastus means of repentance and this casting out must be to save them for no power is given of God to the Magistrate or Church for destruction but for edification Now to put them out of the Church that they may be saved is as Erastus conceiteth to cast a lascivious Virgin out of the company of chaste Matrâ—ns to the end she may preserve her chastity I speak here all in the language of Erastus who useth all those against casting any out of the Church by Presbyters but they stand with equall strength against his casting out of idolaters and apostates out of the Church and so do the rest of his Arguments Therefore this conclusion of Erastus is a granting us the whole cause after in six books he hath pleaded none should be Excommunicated he falleth on Bellarmines Tutissimum igitur c. when he had written six books against justification by faith Lastly why should idolaters apostates and obstinately wicked men be excluded from the dispute of Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments for he knoweth that Beza and Protestant Divines do make these the speciall though not the whole subject of the dispute Now Erastus concluding his six books doth hereby professe he hath never faithfully stated the question when he excludes those from the subjectum questionis who especially heareth not the Church and ought to be Excommunicated Thus have I given an account as I could of the wit of Erastus against the freedome of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus CHAP. XXIII Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall Discipline QUEST XIX Whether or no the Christian Magistrate be so above the Church in matters of Religion Doctrine and Discipline that the Church and her Guides Pastors and Teachers do all they do in these as subordinate to the Magistrate as his servants and by his Authority Or is the spirituall power of the Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ only VVEE know that Erastus who is Refuted by Beza Vtenbogard whom Ant Walens Learnedly Refuteth Maccovius opposed by the Universities and Divines of Holland Vedelius Answered by Gu. Apolonius and others and the Belgick Arminians in their Petition to the States and Hu. Grotins against Sibrandus Lubert Divers Episcopall Writers in England do hold That the Guides of the Church do all in their Ministery by the Authority of the Christian Magistrate I believe the contrary And 1. We exclude not the Magistrate who is a keeper of both Tables of the Law from a care of matters of Religion 2. We deny not to him a power to examine Heresies and false Doctrine 1. In order to bodily punishment with the sword 2. With a judgement not Antecedent but Subsequent to the judgement of the Church where the Church is constituted 3. With such a judgement as concerneth his practise lest he should in a blinde way and upon trust execute his office in punishing Hereticks whether they be sentenced by the Church according unto or contrary to the word of God as Papists dream 3. We deny not but the Prince may command the Pastor to Preach and the Synod and Presbytery to use the keys of Christs Kingdom according to the Rules of the Word But this is but a Civill subjection though the object be spirituall But the Question is not 1. Whether the Christian Magistrate have a care of both Tables of the Law 2. Whether he as a blinde servant is to execute the will of the Church in punishing such as they discern to be Hereticks we pray the Lord to give him eyes and wisdom in his Administration 3. Nor thirdly Whether he may use his coercive power against false Teachers that belongs to the controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience 4. The Question is not Whether the Magistrate have any power of jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience they grant that belongeth to the Preaching of the Word But the Question is touching the power in the externall Court of Censures 5. The Question is not Whether the power of exercising Discipline be from the Magistrate I mean in a free and peacable manner with freedome from violence of men we grant that power and by proportion also that exercise of Discipline is from him But whether the intrinsecall power be not immediately from Christ given to the Church this we teach as the power of saying peacably from danger of Pirats and Robbers is from the King but the Art of Navigation is not from the King But the Question is whether the Magistrate by vertue of his office as a Magistrate hath Supream power to Govern the Church and immediatly as a little Monarch under Christ above Pastors Teachers and the Church of God to Iudge and determine what is true Doctrine what Heresie to censure and remove from Church-Communion the Seals and Church-offices all scandalous persons and that if Pastors or Doctors or the Church Teach or dispense censures they do it not with any immediate subjection to Christ but in the Name and Authority of the Magistrate having power from the Magistrate as his servants and delegates To this we answer negatively denying any such power to the Magistrate and doe hold that the Church and Christs courts and Assemblies of Pastors Doctors and Elders hath this power onely and immediately from Iesus Christ without subordination in their office to King Parliament or any Magistrate on earth by these Arguments 1. Because in the Old Testament the Lord distinguished two courts Deut. 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement 10. Thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and inquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee c. There be here two Courts clearly one court of Priests and Levites that were Iudges another of the Iudge Now the King by vertue of his Kingly office might not usurpe the Priests office 1. Vzziah was smitten with Leprosie for so doing 2. It is evident in Moses his writing that Aaron and his sonnes the Priests and Levites were separated for the service of the Tabernacle to teach the people to carry the Arke to sacrifice to judge the Leper and to judge between the clean and the unclean to put out of the campe out of the congregation the unclean and to admit the clean Lev. 1. 7 9 12 c. and 5. 8. and 7. 7. and 13. 3 4 c. 23. Numb 5. 8. c. and 18. 4 5. 2 Chron. 29. 11. You hath the Lord chosen to stand before him 1 Sam. 21. 1 2. Lev. 21. 1. Iosh 3. 8. 1 Kin. 8. 3. 1 Chron. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 5. 7. and 7. 6. and 8. 14. Zeph. 3. 4. Hag. 2. 11 12. Mal. 2. 7 Deut. 10 9. and 21. 5. Num. 1.
29. Deut. 10. 8 18. Numb 1. 50. and 3. 9 12 41. and 8. 10. Psal 122. 5. In Jerusalem there were set thrones of judgement the thrones of the house of David Mat. 22. 21. Christ commanded to give to Cesar the things that are Cesars and he in his own person refused to usurpe Cesars place Luke 12. 14. Man who made me a Iudge and interdicted his Apostles thereof Luke 22 24 25 26. and yet appointed for them a Judicature of another kinde Mat. 18. 15. Mat. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 5. and if any should deny that the Civill Magistrate had another Court in which he judged the Scriptures will refute him 3. It is evident that Iehoshaphat did not institute but restore those two courts 2 Chron. 19. 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters never any Erastian could satisfie either themselves or others to shew us what were those two courts so distinguished by their two sundry Rulers Amariah and Zebadiah the one a Priest the other a Magistrate 2. By the different formall objects the matters of the Lord the matters of the King and confounded they must be if the King and Ruler be a judge in the matters of God except God make him both a civill judge and a Prophet as were Moses and Samuel which yet were differenced when the God of order established his Church in Canaan The Church convenes for a Church businesse Iosh 18. 1. to set up the Tabernacle but for a civill businesse to make war the State conveneth Iosh 22. 12. 15. 16. Iudg. 21. 12. and Ier. 26. 8. there is the Church judicature discerning that Ieremiah was a false Teacher and they first judge the cause and v. 16. The Civill Iudicature discerneth the contrary and under Zorababel Ezra and Nehemiah they indured different judicatures Iesus Christ was arraigned before Caiphas the High Priest for pretended blasphemie before Pilate the civill judge for treason but Caiphas was to determine onely by Law in questione juris whether it was blasphemie which Christ had spoken but he had no power by Gods Law to lead Witnesses or condemn Christ Nor is it true that the Priests had their government onely about Ceremonialls for they were to judge of Morall uncleannes also which even then debarred men from the holy things of God as is cleare Hag. 2. 12. Ezek. 44. 9. 10 23 24. and if any say that the Magistrate amongst the Iewes did judge of Ecclesiasticall things and reformed Religion We answer extraordinarily the Magistrate might prophecie and did prophecy as did Samuel David Solomon Why do not Erastians bring those examples to prove that Kings Provasts Iustices may now preach the Word and administer the Sacraments which yet is unlawfull to them by grant of Adversaries for the examples of the Kings amongst the Iewes is as strong for preaching as for governing and because Prophets did judge the people of old yet no Protestant Divine will say that now Pastors may also usurpe the civill Sword Now least any should object the case is not alike in the Jewish and Christian Church surely the King of the Church hath no lesse separated such men as Paul and Barnabas for the Ministery now then at that time Rom. 1. 1 2. Act. 2. And sent labourers to his vineyard Luk. 10. 2. Matth. 20. 2. 9. 37 38. And Ambassadors to Preach in his Name 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ministers of Christ and Stewarts of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. Men sent of God whose feet are pleasant for their good News as were the Prophets of old who were not only gifted to preach but instructed with Divine Authority as is clear Rom. 10. 14. 15. Isa 52. 7. 40. 9. Nahum 1. 15. Yea and men that feeds the flock not only by Preaching but also Govern the Church so that they must take heed that Ravening Wolves creep not into the Church who shall not spare the flock Act. 20. 28. 29. Men who must be obeyed because they watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. And can govern the Church as well as they are apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 5. 2. Men that labour amongst us and are over us in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. And men who are to call to the work other faithfull men that are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Such as are separated from the affairs of this life such as Magistrates are not 1 Cor. 6. 3. such as Rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. and are not to receive accusations but under witnesses and are to lay hands suddenly on no man not to call them to the holy Ministery till they be sufficiently tryed 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 22. all which import teaching and governing Now if all these directions be given to Timothy and other Pastors till the end of the world then must all these directions be principally written to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and these Epistles to Timothy agree principally to the Christian Magistrate and to Pastors and Doctors at the by as they be delegates and substitutes of the Magistrates and that by office the Emperour of Rome was to lay hands suddenly on no man and commit the Gospel to faithfull men who could teach others and was not to receive an accusation against an Elder and certainly if the Magistrate call to office those that are over us in the Lord and if those who watch for our soules especially be but the curates and delegates of the King and Parliament then the King and Parliament behoved in a more eminent manner to watch for our souls for directions and commandments of God in this kinde are more principally given to the Master Lord and chief Governour of the house of God if the Magistrate be such then to the servants delegates But where is there any such directions given to the Emperour King or Christian Magistrate by any shadow of ground in the Word It is not much to say The Magistrate was an heathen an enemy at this time and therefore those could not be written to him For 1. No force can strain these two Epistles to Timothy and the other to Titus which contain a form of Church-policy to any Christian Magistrate for then the qualification of the King if he be the supream Governour of the Church should far rather have been expressed then the qualification of a Bishop and a Deacon which is no where hinted at 2. All these directions notwithstanding this do and must actu primo agree to the Magâ—strate for his office who is chief governour what he should be is described in the Word 3. When Christ ascended on high he gave as a fruit of his ascension sufficient means for his intended end The perfecting of the Saints the gathering of his Body the Church and the edifying thereof even
till we all meet in the Vnity of the Spirit and the knowledge of the son of God unto a perfect man Eph. 4. Now neither in that place nor in any other place did Christ give a Magistrate for the edifying his Body the Church but only those that are but his Delegates Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers iâ— the Magistrate be the only Governour of the Church and he who sendeth into the Vineyard those who edifie the Body the King should have been first in this Role as the only supream gatherer edifier and builder of the Church It cannot be said The Ruling Elder then because he is omitted here should not be the gift of Christ given to Edifiâ— the Church and by this it must be denied that the King the Nurse father of the Church who is to take care that the Children be fed with the sincere milk of the Word is given of God to edfâ—ie the Church because he is not nameâ— here Ans Our Divines as Calvin Beza Marlorate do strongly gather from this place that because the Pope pretended to be the Catholick edifier of the Church is not here in this Text nor in any other scripture that therefore he is not the head of the Church and the King being pretended to be the only eminent gatherer of the Church and Supream Governour in all Causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall he should especially have been set down here he being a mixed person and more then half a Church-officer in the minde of the Adversary And there was no colour of reason why the supream and only Head and principall Governour of the Church should be omitted at least the Magistrate should be in some other Scripture as the only Church Governor seeing the Adversaries make Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons only the Delegates and Servants of the Magistrate 1. As God calleth the King to governe the people by the free election of the people so if the Magistrate be called of God to teach and govern the Church this calling of his should be in the Scripture as his calling to the Throne or Bench is Deut. 17. 14. 15 c. 1. 15 16. Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1 2. But in neither the Old nor the New Testament finde we any Prince or Ruler separated for the holy things of God to be ` Priest Apostle Pastor Prophet Teacher by vertue of his office as if he were a mixed person as the Adversarie say No David is called to Sacrifice no Constantine to preach and Administrate the Sacraments by vertue of the Magistrates place 2. If any Reply that the Christian Magistrate is a means ordained for that spirituall end the gathering and edifying the Church in regard the keepeth not only the second Table of the Law and so promoteth not only the Temporall good of the State in promoting mercy and Justice only but also in procuring spirituall good to the people in preserving the first Table of the Law I Answer That the Christian Magistrate doth both but 1. Not directly by being the intrinsecall means in actibus elicitis in elicite and intrinsecall acts promoting edification in both Tables of the Law of which the Scripture speaketh Eph. 4 11. but a far other way 1. In imperated and commanded acts extrinsecally as he doth command with the sword for Peaces cause in all callingâ— in sailing trading painting c. promoting it by carnall means by the sword which belongeth not to the officers of Christs Kingdom 2. Not necessarily as the Pastors and Elders without which Christ hath no externall visible Kingdom on earth whereas he hath had often hath a compleat flourishing externall visible Kingdom without Magistrates yea where Magistrates have been open enemies to the Gospel 3. Not directly the Magistrate doth this but in so far as he admitteth as Triglandius saith the Church of Christ within his State which he may and often doth refuse to do and yet be a compleat Magistrate and therefore the Magistrate may two wayes procure the spirituall good of the Church 1. By procuring that the Nurses give good and wholesome milk to the Church 2. Permodum removent is prohibens which is also a cause for he may save the flock from great temptations when by his sword he driveth away the Wolves from the flock But not any of these bringeth the Magistrate within the lisâ— of the number of these intrinsecall 2. Necessary 3. Spirituall gifts which Christ ascending on high gave for the Edifying of his Body the Church Two powers so different as spirituall and temporall 2. As powers carnall of this world and spirituall not of this world And 3. Both immediatly subject the one to God the creator the other to Christ the Redeemer and Head of the Church and so co-ordinate and supream both of them in their own kinde cannot be so subordinate as the temporall should be the supream in the same kinde the spirituall the inferiour and subordinate But these two powers are so different as spirituall and temporall carnall of this world spirituall not of this world the one subject as supream immediatly to God creator the other supream immediately subject to God the redeemer Ergo Those powers of Governing are not so subordinate as the Temporall should be supream the spirituall subordinate to it The Major is undeniable for it involveth a contradiction that two supreame co-ordinate powers should be two not Supreame but subornidate powers The same way I prove the Assumption 1. The Magistrates power is supreame from God Rom. 13. 1. The Powers that are be of God Prov. 8. By me Kings reigne for no Ecclesiasticall power nor any power on earth interveenes between God the Creator and the power of the civill Magistrates But God who giveth being to a society of men hoc ipso because they are a society of reasonable men hath given to them a power immediately from himselfe to designe such and such to be their Rulers Shew us any higher power above the Magistrates but God the creator making the civill power Never man dreamt that the Spirituall power of the Church doth interveen as an instrumentall cause of the politick power 2. By order of nature a politick power is first men are first men in naturall and politick society ere they be in a supernaturall pollicy or a Church and Christ did not make a spirituall power by the intervention of a civill power 2. The power of the two Kingdoms are distinguished by Christ Iohn 18. 36. Iesus answered my Kingdome is not of this World then the power thereof is not of this World if my Kingdome were of this World then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iewes The one power is coactive by the Sword the other free voluntary by the Word Erastus had no reason to infer thence that Christs Kingdome is onely internall and invisible not externall and visible because Christ opposeth his Kingdom to a fighting Kingdom using the sword to defend him from
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian
or State a power to unjustice ad malum nâ—â—la est potestas Obj. 14. How can the Magistrate determine what the true Church and ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword and how can he give judgement of a â—alse Church false Ministery false Doctrine and false Ordinances and so pull them down by the sword and yet you say the Magistrate is to give no spirituall judgement of these nor hath he any spirituall power for these ends and purposes Bloody Tenent Ans The Magistrate judges of these as a Magistrate not in a Pastorall way or Ecclesiastically for then by office he should be a preacher of the Gospel but civilly as they are agreeable or contrary to the Laws of the Common-wealth made concerning Religion and in order to the civill praise and reward of stipends wages or benefices or to the bodily punishment inflicted by the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. So though the object be spirituall yet the judging is civill and the Magistrates power in setting up true or pulling downe false ordinances is objectively spirituall or civilly good or ill to speak so against the duty or agreeable to that which men owe as they are members of a civill incorporation a City or Common-wealth But the same power of the Magistrate is formally essentially in it selfe civill and of this world CHAP. XXVI Quest 22. Whether appeals are to be made from the Assemblies of the Church to the civill Magistrate King or Parliament and of Paul his appeal to Cesar FOr the clearer explanation of the question its possible these considerations may help to give light 1. There be these opinions touching the point Some exclude the Magistrate from all care of Church-discipline â— As Iesuits and Papists will have Princes not to examine what the Church the Pope and the cursed Clergy of Rome decrees in their Synods To these the Sorbonists of Paris oppose and the Parliament of France cause to be burnt by the hand of the hangman any writings of Iesuits that diminisheth the just right of the Magistrate 2. Those who in the Low-countries did remonstrate under the name of Arminians as they are called hold that the Magistrate ought to tollerate all Religions even Turcisme and Iudaisme not excepted because the conscience of man cannot be compelled Some of them were Socinians as Henry Slatius who saith right downe he that useth the sword or seeketh a Magistracy is not a Christian yea war is against the command of Iesus Christ or in any tearms to kill any saith Henry Welsingius Episcopius their chief man will have the Magistrate going no further then reall or bodily mulcts or fines Ioan. Geisteranus pronounceth it unlawfull to be a Magistrate to use the sword But all say the Magistrate ought not to use the sword against Hereticks Blasphemers Idolaters or against any man for his conscience or Religion 3. Those that think the Magistrate bear the sword lawfully yet do confine him to the defence of the halfe of Gods Law the duties of the second Table and not to these all but to such as border not directly on conscience for if some should sacrifice their children to Molech and Devils as some do the Magistrate were not to punish them it being a joynt of their Religion and a matter of conscience and all these will be found to give to the Magistrate as the Magistrate just as little as Iesuits do in the matters of Religion and that is right downe nothing except possibly the Magistrate be of their Religion only whom he Governs only as a Christian man the Magistrate hath more with these then with Papists 4. Erastus giveth all in Doctrine and Discipline both in power and exercise to the Magistrate even to the dispensing of Word and Sacraments 5. Others forsaking Erastus in a little But following him in the main deny power of order 2. Power of internall jurisdiction granteth to him all the externall government of the Church 6. We hold that the Magistrate keeps both Tables of the Law and that he hath an inspection in a civill coactive way in preserving both Tables of the Law but that he is not as a Magistrate a member of the Church but as a Christian only 2. The exercise of Discipline is one thing and the exercise of it as the modus the way of exercising of it either in relation to Ecclesiasticall constitutions or in relation to the politick and civill Laws of a Common-wealth is a far other thing 3. As the Church is to approve and commend the just sentence of the civill judge in punishing ill doers but only conditionally in so far as it is just so is the magistrate obliged to follow ratifie and with his civil sanction to confirme the sound constitutions of the Church But conditionally not absolutely and blindely but in so far as they agree with the Word of God 4. Hence there is a wronging of the Church as the Church and a civill wronging of the Magistrate as the Magistrate or of the members of the Church as such or of the members of the Common-wealth as such the former and the latter both cannot belong to one judicature No more then the failing of a Painter against the precepts of Art because he hath drawn the colours proportion and the countenance beside the samplar and the failing not against Art but against the Lawes of the King in that he hath lavished out too much gold in the drawing of the image doth belong to one judgement for the Painter as a Painter according to the Law of Art must judge of the former and the Magistrate as a Magistrate of the latter 5. An appellation is one thing and the complaint of an oppressed man is another thing or a provocation to a competent judge is one thing and the refugium the refuge and fleeing of an oppressed man to a higher power is another thing if the Church erre and fail against the Law of Christ in the matter and decree the man to be a heretick who is none and that to be heresie which is truth the oppressâ—d man in a constituted Church may have his refuge to the godly Magistrate and complain but he cannot appeal for an appellation is from an erring judge to an higher judge in eadem sâ—rie in the same nature and kinde of judicatures as from a civill Court to a higher civill Court and from an Ecclesiasticall Court to a higher as suppose the Church of Antioch judge that the Gentiles must be circumcised the godly there may appeal to the judgement of Apostles and Elders in a Councell conveened from Antioch and Ierusalem both and therefore because the Magistrate can no more judge what is heresie what truth as a Magistrate then he can dispense Word and Sacraments an appeal cannot be made to him who is no more a judge ex officio nor he can dispense the Sacraments ex officio but a complaint may be made to the Magistrate if the Church
to the Iewes if it were a matter of wrong and wicked lewdnes O yee Iewes reason were that I should bear with you 15. But if it be a question of words and names and of your Law looke yee to it for I will be no judge of such matters Ergo to the Romans all the blasphemies of the Iewish law was not a matter of wicked lewdnesse nor of death Now the story is clear they were seeking Pauls life and for names and words the Iewes should not reach Paul nor move the Romans to put to death a Roman except they could prove sedition or treason against him and Acts 25. Festus saith to Agrippa That the Priests and Elders desired to have judgement against Paul 18. But against him they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed 19. But had certain questions against him of their owne Superstition and of one Iesus who was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive Here it is clear all are but words nothing worthy of death which the Iewes chiefly intended therefore they accuse him of treason as we may collect from Pauls Apologie Acts 25. 8. Neither against the Law of the Iewes neither against the Temple nor yet against Cesar have I offended any thing at all Therefore Act. 24. Tertullus a witty man burdeneth Paul with that which might cost him his head v. 5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition amongst all the Iewes throughout all the world see Acts 21. 38. of all which though blasphemy according to the Iewish Law was something yet sedition to the Romans who only now had power of Pauls life was all and some and when the Deputies counted so little of Religion the Iews knew sedition and treason against Cesar behooved to do the turn and Paul seeing they pursued him for his life appealed to Cesar to be judged in that Now except the adversaries prove that Paul referred the resurrection of Iesus and of the dead and his preaching Christ and the abolishing of sacrifices the Temple the Ceremoniall Law to be judicially determined by Nero as by the head of the Church they prove nothing against us Hence their chiefe argument is soone answered in what cause Paul was accused of the Iews in that he appealed to Cesar But he was accused not for his sedition but for his Doctrine Act. 26. 18. Ergo Paul appealed to Cesar in the cause of Doctrine not of sedition For 1. The Major is dubious for in what cause he was accused of his head which was the intent of the Iews in that he appealed true but in what cause he was accused in all and every Article of the points of his accusation and challenge I deny that for as touching doctrinals and his being judged by a lawfull Church and rightly constituted he appealed neither from the Sanedrim nor from Festus but declined Festus nor in these did he appeal to Cesar he only appealed in all cases which might concern his head and blood 2. The assumption is false for he was accused of sedition as is evident from Act. 25. 8. and 24. 5. 3. Though the Priests and Elders were most corrupt men yet that they believed that Cesar or bloody Nero his lips should preserve knowledge and that the Law should be sought from the mouth of Nero as the head of the Church can never be proved which must be proved to justifie Pauls appeal in the tearms of the adversary Obj. But may not Nero accuse Paul that he dare preach his Iesus Christ in the Emperours dominions Ans If his dominions be the Christian Churches conquered by his sword he may accuse as he conquered that is he may oppresse the consciences of men in accusing as he oppressed them in their bodies and liberties in the conquering of them But he may not as a conquerour accuse them for their conscience he may if he conquer those that worship Sathan cause instruct them in all meeknesse and lenity But this he doth by the sword as a Christian ruler to inlarge the dominions of Christ for when â—â— conquereth their bodies it is not to be thought that he conquereth their souls or acquireth any new dominion over their consâ—iâ—nces But though he do as a Magistrate command them to be instructed I doubt if he have a negative voice in imposing any Religion that he will though they be heathens though some learned Divines say be have a definitive voice in setting up what Religion he will or tollerating it I conceive though he have a definitive voyce in erecting the only true Religion in his heathenish dominions when there be no Ministers of the Gospel there yet not for any false Religions that being of perpetuall truth God never gave authority or power of the sword to do ill ad malum non est potestas what other things Videlius and Vtenbogard have on the contrary are answered Hence we ask 1. If the intrinsecall end of judging and censuring Ecclesiastically be not the inlightning of the mind the gaining of souls and if Nero or Christian or Heathen Magistrates be appointed for that spirituall end 2. If Paul aymed to refer the judging of the Gospel to Nero 3. If Paul knowing the Sanedrim sought his blood not the gaining of his soul might not appeal to the Magistrate to save his life 4. If it was not the Law of natures dictate in Paul so to do and not any positive constitution of the Magistrates Headship over the Church and Gospel 5. If the Ecclesiasticall judicature will swell without its sphere of activity to dispose of the life and blood of the Saints if then the state of the question be not changed and if then it be not lawfull to appeal and decline and provoke to the civill Magistrate 4. Moreover Paul appealed not to Cesar in ordine ad censuram auâ— penâ—m Ecclesiasticam in order to a Church censure as if he thought Cesar should principally excommunicate and cast him out of the â—ynagogue or judge him in an Ecclesiasticall way whether he had done or preached against the Temple and Law of Moses or not which must be proved if the adversaries will prove a proper appeal from the Church to the Prince which is now our question All this which is our mind is well explained by our Countryman Ioh. Camero prelectio in Mat. 18. 15. p. 151. Christiani principes sunt precipui in Ecclesia in sensu diviso sunt precipui et sunt in Ecclesia non in sensu conjuncto non sunt precâ—pui Ecclesiastici Non enim obtinent principes directe authoritatem Ecclesiasticam sed indirectè non quod velimus ulla in causa ullum eximi jurisdictione principis sed quia ejus jurisdictio non nisi per media Ecclesiastica pertinet ad conscientiam nempe princeps non predicat Evangelium non ligat et solvit peceatores at de officio principis est dare operam ut sint qui predicent Evangelium ut sint qui ligent
c. 12. Zozomen l. 7. e. 8. Theodoretus l. 5. c. 9. Historia tripartit l. 9. c. 14. say that the Emperor ordained him the Synod named him the truth is the Bishops were devided in judgement and its like they referred the matter to the godly Emperour In the mean time Athanasius Epist de solit vita Ambros l. 5. orat ad auxentium and l. 5. Epist 32. ad valentinianum Zozomen l. 6. c. 7. Concilium Toletanum III. Concilium milevitanum and divers others which I have cited elsewhere make the Emperor a Son of the Church not a Head and Lord intra Ecclesiam filium Ecclesiae non judicem non dominum supra Ecclesiam I might adde Augustin Epist 48. 50. 162. l. 1. de doctr Christ c. 18. Cyril Alexandrinus in an Epistle to the Synod of Antioch all Protestant Divines of note and learning CHAP. XXVII Quest 23. Whether the subjecting of the Magistrates to the Church and Pastors be any papal Tyranny and whether we differ not more from Papists in this then our adversaries The Magistrate not the Vicar of the mediator Christ The Testimonies of some learned Divines on the contrary answered IT is most unjustly imputed to us that we lay a Law upon the conscience of the Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church not inquiring into the Nature of the thing This Doctrine we disclaim as Popish and Antichristian It hath its rise from Bonifacius the III. who obtained from Phocas a bloody tyrant who murthered Mauritius and his Children as Baronius confesseth and yet he saith of this murtherer optimortum imperatorum vestigia sequutus he made an Edict that the Bishop of Constantinople should not be called Oecumenick nor universall Bishop but that this should be given only to the Bishop of Rome So Baronius yieldeth this tyranny was inlarged by Hildebrande named Gregorius the seventh a monster of tyrannicall wickednesse and yet by Papists he is sanctitate et miraculis clarus Baronius extolleth him these and others invaded both the swords Bishops would be civill judges and trample first upon the neck then upon the consciences of Emperors and make Kings the hornes of the beast and seclude them from all Church businesses except that with blind obedience having given their power to the beast as slaves they must execute the decrees of the Church Paul the III. the confirmer of the order of Iesuits who indicted the Councell of Trent as Onuphrius saith up braideth Charles the V. for meddling with Church businesse They write that Magistrates do not see in Church matters with their owne eyes but with Bishops eyes and that they must obey without examining the decrees of Councels and this they write of all subject to the Church Toletus in Instruct Sacerdâ—t l. 4. c. 3. Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum morâ—tur in credendo licet sit error Card. Cusanus excit l. 6. sermon obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino Ib. sententia pastoris ligat te pro tua salute etiam si injusta fuerit Envy cannot ascribe this to us Calvin Beza yea all our writers condemne blind obedience as brutish But our Adversaries in this are more Popish for they substitute King and Parliament in a headship over the Church giving to the King all the same power in causes Ecclesiastick that the Pope usurped 2. They make the King a mixed person to exercise spirituall jurisdiction to ordaine Bishops and deprive them and Mr. Prinne calleth the opinion of those who deny Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction legislative a high word proper to God only coercive power of Christian Emperors Kings Magistrates Parliaments in all matters of Religion what in fundamentall Articles of salvation Church-government Discipline Ceremonies c. Anti-monarchicall Anti-parliamentarie Anarchicall as holden by Papists Prelates Anabaptists Arminians Socinians c. It s that which Arminians objects to us and calleth the soul heart and forme of papall tyranny But that the Magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination whither they be right or wrong as Papists teach that the Magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience and submit his faith to them because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church doth erre or not is clear 1. Because if in hearing the word all should follow the example of the men of Berea not relying on the Testimony of Paul or any preacher try whether thâ—â— which concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no and accordingly receive or reject so in all things of Discipline the Magistrate is to try by the word whether he ought to adde his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick and a perverter of souls But the former is true the Magistrates practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing herericks concerneth his conscience knowing that he must do it in faith as he doth all his moral actions Ergo the Magistrate must examine what he practiseth in his office according to the word and must not take it upon the meer authority of the Church else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimaté on the authority of the Church not on the word of God which no doubt is Popery for so the warrant of the Magistrates conscience should not be Thus saith the Lord but Thus saith the Church in their decrees 2. The Magistrate and all men have a command to try all things Ergo to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good 1 Thes 5. 21. To try the spirits even of the Church in their decrees 1 Joh. 3. 1. 3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground that 1. The Church cannot erre in their decrees 2. It s against Scripture and reason that Magistrates and by the like reason all others should obey the decrees of the Church with a blinde faith without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees which is as good Popery as Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the Church beleeveth with an implicite faith so ignorance shall be the mother of Devotion who ever impute this to us who have suffered for non-conformity and upon this ground that Synods can erre refused the Ceremonies are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyall odious to Magistracy in that which we never thought â—ar lesse to teach and professe it to the world 4. Their chiefe reason is the Magistrate by our doctrine by his office is obliged 1. To follow the judgement of the Church and in that he is a servant or inslaved Qui enim
and people which is the highest Papall Tyranny on earth Obj. 3. If the Magistrate be therefore subject to the Church not as a Magistrate but as he scandalously transgresseth the Law of God so that the Church may not rebuke and censure him as either a Magistrate or as a Magistrate doing his duty but onely as a Transgressor Then neither 1. one particular Pastor as a Pastor is subject to the Church yea no man in a lawfull calling or relation as such is subject to the Church for the Church cannot rebuke or censure a Husband as a Husband a father as a father a Painter as a Painter no more then the Church can censure a Magistrate as a Magistrate for then should the Church censure and condemn all these relations and callings as husband father painter Magistrate as intrinsecally unlawfull Nor can the Church censure and rebuke husband father painter musitian c. when they do right and doe but fulfill their relations and callings in doing the duties of husband father painter no more then the Church can censure and rebuke the Magistrate when he doth his dutie Ans 1. This is not the totall compleat and adequate cause why the Magistrate in spirituall things is subject to the Church but the halfe of the cause onely you must take in the other consideration he is in spiritualibus subject to the Church not only as he doth sin but 1. As he may sin scandalously 2. As he may be directed informed and swayed with precepts promises counsels threatnings toward a supernaturall end to eternall life take in all these three and we grant all The Magistrate and all in other relations and professions and callings are equally in spirituall things subject to the Church as the Ministers of Christ and in all other relations and callings as fathers husbands painters musitians are in civill things equally subject to the Magistrate according to the three former cases in a civill consideration Obj. 4. But then you must prove solidly from the word that the Magistrate is subject to the Church in spirituall things Ans It is enough if I prove that the Magistrate is subject to the Church to Pastors and Doctors in things belonging to his soule and as a man and a Christian in civill things are subject to him which to me is clear in the Word of God as 1. Because Timothy and all watchmen in their person are commanded to rebuke them that sin before all and that in the sight of God and the Lord Iesus and the elect Angels without preferring one before another or doing any thing by partialitie 1 Tim. 5. 20 21. 2 Tim. 4. 2. And if Levi must not know his father or his mother in the Lords cause Deut. 33. 9. and Ieremiah in rebuking not be dismayed of Kings Princes and Prophets Ier. 1. 17. neither must Ministers accept the persons of judges Christ rebuked his mother to whom otherwise he was subject Ioh. 2. 4. Luke 2. 51. 2. There is the practise of the Prophets Christ and the Apostles that they have rebuked Kings Rulers Magistrates Priests Prophets every page almost of the Old and New Testament saith this 3. God hath no whit exempted the Rulers from rebukes as they be men they can and do sin 4. Princes are the sheep of Christ and redeemed as a part of the flock for the which Christ gave the blood of God Ergo they are to be fed and watched over lest they also as grievous wolves prey upon the flock Acts 20. 28 29 30. then there must be some over them and those who should speake the word of the Lord to them and so the word of rebuke and who should watch for the souls of Magistrates as those who must give an account whom the Magistrates must obey as others in the same condition who have souls Heb. 13. 7 17. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. 1 Thes 5. 12 13 14. 5. All the censures of the Church are for the good of soules that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. 1 Cor. 5. 5 6. and for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. Iude v. 23. Ergo the souls of Magistrates should not be defrauded of this mean of edification 6. Pastors as Ministers Stewards Ambassadors Watchmen are intrusted with the word of reconciliation 1 Cor. 4. 1 2. and 1 Cor. 3. 5. and 4. 15. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2 Cor. 4 7. Ergo they must divide the Word aright to all within the family 2 Tim. 2. 15. and rebukes and censures are a part of the word of reconciliation no lesse then promises and they are to prophecy death and life as God in his word commandeth Ezek. 3. 17 18 19 20. and 13. 19. and 33. 7 8 9. 10. 7. The power of the Lord Jesus in censuring is extended to men as â—ll doers not as Magistrates or not Magistrates 1 Cor. 5. 2. Gal. 5. 10. the power of binding and loosing is extended to a trespassing brother who will not hear the Church Mat. 18. 15 16. and 16. 19 20. The Magistrate is a brother Deut. 17. 15. one of the Israel of God as Saul was of of the Tribe of Benjamin David of Iudah 8. The Church may judge such as are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. but such is the Christian Magistrate 9. Correction is a priviledge of sons and Members of the family Heb. 12. 6 7. Rev. 3. 19. Ergo the Magistrate should not be deprived of that wherein all Christians share Gal. 2. 28. 10. Discipline is a part of Christs Kingly government if the government be on Christs shoulders as King as it is Mat. 28. 19 20. Ephes 4. 11 12. Esa 22. 22. and if the Gospel be the Word and Scepter of his Kingdome Mark 1. 14 15. and 4. 11. Matth. 21 43. Luke 4. 43. and 8. 1. Acts 1. 3. and 8. 12. and 20. 25. and 28. 31. Psal 45. 3. Rev. 1. 16. Then if Magistrates be the subjects of Christ as King of the Church they must be subject to those who preach the Kingdome carry the Scepter and rule under Christ as King 11. Upon the same ground if they decree grievous decrees Isa 10. 1. Micah 3. 1. and be wolves ravening the prey Ezek. 22. 27. let them have either Royall or Parliamentary power they are to be rebuked debarred from the holy things of God excommunicated and their sins bound in earth as in heaven Mat. 18 18. Mat. 16. 19. Nor should Courts or Parliaments or Thrones be cities of refuge to unjust and scandalous men 12. Upon the same ground Magistrates are not to be deprived of the good of private rebukes and admonitions except we hate the Magistrate in our heart and strive not to gain his soul Levit. 19. 17. Mat. 18. 15 16. Luk. 17. 3 4. Psal 141. 5. 13. Erastus himself granteth that Magistrates may be rebuked and when he granteth that Apostates and Idolaters are not
members of the Church and that they are to be cast out of the Church as he doth also he must either grant that Christian Magistrates cannot turn Apostates and Idolaters which is against Scripture and experience or that if they turn Apostates and Idolaters they remain no longer members of the Church but are to be excommunicated or then Christ must have made some speciall exception that Kings though Idolaters and Apostates do yet remain members of the Church and are not to be cast out of the Church which beside that Erastus cannot shew is contradictory to his words Hence it is clear the Magistrate if he turn as Saul did a wicked man he is to be excommunicated But 1. By whom by the Church Erastus will deny he can be judged by the Church because he is above the Church by himselfe that is against reason By other Magistrates he is the only supream in that Church and by what reason he is above the Church he is above the other Magistrates and other Magistrates are guilty of the same fault Obj. 5. The supream and principall power called Architectonica of governing the Church in externals either agree to the Magistrate or to the Church not to the Magistrate as they say if to the Church Then 1. The universall care and inspection over the Church is taken from the Magistrate and given to the Church Ergo 2. Then the Christian Magistrate not indirectly only but directly must be obliged to follow the judgement of the Church in ordaining depriving punishing of Ministers or of any excommunicated 3. The subjects must be obliged not to obey yea to disobey the Magistrate if he decern any thing contrary to the Church and the Magistrate as a lictor and servant must execute all Ans 1. There is no reason to say that the supream and principall power by way of royall dominion as the argument supposeth in Church matters should agree to either Magistrate on earth or Church it is a Rose of the Crown of him who is the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords and so the Major is false Nor is that care and inspection which is due to the Magistrate taken from him when we ascribe to Christ what is his due 2. Neither doth it follow that the Magistrate is directly obliged to follow the judgement of the Church except we did make the judgement of the Church supream and absolute and armed with such a dominion as the adversaries give to the Magistrate in which case it followeth that the Church is directly and absolutely obliged to follow the judgement of the Magistrate according to the way of the adversaries and that if this argument be good they must ascribe blind obedience either to the Church or Magistrate not to the Magistrate they say Ergo to the Church Nor can they take it off by saying that the Magistrates dominon is limited by the Word of God for they know that we teach that all the constitutions and decrees of Synods made by the Church as the Church is limited by the Word of God yet they cease not to object to us that we make the Magistrate a servant and a lictor to the Church and obliged by his place to give blind obedience to the Church and therefore they are obliged to answer the argument and remove papal dominion from their way according to their owne argument if they will be willing to take in to themselves with the same measure that they give out to others But if they give a ministeriall power of judging to the Church the argument is easily answered which they cannot give to the Magistrate except they make his office to oblige the conscience and his commands as magistraticall to be given out under the pain of the second death Now his sword is too short to reach to this I hope except you make the vengence that he executeth on evil doers Rom. 13. to be eternall fire and his sword to be no materiall nor visible sword but such as commandeth Devils and Hell which is absurd for the Magistrates power of judging and commanding is commensurable to his power of rewarding and punishing that is both is temporary within time on the body of this world The Pastors have a power of commanding though only ministeriall but free of all domination or externall coaction which is spirituall and the punishment is accordingly spirituall a binding in earth and heaven I borrow only the word of punishment it being no such thing properly Obj. 6. If the end of the Church be a spirituall and of the Magistrate be a temporall good and if the Magistrate have no spirituall power to attain to his temporall end no more then the Church hath any temporall power to attain to her spirituall end is not this a contradiction that the Magistrate should determine what the true Church and Ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword for the Magistrates power to judge and punish in spirituall causes must be either spirituall or civill or then he hath none and so acts without commission Now for civill power the Magistrate hath it only over the bodies and goods of men and hath it not over the soul nor can he have it say â— in soul cases It is confessed that the Magistrate hath no spirituall power to attain a temporall end and therefore those who provoke the Magistrate without either civill or spirituall power to punish or prosecute in spirituall causes are to fear that they come too near to those frogs that proceed out of the mouth of the Dragon and Beast and false Prophet who with the same argument stirre up the Kings of the earth to make war against the Lambe and his followers Rev. 17. Bloody Tenent Answ 1. All this argument is builded on a great mistake and a conseqence never proved except by this one word of the Author Therefore say I and it is this The Magistrate hath no civill power over the soul therefore say I he hath no power in soul matters and cannot judge and punish in spirituall causes Sir this is a non sequitur The learned Divine Rivetus saith well The Magistrates power in spirituall things to judge and punish is formaliter and in it self and intrinsecally civill but objective in regard of the object and extrinsecally it is spirituall 1. I ask when the Author and his take a professor into Church-communion they judge whether he be just mercifull and peaceable when they excommunicate any member for murther for unjustice in taking away the goods of his brother whether the Church doth judge and punish in the causes of justice mercy and peace which properly belongeth to the civill Magistrate not to the Church properly but only ratione scandali as they are offensive in the Church of God I ask I say if the Churches power in judging and punishing be civill or spirituall not civill for this Author will say that the Church hath no power over the lives and goods
of men those belong to the Magistrate and to his civill power Yet he cannot deny but the Churches power in judging and punishing here is formally spirituall and objectively and unproperly civill so say I the Mgaistrates power in spirituall causes is formally civill and objectivelâ— only spirituall and he neither hath nor needeth any spirituall power formally to attain his temporall end nor needeth the Church any power formally civill to attain her spirituall end The reason is because powers have their specification and nature from their formall object not from the materiall because the Magistrate punisheth hereâ—ies and false Doctrine as they disturbe the Peace of the civill State therefore his power is civill and because the Church censureth unjustice incest 1 Cor. 5 1 2. and sins against the second Table because they are scandalous in the Church and maketh the name of God to be ill spoken of though materially those sins be punishable by the Magistrate yet is the Churches power spirituall because it judgeth those as scandalous and offensive to God and therefore the power is spirituall because the object to wit as scandalous to the Church and as offensive to God is spirituall even as destructive to civill Peace is formally a civill object 2. The Magistrate without any spirituall power judges what is the true Church and true ordinances setteth them up by his sword he doth set them up only for a civill end because they conduce most for the peace and flourishing condition of the civill state whereof he is head not that the members of his state may attain life eternall for the Magistrate intendeth life eternall to his subjects in setting up a true Church and true Ordinances not as a Magistrate but as a godly man As the woman of Samaria brought out the Samaritanes that they might receive Christ in their heart by saith as she had done But as a Magistrate he intendeth not life eternall to his subjects so a Master as a Master hireth a man to serve who is a believer and as a Master he judgeth such a one will be most faithfull and active in his service now the Master judgeth him not to be a Saint that he may be a fit member of the Church The Church only as the Church is to judge so of this servant nor doth he judge him a believer that he may obtain life eternall nor doth he love and chuse him as his servant that he may obtain life eternall Christians as Christians judge and love one another that way So the Husband as a Husband doth chuse a believing woman for his Wife judging she will perform the duties of a Wife better then an unbelieving Wife he judgeth her to be a believer as a Husband and loveth her with a Husband-love as a Husband but if he love her because the image of God is in her and as an heir of life eternall then he loveth her as a Christian man not as a Husband and it is a Christian love he hath to her such as he hath to other godly women that are also co heirs with himself of life eternall and this is a lawfull and a Christian love But if this Husband should bear a Husband-love such as he doth to his own Wife to all other godly Wives it should be an adulterous and unlawfull love So the Magistrate as a Magistrate judges loves chuses and setteth up true Ordinances a true Church as means of a flourishing Kingdom and of externall Peace and pulleth down the contrary as means destructive to the peace and safety of his subjects But he judgeth not in a spirituall manner and with any spirituall power of the sword of those as fitting and conducing to life eternall and inward peace of conscience with God but as a justified and believing Saint he judgeth chuseth and loveth Ordinances and the true Church in this consideration and no wise as a Magistrate If those Relations of Magistrate and Christian had been considered by the Author he had not compared the Magistrate punishing idolatry to the Dragon and the godly Pastors who exhort the Magistrate to punish false teachers to the Beast and the false Prophet who maketh war with the Lambe For the godly magistrate who advanceth the throne of the Lambe is praise worthy he doth cut off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord Psal 101. 8. and doth this as a Magistrate that his Kingdome might have peace and well grounded prosperity but as a man according to Gods heart he doth it formally set on high the throne of the Lambe nor would he have compared those worthy and dear brethren of New England the Saints of the most high especially reverend Master Cotton to the frogs that proceeded out of the mouth of the false Prophet Rev. 17. 3. Nor do the Papists use this argument at all but another argument and for a contrary conclusion for the Pope as the Pope is an earthly Monarch and as Pope hath power to translate Crowns and Kingdoms and as Pope the Holy Ghost in him commandeth the Kings of the Earth to make war with the Lambe and his followers as Papists teach do we ascribe any such power be the Church or Churchmen are Malignants Prelates and Papists the followers of the Lambe Obj. 7. If the people may erect what government they will and seems most fit for their civill condition then governments by them so erected have no more power nor for no longer time then the civill power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with for people are not deprived of their naturall freedom by the power of tyrants And if so that Magistrates receive their power of governing the Church from the people Then a people as a people naturally considered of what Nature or Nation soever in Europe Asia Africa America have fundamentally and originally as men a power to govern the Church to see her do her duty to correct her to redresse to reform to establish c. And this is to subject God Christ heaven the spirit to naturall sinfull and unconstant men Indian and American governments are as true and lawfull governments as in the world and therefore their governours are keepers of the Church and of both Tables if any Church should arise or be amongst them and therefore if Christ have betrusted the civill power with his Church they must judge according to their Indian and American consciences for others they have not Ans 1. No doubt the power that makes Magistrates because of vertue and dexterity to govern may unmake them when they turn tyrants and abuse their power and upon the same ground as men create Magistrates so Christian men as Christian men act to chuse Christian and gracious Magistrates as if a Husband as a man chuse a Wife as grace perfumeth and spiritualizeth all the common actions of men so Christian men are to chuse Christian Wives Christian Masters Christian servants so is a Church to chuse a Christian not an American Magistrate
humane societies but as offensive to God scandalous to the Church and destructive to the souls of those who commit such offences All the punishment Ecclesiasticall which we plead for though we borrow only the name it being unproperly so called is spiritual rebukes debarring of wicked men from the society of the Saints and the holy things of God that they pollute not such pearls Bullinger is alledged by Erastus as a favourer of this way and some private Epistles of Bullinger written to Erastus cited but nothing of the publike writings of Bullinger It is true he saith he is pleased with Erastus his Theses but 1. That he was not of Erastus his mind wholly is evinced from these Epistles 1. Bullinger strove with the Anabaptists of his time who contended for either a Church of regenerate persons or none Bullinger Diu cum Anabaptistis nostris contendimus hac de re et ostendimus veram Ecclesiam posse esse et dici Ecclesiam quae excommunicatione hâc careat 2. He saith he himself D. Wolphius Lavater Hallerus Zwinglius Gualther never condemned the Church of Geneva Ergo they never condemned Presbyterial Government 3. He saith it will be for the edification of the Churches of the Palatine that this excommunication be Now we know divers there ascribed to the Magistrate plus aequo and said that the tythes belonged jure divino to the Magistrate The truth is these Divines were too obnoxious to the lust of Christian Magistrates Calvin Farel complain much of the Magistrates usurpation in this 4. They thought hard to exulcerate the minds of Princes to excommunicate the Magistrate and longè magis abalienatos reddere inferiores gradus conscendere superiores vero intactos reddere But was it not an abuse to excommunicate the poor people and spare the Magistrate 3. Bullinger would not have the question of excommunication to come in publike why cum hoc tempore aliâs satis afflicta sit Ecclesia 4. He seems to incline that none should be debarred from the Lords Table that acknowledgeth their sins coena sit libera omnibus peccata sua agnoscentibus et veniam a Christo petentibus we say Amen so they be truly penitent to the Church and not such as Paul speak of 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 3 4 5. to whom confession of sins before the Church is a manifest form of godlinesse 5. Bullinger and Gualther writ to the Prince Elector to punish scandalous persons But with all quanquam arbitramur illust Principem admonitionem nostram sibi soli reservaturum qua duntaxat dissidia manefesta in Ecclesia praevenire voluimus Hence this tecum sentimus of Bullinger written to Erastus was 1. His private opinion that he desired not to be known to the Churches therefore Erastus wronged Bullinger who left his secret letters to be printed 2. Many learned men in these Churches beside Anabaptists and the Palatinate Catechisme were against Erastus 6. He saith Zwinglius was the chief man to have excommunication brought in inductam cuperet 7. He desired Beza not to answer Erastus for peaces cause and the same he wrote to Erastus A learned and holy preacher to the Prince Elector wrote thus to Bullinger Queror fr. m. d. dilecte quod approbaris Theseis D. Erasti contra disciplinam Ecclesiasticam scriptas quae non tantum impiae sunt sed viam sternunt ad Atheismum hortor et obsecro ut publicè testeris te novas illas Theseis improbare Quod nisi seceris futurum est ut videaris dissentire non tantum a doctâ illa vetustate sed etiam a Zwinglio et Oecolampadio aliisque adeoque et cum teipsâ— pugnare Bullinger in 1 Cor. 5. Excommunicatio non est exercenda ut Anabaptistae volunt a toto Ecclesiae coetu sed a dilectis ad hoc hominibus Excommunicatio apud veteres est exclusio a communione Sacramentorum Excommunicatio est supplicium temporale disciplina externa ad medendam instituta Bullinger in Mat. 18. esse Ethnicum et publicanum significat esse et haberi inter facinorosos quibus nihil neque officij neque sinceri committas Idem Hortor ut salutare hoc pharmacum excommunicationis e caetu Sanctorum pontificis avaritâ—a eliminatum reducatur Idem in Mat. 18. finis consilij domini est in negotio disciplinae ut corrigantur scelerati in Ecclesia et auferantur scandala Bullinger in 2 Thes 3. hic habemus abstensionem sen exclusionem qua a tribuum societate et publicorum pascisorum usu-fructu excludimus â—onâ—â—maces et omnes admonitiones contemnentes aliter etiam locus potest interpretari These be contradictory to Erastus his expositions and way which maketh excommunication nothing and putteth all Church-discipline on the point of the Magistrates sword I cannot say but that saying did too little prevail with Bullinger Amicus Socrates Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas for Erastus was his intimate and too dear friend etiam erâ—ores amicorum et nâ—â—i sunt nobis pergrati Bullinger in Mat. 18. in illa Dic Ecclesiae Excommunicatio est disciplina â—xterna sanctorum in Ecclesia conversantium quâ ex communione abiiâ—iuntur sanctorum aut commodè alioqui corriguntur coercentâ—â—ve qui scandalizant Ecclesiam hae particulares Ecclesiae deligunt sibi quoque veluti Senatum Collegiumve optimorum virorum qui juxta Canonem sacrism disciplinam hanc exerceant What is this but a Presbytery Ceterum qualis fuerit Ethnicorum et publicanorum reputatio facile est colligerâ— ex Evangelio et Paulo ad Ephe. 2. Certe alieni sunt a gratia nihil Communionis haebentes cum sorte sanctorum Bullinger Ser. 5. decad 10. pag. 384. Sicut autem dominus privatim voluit admoneri et corripi praevaricantes Ecclesiae Ministres ita ejusdem admonitions et correctionis bonum extendit ad universam Ecclesiam Ergo hâ—buit vetus Ecclesia sanctum Presbyterorum senatum qui delinquentes in Ecclesia diligenter admonebat corripiebat graviter adde et consortio excludebat Ecclesiastico si nihil emendationis expectari posse videretur 1 Cor. 5. decrevi ut is qui hot seelus patravir c. Musculus in locis Commun de Ministris verbi pag. 204. disciplina Ecclesiastica includiâ— morum correctionem tum privatorum tum publicorum deinde et judicia Ecclesiastica hisce quoque de rebus non constituet Minister suopte arbitratu sed erit ad institutionem earum director et adâ—ibâ—bit suffragia et consensum suae plebis ne quid invitae Ecclesiae imponatur denique curabit ut plebs ipsa viros graves timentes Dei ac boni Testiomnij deligat quorum cur â— et vigilantiâ Ecclesiae disciplina administretur et si quid gravioris momenti accidat ad Ecclesiam ipsam referatur I grant it was the error of that worthy instrument of Reformation that he referreth all to the Christian Magistrate and so he saith haec omnia pertinenâ— ad
an Artificer to make swords though he know some shall abuse them to murthering the innocent is no scandalous work I take not on me to prescribe rules for eschewing scandall in all occurrences of providence The godly learned can see more then I can doe in this matter where love should be warie to lay a straw in the way of any weake traveller Quest III. Whether or no we may deny obedience to the lawes of our Superiours for feare of Scandall causleslie taken THis is not my question but a question of the Doctors of Aberdeen yet it conduceth for the times and because one of the learnedest of these Doctors did agitate the question of scandall with me in private before the writing of that book I desire libertie to vindicate my selfe by discussing two chapters of this purpose And first the question seemeth to me many wayes vaine 1. They aske about denyall of obedience which is not proved but presumed to be obedience 2. They presume that the Masters the Lord Prelates of Pearth faction are our Superiours by no law of God or our Church was ever any superioritie conferred upon them 3. They say for scandall causlesly taken if they meane that there be no just reason indeed why any should take scandall they say nothing against us for we thinke to take scandall is to sinne if they know any just reason or cause of sinne except Satan and mens free-will we shall be taught of them If they meane scandalously taken that is not culpably given by the practisers of Ceremonies this is a Chimera and to us no question for we are not to denie obedience to lawfull lawes for eschewing Scandall when obeyers doe give no cause culpably of Scandall they would have formed the question to our reverend and learned Brethren if they had dealt plainly Whether or no we may desist from practising Coremonies which setting aside the law of Superiours are indifferent when from the practising of them ariseth the ruine of many soules for whom Christ died In things necessarie commanded and forbidden of God we cannot deny obedience but the matter of the lawes is silenced in the question to deceive the reader Duplyers IF the Scandall arising from the Articles of Pearth come ex conditione operis from the very enormitie in these Articles then are we to forbeare these â—rticles ever and not onely while they be tryed in a lawfull Assembly for such are either sinne or have a manifest show of sinne But if the scandall arise not from the Articles themselves but from malice or weaknesse we deny that we are totally to abstaine from obedience to lawfull Superiours for eschewing Scandall causlesly taken and we marvell from whence ye have learned this strange and harsh doctrine Answ 1. Your enumeration is weake for we know no Scandall justly taken but proceeding from both these weaknesse or wickedness of nature is the neerest cause of all Scandall taken because it is the cause of all sinne and to be scandalized is sinne Also it is here taken from the enormitie of the deed in that practising of things indifferent if a scandall taken either weakly or maliciously thence arise there is enormitie in the deed yet totall abstinence is not hence concluded because cessante ratione scandali when the ground of the Scandall is removed there is no enormitie in the fact 2. You define to us or rather divine that then there is an irregularitie in the fact that justly scandalizâ—th when either the fact is a sinne or then hath a manifest shew of sinne And we wonder where you learned this strange Divinitie for 1 Cor. 10. 27. To eat meat at a Feast that you are invited unto is neither sinne because v. 23. 25. it is lawfull The earth is the Lords nor is it such as hath a manifest shew of sinne as all having sense knoweth One of your prime Doctors defined to me these onely have manifest appearance of sinne Quae plâ—rumque fiunt malo fine which for the most part are done for an evill â—nd such as is to lye in bed with another mans wife to kneele before an Idoll The formâ—r in the exposition of all is done for adulterie the latter for Idolatrie I am sure to eat meats at an Infidels feast is not of that nature which is done ordinarily for an evill end it is ordinarily done to refresh nature and to solâ—â—e it which hath no manifest shew of sinne and yet if there be a weake one beside who saith that meat is offered to Idols in that case to eat is to scandalize 32. and is against the glory of God v. 31. 3. You aske from whom we learned this strange doctrine to deny obedience to the lawes of Superiours for scandall causlesly taken And we answer we learned it from the Apostle Paul who saith 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat offend my weake brother I will eat no flesh I will abstaine totally and absolutely while the world standeth This abstinence for the date of the worlds standing God be thanked is longer then the time to a lawfull Generall Assembly was at that time yet the Apostle proveth Rom. 14. That to eat or not to eat was at that time as indifferent as to practise or not practise Ceremonies also who ever offended at Pauls eating of fleshes were offended out of weakness v. 7. and it was in that sense scandall causlesly taken Duplyers pag. 59. n. 34. The Author of the popish English Ceremonies saith that both Cajetan and Bannes affirm that we should abstain a spiritualibus non necessariis from spirituall duties not necessarie to salvation when Scandall ariseth from the doing of them but none of the Schoolemen euer taught to abstaine totally and altogether from any spirituall dutie for eschewing the scandall of either weake or wicked Answer What the author of the English Popish Ceremonies saith in that subject all your learning shall never be able to Answer for our brethren required but abstinece from these Ceremonies till they be tryed in a lawfull Generall Assemblie for they never were yet tryed in a lawfull Assemblie till the late Assemblie at Glasgow anno 1638. 2. That Author argueth a Majore and we desire an Answer if we may abstaine from spirituall duties commanded by the most high Superiour the Lord our God hic nunc in case of Scandall Ergo farre more are we to abstaine from practising of dead Ceremonies voyd of all spirit of life in the case of scandall yea and universally and totally we are to abstaine because the Superiours have no power to make lawes in materia scandalosa when that which they command is scandalous and in the very matter soule-murther Duplyers Thomas and his followers say Bona spiritualia non necessaria sunt dimittenda propter scandalum in ijs quae sunt sub consiliâ— non vero sub praecepto We may omit spirituall duties for eschewing scandall which fall under counsell but not under commandement Answer We conceive you not to
primatam Ecclesia Anglicanae and regeâ— sâ—cro olcâ— uncti capaces sunt spiritualis jurisdictionis Rex propriâ— autorite creat Episcopus See Cald. â—u altar Dam. p. 14 15 16. seq That Magistrates are more hot against punishing of sin by the Church then against sinfull omissions which argueth that they are unpatient of Christs yoak rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the subject in this point Not any power or office subject to any but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons A Magistrate and a Christian different Two things in a Christian Magistrate jus authoritie aptitudo habilitie Pareâ—â— Com. in Rom. 13. dub Iac. Triglandius de potest civ Ecclesiastica c. 10. 207 208. Vbi nam injuâ—xit Christus Magistratui Christiano ut oves Christi quae â—ales Regat Christianity maketh no new power of or to Magistrates Jac. Trig. land diâ—â—er Theo. de potest civ c. 8. p. 174. A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary upon which the former Distinctions followeth ten very considerable Assertions 1. Assert The Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth the exercise of Ministeriall power but not the spirituall and sincere manner of the exercise Magistrates as godly men not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of ministeriall power Augustin contr literas petilian l. 2. c. 92. contr Cresconi l. 8. c. 5. reges serviunt Dâ—o in quantum sunt homines in quantum sunt reges Exo. 18. 21 Deu. 1. 16. 17. Dâ—u 17. 19 20. A two fold good in a Christian Magistrate essentiall accidentall Asser 3. The Magistrate as such commandeth only in order to temporary reward and punisheth and layeth no commands on the constience Nota. Nota. Magistrates as Magistrates forbid not sin as sin under the paine of eternall wrath Two sorts of subordinations Civill Ecclesiastick Ministers not the Ambassadors of an earthly King but of the King of Kings Church Officers as such not subordinate to the Magistrate See the Arminian Remonstrance in Apol. c. 25. fol. 299 300. What power Erastiaus give to Magistrates in Church matters The minde of Arminians touching the Magistrates power in Church matters Remonstrant Arminian c. 25. p. 304 â—â—c Trig. de potest 〈…〉 Eccelesiastica dissâ—â—tatio Thâ—â—l p. 123 Tâ—mâ—lorum usus sâ—ipeâ—â—iorum publâ—â—orum â—â—â— in re nihil potest ille enimextrinsâ—â—us accedit ad res Ecclesiasticas eorumque naturam atque indolem nihil immutat A threefold consideration of the magistrate in relation to the Church Course of conformity part 3. pag. 146. Reciprocation of subordinaâ—â—â—ns between Church and Magistrate Aâ—t Walens p. 2. de quatenus pastor subjiciatur magist pag. 15 16. Iac. Trig. disser Thel de potest civ Ecclesi c. 5. pag. 124. profess Leyden in Syno purioris Theol. dis de disc Ecclesi de magistrati Zipperus de pâ—litâ—a Ecclesiast l. 3. c. 13. Calvinus Insti l. 4. c. 11. Pet. Cabel Iavins in apolâ—gâ—tico Rescript pro libert Ecelesi c. 6. p. 79. M. Cot. in a Model of Church and civill power P. Matyr loc Communi l. 4. c. 13. D. Pareus in prefat ad hâ—seam Epist ad langravi August confess Artic. de potâ—st Ecclesi Helv. confess Anno 1566. Art 18. Suevica confess Art 13. Saxonica Art 12. Anglic. fol. 132. Scotic confess The Ministers as Ministers neither Magistrates nor subjects The Magistrate as such neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator nor under Satan but under God as creator A Prince as a gifted Christian may preach and spread the Gospell to a land where the Gospell hath not bin heard before but not as a Magistrate Ità videlius Ep. Const quest 11. Vtenbogard cont Pontific primat p. 71 72 73 Anto. Wal. p. 2. p. 30 31. Cabcl Iavius apol disser de l. Eccles c. 6. p. 82. Iac. Trig. Des Thho The King and the Priest kept the book of the Law but in a farre different way Bloody Tenent Cap. 82. page 119. C. 65. â—a 123. C. 85. pa. 124. The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another God hath not given a power to the magistrate and Church and to judge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause Bloody Te. c. 84. p. â—22 Bellarmine de laicis c. 17. c. 18. Slatius iâ— aperta declaratione p. 53. Magistratus non valet sub penaâ—terne condemnation is gladio uti aut dominatum petere quisquus id facit Christianus non est Welsing lib. de officiâ— homi Christiani p. 1. Sim. Epis dis 13. c. 18. 19. Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in causes Eccleâ—iasticall It is one thing to complain to the Magistrate another thing to appeal What an appeal is Refuge to the Magistrate is not an appeal A twofold appeal De Lib. Eceles c. 9. p. 134 135. Iac. Trig. de civili Ecclesiastic potest â— 20. p. 420. 421. Mr. Pryn his Truth Triumphing sect 2. and 3. p. 7 8 c. 16. Sect. 13 14 15 16. Prinne Truth Triump p. 31. The Magistrates punishing or his interest of faith proveth him not be a judge in Synods Truth triumphing sect 2. 31 32. Page 31. Of Pauls appeal to Cesar that it proveth not that in Ecclesiasticall controversies we may appeal to Heathen or Christian Magistrates as to Iudges of matters Ecclesiastick from the Church Paul appealed from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour civill and heathen judge in a matter of his life not in a matter of Religion What power a conquerour hath to set up a religion in a conquered nation Videlius de Episcopat Constant p. 77. Vtenbogard p. 33. Camero prelâ—ct in Mat. 16. v. 18. 19. Tu es pâ—trus p. 17. Due right of Presbyteries p. 435 436. 437 438. c. Camero 16 17. 18. There were no appeals made to the godly Emperors of old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To lay bands on the conscience of the Prince to tye him to blind obedience Popish not our Doctrine Platina in Bonifac. 3. Baronius an 602. n. 18. Baronius an 606. n. 3. Baroni an 1085. Onuphorius an 1527. 1540. Mr. Prinne Truth triumphing Remonstr in apolog p. 299. esse papatus corculum esse id ipsum in quo â—iâ—a est fâ—rma papatus five papalis hierar â—biâ—s Remonstr in apolog So Stapleton Bellarmine and other Papists argue The Magistrate as a Magistrate cannot forbid sin as sin The Magistrate as the Magistrate promoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom materially not directly and formally The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the Mediator Christ The adversaries in the doctrine of the Magistrate Popish not we at all Andreas Rivetus Iesuit Vapul in Castigati Notarum in Epist ad Balsacum Edit 1644. c. â—1 page 40. Christus neque Reges neque principes instituit in Ecclesia sed neque successores habet neque vicarios quibus competat jus dominatus ministros tantum instituit nomine principis unius legatione
legatiâ— autem neque legatos neque reges neque principes constituit legatos sed ministros qui serviunt non regnant In regno Christi solus ille spiritualiter regnat servi summi Regis regnum sui principis promovent nec unquam sibi usurpaâ—t regalia jura Cardinall Bertrandus tract de Orig jurisd q. 4. n. 5. Non videretur diseretus dominus ut cum reverentiâ ejus loquar nisi unieum post se talem vicarium reliquisset qui haec omnia posset Armacan l. 4. quest Armen c. 16. Becan tom 2. opuscul Suarez tom de incarnat Christi diso 48. sect 2. Aegid Conninck de incarnat disp 23. dub 5. â— 43 p. 697. Communior itaque doctorum sententia Christum etiam qâ—â hominem habere veram potestatem regiam ac directum dominium in omnia regna mundi c. August de Ancona de potest Papae q. 1. art 1 quia est eadem jurisdictio delegantis delegati Coninck tom de incarn disp 23 dub 5. Vasquez tom de incarnat disp 87. c. 2. c. 6. Pet. Wald. de incar dis 11. de adop dominio Christi dub 5. n. 50 51. Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates by the adversaries in their whole Ministery The Magistrate as such not the vicar of the mediatory kingdome Brotherly re-examination pag. 20. Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiasticall administration Mr. Coleman re-examination pag. 1â— Heathen Magistrates as such are not obliged to promote Christs mediatory kingdom Magistracy from the Law of nations Suarez to 1. de legi l. 5. c. 3. qui dat formam dat consequentiâ— ad formam l. 2. in prinfâ—de instit jure cod tit c. jus â—at 1. dispitemdominium est jus quoddam l. fin ad med c. de long temp prestit l. qui usum fert Fâ—rd Vasq illust quest l. 1. c. 41. â— 28 29. D. cl Salmasius de primatu Papae par 1. cap. 14. page 60. eam jurisdictionem Patriarchalem omnem haud miâ—â—â— quam ipsi Metropolitani aut rescriptis principium aut sanctionibus patrum Synodalibus acceptam refer ant oportet non ulli institutioni divinae The Adversaries must teach universall Redemption Cl. Salmasius de primatri pape 1. Part. in apparatu p. 148. 149. nullum jus in corpora â—abuernat ut Magistratus civiles sad animarum curam gerebant ut veri pastores docere pascere munera fuere spiritualia longè diversa ab imperio potestate jurisdictione Magistratâ—um Magistrates as such not members of the Church Christ Mediator not a temporary King So the Belgick Arminians apol fol. 302. Grotius in pictaâ— ordi Hol. p. 113. Vteâ—b p. 28. The Magistrate not the servant of the Church The adequate and compleat cause why the Magistrate is subject to the Church That the Magistrate is subject to the rebukes and censures of the Church proved from the Word Erast l. 5. c. 1 p 299 300. Erast l 6. c. 3. p 349. Sanè ut Idololatram et Apostatatam negamus membrum esse Ecclesiae Christi sic etiam nequitiem suam defendentem negamus inter membra Ecclesiae censendum esse et quem admodum illos ex Christiano caetu juaicamus exterminandos sic hoc putamus in â—o caetu non esse ferendos Arminiani in apolog The supream and principall power of Church affairs not in either Magistrate or Church Blood Ten. c. 84. p. 122 12 And. Riv. in decal in Mand. 5. pag. 206. Though the Magistrate pupunish Ecclesiasticall scandals yet his power to judge and punish is not Ecclesiasticall and spirituall as the Church rebuketh and censureth civil breaches of the second table and yet their power is not civill Blood Tenent c. 93. pag. 137 138. People as people may give power to a Magistrate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church judge and punish offenders in the Church A governor of or over the Church a governor in the Church a governor for the Church are differen◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pagâ— dijs non malcdices Mr. Colemans reexamination p. 15. The distinction of an doctrinal or declarative and of a punitive part of Church-government of which the former is given to Pastors the latter to the Magistrate a heedlesse and senselesse notion That the Magistrates punishing with the sword seandalous persons should be a part of Church-government a reasonlesse conceit There is neither coaction nor properly so called punishment in the Church Trigland dis Theâ—lo de potest civil et Ecclefiast c. 13. p. 257. Hyeronymus in Epitaphio Nâ—potiani Rex â—olentibus preest episcopus volentibus Cl. Salm. in apparatu ad librâ—s de primati part 1. p. 154. 155. adeo autem voleâ—tibus pâ—nitentia dabâ—tur ut negata pro paena esset et pro beneficio peteretur atque acciperetur a delinquentibus ut ex multis Canonibus conciliâ—rum constat Epistolis Canonicis et scriptis aliis patrum That Bullinger is not of the mind of Erastus Bulling Epis privat ad Erastum Bul. Epis ad Erast Epist ad Erastum Petr. Dathenus The error of Gualther to please the usurping Magistrate Bullinger Gualther and others differ much from Erastus Gual in Ep. ad Theod. Bezam an caena á. inservire debeat excommunicationi atque adeo in alium usum converti quam qui nobis a Christo monstratus ab apostolis traditus est The Christian Magistrate cannot supply the place of Excommunication C. 18. C. 30. Cl. Salmasi de primatu papae Part 1. in apparatu pag. 288. 289. Hyeronicus Monstra mihi quisnam imperatorum celebrari id concilium iusserit Salmasius in apparatu pag. 292. In apâ—â—â—atu pag. 293. 294. In appar p. 298. p. 303. Course of conformity pag. 115. Indifferent things as such not the matter of a Churrh constitution Doct. Forâ— in Ireni l. 1. c. 12. num 13. Actions are not indifferent because their circumstances are indifferent D. Forbesius in Irenic l. 1. cap. 1. 3. fig. 15. Marrying not indifferent as the Doctor supposeth Indifference Metaphysical and Theological Doctor Forb 16. num 17. Necessity of obeying the Church in things onely necessary for the Churches Commandment is neither a lawful nor an obliging necessity Doctor Ferbes Actions individual meerly indifferent cannot be done in Faith Doct. Forbes Iren â— â— c. 13. hg 11. Doct. Forbes Forbes ib. n. 13. The unlawfulness even inseparably adhering toactions that are indifferent maketh them unlawful * Suarez tom de legib l. 3. c. 18 Formaliter autem coÌ„mittitur hoc vitiuÌ„ contemptus quando ex directâ intentione ad hoc aliquidfit ut alter despiciatur aut despici ostendatur Vasquez tom 2. disp 158. cap. 4. Contemptus est in solà directâ intentione non parendi in qua est speciale mandatum inobedientiae qua quis directo animo non obedit superiori ut ei directe opponatur ex dedignatione quadam quam habet quod ei subditus sit Aquinas 22. q. 168. art 9. 3. Contemnere est nolle subjici legi
1 2. de rel sanct c 4. ad 2 Nec desunt in Ecclesâ—â— qui doceant literis sâ—rmonibus quis cultus reliquiss formulistâ— elementis sacramentalibus de beatur c Vasquez in 3 part 10. 1. disp 105. 5. n. 3 Quare nec aliquid periculi in ipsarum imaginum adoraâ—ione si populus tudis juâ—ta sinccram fidem religionean mediocriter instituatur d Estius lib. 3 dist 36. sect 7. Ecclesia diligenter doctrina opere distinguit inter honorem Deo proprium eum qui Divinis ac Dei amicis hominibus tribuitur e Concil Moguntinum cap. 41. Pastores nostri populum accuratè moneant imagines non ad id proponi ut eas adoremus Sed ut per imagines recordemur c Calvin Iusti l. 4. c 8. sect 8. d Luthercom in Gal 1. neque alia doctrina in Ecclesia tradi aut audiri debet quâ—m purum dâ—i verbum e D. Ammes fresh fuit f Bannas tom 3. m 22. q. 43. art 8. Nota posse contingere ut pusilli non sirt capaces ratâ—onis redditae tunc quamvis sit reddita illis ratio tâmen ab hujusmodi spiritualibus cessâ—â—dum quia tunc non ex malicia sed ex ignorantia scoâ—dolizantur c 4 sect 1. q 10. Tannern to 3. in 22. dis 2. q. 6 dub 9. concurrentibus dâ—obus praeceptis quorum utrum que servari non potest obligare desinit alâ—erum quod â—im obligandi minorem habet Ita Suarez to 3. diâ— 66. sect 4. Gregor de Valentiâ— in 22. q. 18. puncto 4. a D. Bannes â—o 3. in 22. q. 43. art 8. con 3. Talis perplexitas est absurdum quid b Amesius de Cons lib. 5. â—â—p 11 thes 18 Nulla datur taliâ— perplexitaâ— c. c Bellarm. contra Barcla cap. 31. In bono sensu Christus dedit Petro Papae potestatem faciendâ— de peccato non peccatum de non peccato peccatum d Bellar. de Romano Pontif. l. 4. cap 5. e Bellarm. in Recognit oâ—ibus Lâ—quuti sumus de actibus dubiis viriuâ—um vitiorum nam si perciperet manifestum vitium aut prohiberet manifestum virtutem dicendum esset cum Petro Act. 5. Obedire oportet magis Deo quam hâ—minibus dicimus posse jubere ut tali die non jejunetur non potest autem jubere ut non colatur Deuâ— f Bernardus Epist 7. Quomodo ergo vel Abbatis jussio vel Papae permissio licitâ—â—â— facere potuit quod purum malum fuit g Toletus in â—nstruct Secerdoâ— lib 5. cap 3. cum causa rationabili aliquid praecipitur â—os debemus audire nec Papâ— pro suo liâ—ito excusat h Alphonsus de potest legis Civil cap. 5. Conclus 5. Potest subdâ—â—â—â— sinâ— peccato legem aut preceptum superioris contemâ—â—re judicando illâ—â— maâ—â—â— contra râ—â—ionem The essence of an active or given scandall a Course of conformitie pag 147. b Dimittendum est propter scandalum â—omâ—e quod potest praetermitti salvâ triplice veritate vitae doctrinae justiâ—iae Hierony Glâ—ssord tom 9. c Hooker of Ecclesâ— Policie l. 4 pag. 157. d D. Forbes in Iren. lib. 2. c. 20. n. 19. e Sandersons Sermon Rom. 14 pag. 22. 23. f Lyndesay his defence of Pearth Assemb in Prafat Paybodie g Course of Conformitie pag. 146. a Pag. 143. b Course of Conformitie pag. 143. c Forbes Iren. l. 2. cap. 20. n. 6. d Forbes lib. 2. cap. 20. n. 19. Non potest humana potestas te cogere ad faciendam illud quod facere non possis absque inevitabilidatione scandali a Suarez de Rel. to 4. l 4 tract 5. cap 15. Si secâ—usâ— praeceptâ— res ex â—trâ—queâ—aâ—te sit probabilis tunc universaliter verum erit adjuncto praeceptoobedi â—dum esse b Thom. Sanchez â—n Decalog to 2. lib 6. cap. 3. n. 3. c Greg. de Val. â—â— 3. disp 7 q 3 punct 2 d Supra q. 6. of this Treatise a Scotus prol in sent q. 3. ad art 3. b Suarez 10. â—e leg cap. 1. de trip viâ—â— Theologie Tract 1. disp â— q. â— c Banneâ— tom in q 1. â—â—â— 10. dub 2. d Duvallius 2 tract de legib q 5. art 1. â—d arâ— 2. Calv. in Inâ—â—â— â—uâ—â— 2 cap. 8. sect 35. Ames Mâ—dull l. 2 c. 17. sect 13. Melul Theol. l. 2. c 16. s 58 59. 60. 61. 62 63. a Robert Lord brooke in a discourse of nature of Episcopacie cap. 5. pag. â—6 b Origen cont Celsum l. 8. c Strabo l. 15. d Tertull. in 2 pol. ca 9. bibebant sanguinem humanum e August epist 19. Vt vetus synagoge hoc pacto cum honore sepaliretur f Ireneus lib. 2 cap 12. g Tertullian de pudicit c. 12. h Cyprian ad Quirinum l 7. i Lorinus com in act 15. ait esse legem mere positivam quae râ—moto contemptu scandalo alio peccato non videtur arctè obligare k Cajetan vitare fornicationem est divini juriâ— reliqua â— Canone erant ut morâ—m gererent â—â— Iudaeis quibus conviverent l Philip. Gameth in 12. q. 104. 105. câ— 2 ad fovendum inter Iudeâ—s Genâ—es mutuâ—m concordiam propter infirmitatem Iudaeorum m Paybodie par 3 pag. 413. 4â—4 a Paybodie b D. Forbes in Irenicâ— a Calvin Instâ—t l 3. c. 19. sect 7. tâ—rtia pars libertatis ut nuâ—la rerum extâ—â—nâ—râ—m quae per sâ—siunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—ligâ—â—ne corâ—m Dâ—o tangâ—remur quin eas nunc usurpare nunc indâ—ffâ—renter liceal uti b Châ—mnit Exam. pâ—rt 2. de rit sacra p. 33. c Polan Syntag Thâ—ol lib 6. ca. 9. d Bâ—ll de â—fficac Sacram 1. 2 ca. 32 e Iuâ—ius in Bâ—ll co 3. l 4. â—a 17. â— 19 20 f Whittâ—ker de pontif Râ—m q. 7. c. 3. ad 5. Fran. Silvius Duacens Profes in 22. q. 43. â—â— 7. concl 3. Charitas dicat ne absque omni causa â—ffâ—ramus proximo etiâ—m ex malitia peccaturo occasionem peccati Ita Tannerus in 22. to 3. ais 1. q 6 duc 9. asseâ— 3 bonâ— conquedâ—m â—â—bia â—lavandis ad vitandum scandalum malitiosorum a Parker on the crosse part 2. sect 8. Math. 17. 2â— Of the necessitie of things which remove scandall Some things necessary from the only positive will of God Some things necessarie from some thing in the things themselves Two sorts of monuments of idolatrie We cannot devise the use of any thing in worship when we cannot devise the thing it selfe The place Deut. 7. 25. The graven image of their God shall ye burne with fire dicleared How houses and Temples builded to Saints are noâ— to be demolished Temples and houses have a like physicall use in Gods worship as out of Gods worship Deut. 7. 25 26. No Houses no Temple no creatures are now uncleane â—â—er the New Testament Deut. 12. 1 2. How things not necessarie are to bee abstained from or used in the â—ase of Scandall 2. Conclus Things scandalous under the N Testament are forbidden in a farre other sense then mâ—aâ— dayes and other things in the Ceremoniall law How far a morall and perpetuall reasâ—n maketh a law perpetuall Levit. câ— 11. Disusing of houses because abused to idolatrie a Iudaising Bells for the convening of the people to publick worship not to be abolished â—â—ough they have been abused to superstition A most necessarie rule to be observed in the doctrine of scandall that emergent providences of naturall necessitie are to us in place of divine commands in some cases Considerable rules â—ou hing the kindes and degrees of necessitie in eschewing scandall 1. Rule 2. Rule 3. Rule 4. Rule 5. Rule Tannerus to 3. in 22 disp 9. de â—ide spâ— c. q 6. dub 9. In magnâ— casu necessitatis que valdè praeponderat futuro scandalo non est illictum facere rem habenâ—em speciem mali â—â— eâ—â— similatio Petri Gal. 2. Tu rian de virtâ—â— vitiis par 1. c. 39. dubio 16. Quindo quis para us est magnum â—urtum committere non soâ—â—â—m â—citum est minus futurum consulere sed etiam co-operâ—â—â— ad illud 6. Rule 7. Rule A scandal may flow from ignorance and corruption and so be taken when it also kindly issueth from the sinfull or unseasonable fact of another and so is also kindly given Caspensis tom 3. Curs Theolog. Trac 27. de Charit Sect. 2. disp 8. num 19. A false rule of Papists that men may cooperate a sinfull act and be free of scandall because of sâ—me necessitie No relation of servant or captive can render it lawfull to co-operate with sin 8. Rule What things non-necessarie are to be removed from the worship of God as scand lous Ceremonies nâ—t so much as necessarie by way of dis-junction which necessitie agreeth to many circumstances of worship in the Directory Hooker Ibid. Religious Monuments of Idolatrie are to be removed Wolphius who addeth to P. Marâ—yr Commenâ— in 2 King 23. speaking of Iosâ—â—â—â— zeale Et hâ—c illius fides industria nos quoque excitabit â—t in odium fâ—stidium earum quae pugnant cum Dâ—i verbo rerum bomines quâ—quo modo inducamus Hooker Eccle. Policie â— l. 5. 349 350. 2 King 23. 7. Hooker 198. What Conformitie with Idolaters is unlawfull Conformitie with Idolaters in things in Gods worship not necessarie unlawfull Ecclesiast Poâ—â— licie l. 4. p. 138. Pag 13â— The sâ—me Ceremonies in Idolaters and in the true Church may be judged the some three wayes Formalists grant Conformitie with heathen and Idolators in Ceremonies clothed with a Scripturall signification Phocyllide◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 13â— pag. 132. l. 4. How the Scripture is a Rule Church Government properly an Institution 133. l. 4. The worship of God neâ—oeth no relâ—gious Ceremonies â—ut what God hath himselfe prescribed Hooker pag. 134 134. 135. 138. We need not say that conformiâ—ie with Idolaters was the only cause why God forbade his people heathâ—nish rites pag 139.