First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
Papists as Vasquez Becanus and others say that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament but that the holy spirit shall to the end of the world teach other new things as occasion shall require And this he bringeth as an Argument to prove that there must be unwritten Traditions not contained in Scripture even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Positives of Church-Policie 3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law do more respect occasions of Providence customes Laws and the manners of people they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged for the Morall Law should be rather alterable at the Churches lust then Ceremonials for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching what is Sabbath breaking whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath the Jews held the affirmative Christ the negative touching obedience to Superiors Homicide Polygamie Incest Fornication Oppression Lying Equivocating Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing which clearly did adumbrat Christ who was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world yea all significant Symbolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence and depending on the meer will of the Instituter Surplice or white linnen signifieth the Priests holinesse without any regard to time place or nationall customes for Christ might have made an immutable Law touching the Symbolicall and Religious signification and use of Saints-dayes white linnen Crossing and all the rest of humane Ceremonies which should stand to Christs second coming notwithstanding of any occurrences of Providence no lesse then he made an immutable Law touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse mysteries as humane positives 4. The assumption is false for divers Ceremoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to occasions of Providence and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences 5. If positives of Policy be alterable because the occasions of such are alterable by God it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Providence in his hand must change these Positives and not the Authority of the Church and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God not by men which is now our question for Christ hath given a Commandment Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick and Celebrate the Lords Supper but the Church doth not then change the Law nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God but God liberateth us himself Hooker But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this point is that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant and such as their Laws had not provided for and so for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God so that by this reason if we may devise one Law they may devise twenty Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith there was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven what to do Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us but they would as learned Master Prynne with them saith take out of our hand the Apostolick Church that it should be no rule to us for saith he There was no Vniforme Church-government in the Apostles times at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren Acts 1. 13. no Elders or Deacons Their Churches increasing they ordained Dâ—acons Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church after that widowes in some Churches not at all In the primitive times some Congregations had Apostles Acts 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists Prophets workers of miracles Healers c. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes Ans 1. What Hooker saith is that which Bellarmine Sanderus Horantius and all Popists say for their Traditions against the perfection of the word to wit that the word of God for 2373. years between Adam and Moses saith Horantius was not written so Turrianus Bellarmine and the reason is just nothing to say the Jews might devise twenty Laws where we may devise one because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant such as their written Laws had not provided for This must be said which is in question and so is a begging of the controversie that the Iews of their own head and Moses without any speciall word from God or without any pattern shown in the mount might devise what Laws they pleased and might punish the blasphemer and the man that gathered stâ—cks on the Sabbath and determine without God the matter of the Daughters oâ— Zelophehad as the Formalists teach that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth in the Antichrists head and the Kings Court the Surplice the Crosse in Baptisme and the like Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer that it is true there was no written Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years Yea nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai But withall what God spake in visions dreams and apparitions to the Patriarchs was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven as the written word is to us so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition which was the same very will and truth of God which Moses committed to writing if then Formalists will assure us of that which Papists could never assure us we shall
receive both the unwritten Traditions of the one and the unwritten Positive inventions of Crosse and Surplice devised by the other as 1. Make us sure as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs and to Moses nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment as Papists say their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word and though beside Scripture yet not against it And the very will of God no lesse then the written word and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures by the Prophets and Apostles and though beside yet not contrary to the vvord But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord not contrary to the vvord of God out of the mouth of Papists to maintain unvvritten Traditions which to them is the expresse word of God then out of the mouth of Formalists for their unwritten Positives which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God by their own grant 2. Let the Formalist assure us that after this some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture touching the Surplice and Crosse that they are the very minde of God as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition should in Gods due time be written in Scripture by Moses the Prophets and Apostles I think they shall here fail in their undertakings Hence the Argument standeth strong the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine Worship or Government nay neither the Patriarchs nor Moses nor the Prophets of their own head without Gods immediate Tradition or the written Scripture which are all one Ergo Neither can the Church except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimilicude of Gods gâ—iding his Châ—rch is his fancy This variety we admire as it is expressed Heâ— 1. 1. But Hooker would say for he hath reference to that place God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets and now to us by hiâ— Son But test of all he hath revealed his Will by the Pope of Rome and his cursed Clergy that we should Worship Images pray to Saints and for the dead beleeve Purgatory c. and now by humane Prelates he hath shown his will to us touching Crossing Surplice Now Papists as Horantius Sanderus Malderus Bellarmine and others say Most of the points that are in Question between them and Protestants and particularly Church-Ceremonies are unwritten Traditions delivered by the Church beside the warrant of Scripture 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time Deacons were not at the first Elders were not ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church But this is nothing against a Platform of Vniform Government which cannot be altered in Gods Word For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne because points of Government did grow by succession of time cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apostles did ordain in Scripture is alterable by men then because 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation were not all delivered at first by God there is no Uniform no unalterable Platform of Doctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture For first the Article of Christs death and incarnation was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked of his being put to death for out Transgressions though he himself was innocent his justifying of many by Faith were after delivered by Isaiah Chap. 53. And by succession â—f time many other Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law in the Moral Positives thereof were delivered to the Church But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals no man can infer 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith set down in the Old Testament 2. None can hence infer because all points Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first the refore the Church without any expresse warrant from God may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith as they take on them to adde Surplice Crossing c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word 3. Our Argument is close mistaken we argue not from the Patern of Government which was in the Apostles times at the laying of the first stone in that Church then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece but from the whole frame as perfected by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church as it is such a Church for Apostles were necessary then as was community of goods miracles speaking with tongues c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church as the first Christian Church and since the Law was to come from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isai 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem before his Ancients gloriously Isai 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion from henceforth and for ever Micah 4. 2 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which they had heard from Christ therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule a patern and copy for the Government of the Visible Kingdom and Church of Christ in which Christ was to reign by his own Word and Law Miâ— 4. 2 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church in so far as it was a Christian Church and they were to act all not of their own heads but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth in these things that are of perpetual necessity and in such as these the first Church is propounded as imitable Now we do not say in Apostles which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture in Miracles speaking with Tongues and such like that agreed to the Apostolike Church not as a Church but as such a determinate Church in relation to these times when the Gospel and Mystery of God now manifested in the flesh was new taught and never heard of before did require Miracles gift of Tongues that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles we do not I say urge the Apostâ—like Church and all the particulars for Government in it for a rule and patern to be imitated And if Master Prynne deny that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles times because God himself added to them Deacons Elders which at first they had not removed Apostles miracles gifts of healing and tongues then say I
is Peter knew Christ was come in the flesh and that his Iudaizing did not lay bands on his conscience he preached the contrary Act. 11. And if Peter did Iudaize as Formalists observe Ceremonies and the Galathians were circumcised the same way for they knew Circumcision had no Typicall Relation to Christ to come they believed he was already come then without cause Paul Gal. 2. and 5. did rebuke and argue either Peter or the Galathians of sinfull Iudaizing which to say were to speak against the Gospel But certainly the Vniformity and immutability of all these Ceremonies was that then when the Gospel was sufficiently Proclaimed to all to be under the Law of Ceremonies in any sort was damnable and so is it now And as the Apostles and Church then set up no Ceremonies no Surplice no Crossing because they had no word of Christ to warrant them neither can we do the like now and they complyed for a time with the Iewish Ceremonies being yet indifferent but not but by warrant of the commandment and resolution of the Apostles and the like are we obliged unto now had we a Warrant of the like indifferency of Prelates Surplice Crosse and that we were obliged to use them to gain the weak in regard 1. They were once obligatory Ordinances of God 2. And if the day light of the Gospel were not yet sufficiently risen to shine upon those who are not wilfully ignorant and had not yet acknowledged the Gospel to be Gods word we should also be obliged to Ceremonies yea we durst not yield to any Law to lay them aside as many Formalists who hold them lawfull have done Mr. Prynne From the Creation till Moses there was no one Vniversall set Form of Church-Government to be observed in all the world Nor one Form of Discipline under the Tabernacle another under the Temple Ans All this concludeth not what is in question it s but the Popish Argument This is to be concluded that Enoch Seth Noah Abraham the Patriarchs and Moses did set up a Church-Government of such timber as Humane Prelates Crosse Surplice without any expresse Warrant from Gods mouth and which they might alter by their own spirit for this Argument is God might alter Ergo The Church now may alter without a warrant from God And shall we believe that the Patriarchs and Moses by their own spirit without any Commandment of God might at their pleasure set up and put down Prophets Circumcision Tabernacle Temple Laws for Sacrifices Priests Levites Arke putting the Leaper in or putting him out of the Campe cutting any soul off from the Congregation of the Lord as our men will cry up and down Ceremonies and put on them the weight of a Talent or a Feather without any word of God The Scripture cryeth the contrary so often saying And the Lord spake unto Moses saying speak thou unto the children of Israel Could Formalists say that and Christ spake unto the Prelats and the Church and said Command the Pastor to crosse the Infant and appoint unto your selves a Prelate over the Pastors I should gladly agree to the mutable frame of humane Government Mr. Prynne There are but for the most part generall rules prescribed to us for the very ordering and regulating of our thoughts words actions lives apparell Children servants families calling c. in the Word Ergo there be but generall rules for Discipline and Church-Government which admit variety the former do more immediately concern every man the other more remotely Ans If the Word of God do not more particularly regulate our thoughts as Psal 10. 4. Psal 5. 9. Isa 55. 7. Ier. 4. 14. Act. 8. 22. And our words and actions by which we must be judged Isa 3. 8. Ier. 8. 6. Mal. 3. 13. Ier. 9. 3. Matth. 12. 36 37. Rev. 22. 12. Rev. 20. 13. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Prov. 5. 21. 1 Sam. 2 3. Psal 119. 9. Prov. 3. 23 24. Then the Scripture doth warrant Surplice and Crossing and kneeling to Creatures and humane Prelats which are changeable and alterable circumstances and adjuncts of Worship that may be and may not be and things indifferent it shall follow that for the most part it is indifferent to do evil or well sin or not sin in thought word and actions and we have no warrant in Scripture for eschewing sin or not eschewing it in the most of our actions I confesse there is little need to walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accurately Eph. 5. 15. And to cleanse our wayes Psal 119. 9. according to the Word If words thoughts and actions may go at random as if they were variable and indifferent Ceremonies God throweth not men in hells torments to be eternally miserable for circumstances 2. For the acts of our calling if they be Morall they are regulated as particularly by the word as to believe love and fear God or the creature if artificiall they are not of our consideration 3. That Morall acts of decent usage of the Ordinances do not immediately concern men is admirable to me Mr. Prynne To the Argument of Moses his doing all according to the patern shown in the Mount It is Answered 1. The Tabernacle wa◠no part of the Church of the Israelites but only the place of meeting for Worship answerable to our Churches and Chappels and so was the Temple But I pray you God prescribed the height length bredth form of Tabernacles Ark Altar of every Pin Ergo Hath Christ as punctually prescribed to all Christians and Nations in expresse words the form matter dimensions of all Christian Churches Temples Chappels Tables Challices Pulpits Pews not varying in one pin 2. God named the men Bezaliel and Aholiah who should make the Tabernacle and all the implements thereof 3. God expressed the frame fashion colours of the holy Garments of Aaron and his sons shall it follow Ergo only the Artificers whom God nameth immediately and none but Embroyderers Goldsmiths Carpenters c. Not Pastors and Elders are to build up the spirituall Churches of Christ Ergo The form matter and colour of Ministers and Elders garments are particularly set down in the New Testament 4. The Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made by mens hands not spirituall buildings of mens spirits 5. All these of the patern were delivered to Moses the Temporall Magistrate not to Aaron the Priest Ergo the Church under the Gospel is not a spirituall building whose maker and builder is God and all is to be ordered by the Civill Magistrate and Lay-Artificers not by Pastors I wonder also you alledge not Noahs Ark And all in the New Testament are not so particularly set down as in the Old Ans The Tabernacle was no part of the Church but being a Type and the implements of it to the least pin particularly expressed by God to Moses far more must we have from God an expresse for every Ceremony not to retort this also that a Corner-Cap or a Surplice is no part
of the Church and is indeed a teaching sign and so should not be counted a Positive of Church-Policy 2. Most false it is that the Tabernacle and Temple were nothing but a meeting place of the people for Worship as our Churches or Chappels are 1. Because it is to Argue the Holy Ghost of want of wisdom to spend so much Canonick Scripture in setting down things idely not tending at all to edification and teaching us nothing of God and in specifying the Form Height Length Bredth Curtains Candlesticks Sockets Rings of naturall places that contained their bodies for what should it edifie us if God should describe so particularly all the Churches and meeting places of the people under the New Testament Now certain it is Whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. 2. Many things in the Tabernacle as Candles in day light Rings Sockets Shew-bread belonged nothing to a naturall place as our Chappels or Meeting houses do 3. Expresly the Scripture maketh them more then places to wit Holy Religious and Typicall signes of Divine institution as the Tahernacle was a Type Heb. 8. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 1 2. c. Heb. 10. 1 2 3. And the Temple a Type of Christs body Ioh. 2. 19. Ioh. 1. 14 15. And all these were Types and shadows of Heavenly things Heb. chap. 8 9 10. Gal. 4. 1. 2. c. Col. 2. 16. 17. Which our Churches and Chappels are not being only places common to sacred and Civill actions 2. God therefore can no more in expresse words set down the form matter dimensions of Christian Churches and Chappels then of the Synagogues of the Iews which had no Morall use for edification and instruction 3. Yea because the Tabernacle and Temple and their implements were teaching shadows of good things to come and our Churches and Chappels are not so nor have they any Morall or Religious use or influence on our spirits as the Tabernacle and Temple had therefore the Lord who is expresse in all Morals which of their own nature do teach and edifie he behoved to name Bezaliel and Aholiah and the form and colour of the Priests garments which also are Typicall and could not name our Elders or the colour or form of their Garments 4. All these weak retortions suppose that the Tabernacle and Temple were types of our meeting houses for Worship which is a meer conjecture they were no more types of our Chappels then of the Iewish Synagogues we may not expound types at will but as the Holy Ghost expoundeth them to us in the New Testament And this is a conjecturall Exposition and a dream to make Bezaliel and Aholiah types of Embroyderers and Tradesmen 5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands and that they are things different from the spirituall things that they signifie as the sign and the thing signified as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord because all of them Bread Wine taking eating breaking pouring out the Wine drinking are teaching and edifying signes and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men to devise signes to teach themselves so in like manner should the Lord expresly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Testament and as Moses might devise none of his own but was tyed to follow the patern which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount So are we now under the New Testament tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word and it is laid on us Not to be wise above that which was written and it is of perpetuall equity The supream Law-giver never left it to the wisdom of Angels or Men or Prophet Apostle or Church to serve and Worship God as they thought good But he himself particularly prescribed the way signes and means And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ incarnate and come in the flesh already therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe and practise no more either in Doctrinals or teaching types or Positives of Church-Policy then our Patern in the Mount the Scripture hath warranted to us to be the will of God and in this and this only standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions and not in these loose consequences that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them not ours for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Iewish High Priest their Surplice from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests their Humane Holidayes from the Iewish dayes their kneeling to bread from their bowing toward the Ark. 6. It is not true that the Tabernacle and Temple were meer corporall things no more then bread and wine in their spirituall relation are meer corporall things The Lords end use and intent in the Tabernacle and Temple was that they should be to the people Images and shadows of heavenly and spirituall things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. 7. That all the things of the Tabernacle were delivered to Moses as a King and not as a Prophet and writer of Canonick Scripture Heb. 3. 5. Heb. 8. Luk. 24. 44. 27. Luk. 16. 31. is an untruth except Formalists make the King so the head of the Church in prescribing Laws for the Policy thereof as they make him a Canonick writer as were David Moses Solomon from whose example they would prove the King to be the head of the Church But I judge Moses saw the patern in the Mount and God face to face as a Prophet whose words are Scripture to us Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knevv face to face And as a Prophet not as a King his face did shine Exod. 34 27 28 29. And he was commanded as a Prophet to write the Law not as a King Numb 12. 6. 7. Moses is made the most eminent Prophet that was in the Old Testament And why Because God spake to other Prophets by Dreams and Visions But he spake the Law and written Scripture to Moses mouth to mouth This should not be a comparison between Prophet and Prophet but between Prophet and King by this learning 8. We judge Noahs Ark doth prove the same it being a speciall type of the Church 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. And he built it by Faith Heb. 11. 7. And so by a Word of God and at Gods speciall direction in all the length bredth formes of it and not of his own head Gen. 6. 14 15 c. And is commended by the spirit of God for so doing Gen. 6. 22. Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him so did he And Formalists should deserve the like Testimony if it could be said of them And as the Lord commanded the
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
iis tribuamus divinitatis aliquid Grave Athanasius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The invention of Images is from an evil fountain and not from good and whatsoever hath a bad beginning cannot be deemed in any thing good being altogether bad The Papist Harding bringeth in a counterfeit Dialogue of Athanasius betwixt Christ and his Church and Christ comforting his Church because she was persecuted for worshipping Christs Image but when and where this persecution was none knoweth for many times hath the Church been persecured for not worshipping Images but see the answer of the learned Jewell thereunto Epiphanius who lived Anno 370. proveth against the Collyridiams That Mary nor no creature should be adored Vnde est simulachrificum hoc studium et diabolious conantus praetextâ— enim justitiae sempersubiens hominum mentem drabolus mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans Statuas humanas imagines pre se ferentes per artum veritatem expressit et mortui quidem sunt qui adorantur Item Revera sanctum erat corpus Mariae non tamen Deus honorata non in adorationem data Mary was not God and therefore is not to be adored He professeth that he did rive a vail that had painted in it the Image of Christ or of some man Cum ego videssem in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud c. Lactantius Formianus Images are to represent these who are absent God is every where present it is vanity therefore to forme an image of God Also There is no Religion where there is an image Also your gods be either in Heaven or not if they be not in Heaven why do ye worship them If they be in Heaven why do ye not lift your eyes to Heaven while you adore them Why do you convert your eyes toward walls stocks and stones rather then toward that place where you imagine your gods to be His Arguments against Images be these 1. They forget reason when they fear the work of their own hands 2. God is not absent but present every where 3. The image is a dead thing void of sense God is the eternall and everliving God 4. Nothing mortall should be worshipped 5. What vanity to hope for protection from these things which cannot defend themselves â— 6. The image is lesse and viler then the worshipper 7. Man according to Gods image is the image of God 8. s God needeth nothing neither torches because he made the light nor images This man lived Anno 300. Before which time the Church of Christ being persecuted they had no Churches nor Images to be ornaments in their Churches as saith t Ambrosius and also Chrysostom who was displeased with the fooleries in Temples in his time and saith They were not like the Templâ—s of the Apostolick Churches and Tertullian and Eusebius saith They had then Simplices domos Simple houses void of paintries and pictures And the want of Temples was objected against Christian Religion as Origen cleareth in the time of Constantine the son of Chlorus as saith Sozomen and Eusebius Temples were builded but as Joan. Quintinus expoundeth Tertullian without the ornaments of images and Tertullian himself maketh building of Altars and portracts Idolâ—tricos cultus Idolatrous worship In the fourty years space betwixt the reign of Valerian and the 19. year of Dicclesian there were Oratories and Temples builded but neither painted Pictures nor Images in them as saith e Eusebius Yea of thirty Bishops of Rome even from Peter and Paul to Sylvester and Constantine the Emperour to wit three hundred years there were none who were not persecuted to blood or to death or some other way It is a vain thing to say they had breathing time to build Temples and erect Altars and golden Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary and the Saints It is true in the two hundreth year after Christ under Alexander Severus Gordianus Philippus Gallienus Churches were builded as Nicephorus saith but again under Dioclesian they were demolished to the ground but observe well there were no Images of Christ broken which that Tyrant in despite of Christ would not have omitted see Eusebius they were builded again under great Constantine so Sozomen Otho Phrisingensis and Nicephorus The dream of Platina for the building of a Church by the donation of Constantine with twelve portions of earth equall to the number of the twelve Apostles and of another Church with the title of the holy Crosse at Ierusalem which Helena found in that place and Constantine placed in this Church at Rome is refuted by Hospinian yet is there no word of any Images in these Churches Arnobius An. 330. maintaineth against the heathen that the Christians ought to have no Images 1. Because the device of images is a novelty and was not before two thousand years but God and Religion are no new things 2. Because either the Gods dwelleth in their images against their will or of their own accord if the former be said they are compelled which is absurd If the latter then they do either bide alwayes in their images and so are miserable or they go out of the images when they please and then the images are empty things Eusebius Caesariensis who lived An. 300. when Constantia Augusta wrote to him for the Image of Christ answered That could not be 1. Because his manhood was joyned with his Godhead and could not be separated therefrom 2. Because his Godhead cannot be represented Mortuis inanimatis coloribus with dead and livelesse colours Hieronimus who lived An. 331. under Constantine denyeth that any Creature Angel or Virgin Mary should be worshipped Ruffinus faith Helena the mother of Constantine adored crucified Christ but antiquity saith not that she adored the nails that fixed him to the Crosse because they were but creatures Ambrosius who lived Anno 370. condemneth Images 1. Because they change the images of the dead in the glory of God who worshippeth images 2. The living serve the dead 3. They take from stocks and stones what they are and give to them what they are not 4. Idols are unclean 5. It is undecent to worship what men maketh with their hands 6. Because images are but shadows Augustine condemneth Images 1. Because they infect the vveak mindes of rude people to worship them 2. They have eyes and see not 3. The creatures are images of God not stocks 4. Idols are huskes and empty 5. These who brought in Images tooke away the feare of God and increased error 6. Martyrs are not gods 7. Confounded be they who worship stones our living stone Christ is in heaven 8. Though worshippers of Images say they worship God in Images yet they worship devills for good men as Paul and
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.
15. And to wait on them with all patience if God peradventure may give them repentance 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spirits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former reasons by delivering to Satan cannot be meant a miraculous tormenting of the body by Sathan with the saving of the life Such as we read was the case of Iob for the delivering to Sathan is to cast out of the Church and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world of which Sathan is Prince Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert as the essentials of excommunication are 1. Here is a member of the Church one vvho is within 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall and had his fathers wife ver 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ v. 4. was delivered to Sathan that his soule may be saved for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication and to be purged out of the Church lest he should infect the Sheepe ver 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him nor to eate with him ver 9. 10 and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican ver 12. 13. and that by a convened court having the name and authority of him who is King of the Church ver 4. and more wee doe not crave Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan is no mean of salvation Answ A morall delivering to the efficacy of error and a reprobate minde is not a mean of salvation nor is excommunication such a mean nor in the power of the Church but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable communion of the Saints and of the prayers of the Church and meanes of grace such is a means and mighty through God to humble CAP. V. Quest 1. Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments beside the Pastorall rebukes inflicted by one VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel to debar the unclean from the society of Gods people and from communion with them in the holy things of God Numb 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast or the carcase of unclean cattell or the carcase of unclean creeping things and if it be hidden from him he also shall be unclean and guilty 6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord having his uncleannesse upon him even that soul shall be cut off from the people 21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing as the uncleannesse of man or any unclean beast or any abominable unclean thing and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which pertain unto the Lord even that soul shall be cut off from his people In the which observe that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excommunication not by death also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make a Covenant to cut off either by death or any other way as by banishment by which a thing leaveth off to be in use though it be not destroyed as when a branch is cut off a tree 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea we have Isa 50. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is that Bill of cutting off or divorce Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced but putting her from her husband as our Saviour saith It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage yet the word is Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrews have another more ordinary word to signifie death as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath in dying he shall die And it is expounded he shall be cut off from the midst of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Lev. 7. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is four times used without any such expression ver 20 21 25 27. To which may be added that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared According to the purification of the Sanctuary though they had celebrated the Passeover the King did not only not kil them but prayed God might be mercifull to them and the Lord killed them not saith the spirit of God but healed them Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread that soul shall be cut off from Israel but it is expounded ver 19. That soul shall be cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church of Israel Certainly he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church and from the company of all mortall men on earth Isa 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel as the holy Ghost expoundeth it Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance and so if he touch any unclean thing or eat unleavened bread forbidden of God he is excluded from the holy things of God while the Priest offer for him according to the Law Now if he was presently to be killed either by the Magistrate or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand as Aarons sons were there was not a journey to be made to the place the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there which might have been three dayes journey from his house who was unclean yea when the man that gathered sticks was stoned and the false Prophet stoned Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed and I hope there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead Hence learn we 1. That to cut off from the Congregation was not to kill but it was the Iewish Excommunication greater or lesse 2. That Moral sins under the Old Testament debarred men from the holy things of God while the Priests sacrificed for them and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy
House when others went astray I take to be a prophecie of these Pastors under the New Testament to wit the Apostles of Iesus Christ and Pastors and teachers that Christ left in his Church for the edifying of his body Ephes 4. 11. 12. When these Scribes and Pharises did sit in Moses his chaire for a while Mat. 23. but onely as porters and inferiour Officers in Gods house yet they were to be heard while God should cut them off as he prophecied Zach. 11. 8. We cannot say as some doe that persons were deprived amongst the Iewes of Church communion in the holy things of God because of Ceremoniall not of Morall uncleannes but now under the new Testament only Morall uncleannes can exclude persons from the holy things of God and therefore to argue from ceremoniall uncleannes in the old to morall uncleannesse in the new is no good consequence I answer the Ceremoniall uncleannesse in the Old which did exclude from the holy things of God doth strongly conclude that morall uncleannesse under the New Testament doth exclude from the holy things of God if that exclusion of the Leaper out of the campe seven dayes and the touching of the dead though imprudently did typifie some other exclusion from the holy things of God as no question it did then the consequence must be strong 2. It is also false that morall uncleannesse did not exclude from the holy things of God under the Old Testament For 1. what was more ordinary then that sacrifices should be offered for sins of ignorance for trespasâ—es and while this was done the person was not admitted to partake of the holy things of God 2. Whence was the Lords frequent complaints of wearying his soule with sacrifices solemne assemblies feast dayes and new Moones when they were morally uncleane and their hands were full of blood and they had not put away the evill of their doings did not love judgement and justice Isaiah 10. 11 12 13 16 17 18 19. And when God complaineth so of them Ier. 7. 8. Will ye steale murther and commit adultery and sweare falsely and burne incense unto Baal and walke after other Gods whom ye know not 10. And come and stand before me in this house which is called by my Name Ergo Murtherers and adulterers were debarred from entring into the Congregation of the Lord and partaking of the holy things of God while they repented Let none say by prophecying or the keyes of knowledge in preaching the Word they were declared unworthy to enter into the Temple but that will not conclude that it was the Priests office by power of discipline to exclude them from coming unto the Sanctuary of God Ans But if the Porters were set at doores of the Lords house to hold out the uncleane and if the Lord charge the Priests with this crime that they Ezek. 44. 8. set keepers of the charge of the Lords house for themselves that is for their owne carnall ends and not for the honour of the Lord And that ver 7. They brought into the Sanctuary of the Lords house uncircumcised in heart that is such as were morally uncleane then had the Priests a power to debarre from the Sanctuary such as were morally uncleane and if the Priests are said to beare rule by their meanes Ier. 5. 31. Then the Priests did beare rule and governe though they abused their Power and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to have dominion over any Psal 72. 8. Psal 110. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 24. Levit. 26. 17. And the Scripture gives a power of judging and governing to the Priests And 2 Chron. 30. 6 7. The Posts that Hezekiah and the Congregation of Israel sent through the Land commandeth a morall preparation to those that were to keepe the Lords Passeover to wit that they should turne againe unto the Lord God of Abraham and should not be like their Fathers nor like their Brethren that trespassed against the Lord God of their Fathers And ver 11. divers of Ashur and Manasseh and Zebulun humblid themselvs and came to Ierusalem to keepe the feast of the Passeover This proveth clearly that people under the Old Testament were no lesse to try and examine themselves by the King and Priests commandment carried to them by Postes before they should eate the Passeover then they are to try themselves before they eate and drinke at the Lords Supper onely the adversaries say the Priests by preaching were to debarre from the Passeover those who were morally unclean but not to debarre those who were morally uncleane so they were not typically and ceremonially unclean by any power of Discipline or by Porters set at the gates to keepe them out of the Sanctuary But I answer 1. How are the Priests Ezek. 22. 26. reproved for violating the Law of God and prophaning his holy things in that they put no difference between the holy and prophane the clean and the unclean Surely the Priests prophaned in the highest way the holy things of God in admitting into the Sanctuary those who were not onely ceremonially but morally uncleane as murtherers adulterers Who cryed the temple of the Lord Ier. 7. And they put no difference betweene the Holy and Prophane when they admitted to the holy things of God and into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in heart for they doe more pollute the holy things of God who partake of them being morally uncleane and uncircumcised in heart then those who are onely uncircumcised in flesh Object But the Church under the New Testament can no other way but morally and by preaching as it would seeme onely debarre scandalous persons from the Seales and Prayers of the Church for should a scandalous person or an excommunicate person obtrude himselfe on the Lords Supper against the will and sentence of the Church the Church cannot use any bodily violence to hinder such prophane intrusion upon the holy things of God because the Churches weapons are not carnall but spirituall bodily violence can be no spirituall weapon that the Church as the Church can use so do the Remonstrant Arminians argue and some other for the congregationall way Ans This Argument is against all Church-censures but though the Church as the Church cannot hinder scandalous intruders upon the holy things of God by bodily violence it doth not follow Ergo The Church can keep the holy things pure no way but morally that is by preaching only for we can give a third way The rebukes admonitions and Excommunication or delivering to Satan are all transacted without any bodily and externnll violence Christs Kingdom resigneth all such carnall weapons to the Magistrate who is the only Governour of the Church of Christ as the Opponents say All Church Censures are by way of Declaration applied to such men by name and there co-action though penall is not by bodily violence but by acting upon the conscience of men and putting them to shame Hence 2. We argue if beside
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 Churches not to the Pastors only 2. The removing of the Candlestick is not from the Angel but from the Church and repentance and the fighting and overcomming a reward of the crown of life and many other things are evidently spoken to the Churches not to the Angels of the Churches And therefore the tryall of false Apostles must be by a Church a Court a colledge of church rulers as Paul speaketh unto Act. 20. 17. Where it is said Paul called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and exhorted them to beware of false teachers that should not spare the flocke and should teach perverse things v. 28. 29. 30. and of this sort were these lying and seducing Apostles now how can one Angell or many Pastors by preaching onely try false Apostles and finde them lyars This trying and sentencing of lying seducers Rev. 2. 2. must be by a court such as we find to be the practise of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem who in a Synod Act. 15. did finde these who taught a necessitie of Circumcision to be perverters of soules and liars saying They had the Apostles authority for what they taught whereas they had no such thing and Schismatick troublers of the people Acts 15. See what further I have said for Excommunication before cap. 2. and sect 7. which proveth also the same thing The Church of Thyatira would not be rebuked for suffering Jezabel to teach if they had no power of Church censures to hinder her It is not enough to say that the Angel of that Church did sufficiently hinder Jezabell to teach when in publike he declared and preached against her false doctrine and by the same reason Pastors exoner their conscience if they preach that such and such scandalous persons are not to eate and drinke their owne damnation though they debarre them not in a visible court by name from the Lords table and though they never excommunicate them and therefore there is not any censure but Pastorall rebukes by way of preaching not any other by way of discipline Ans The Angel of Thyatira had not sufficiently hindered Jezabel to seduce the servants of God by only preaching against her false doctrine in regard that Paul and Barnabas not only hindred those that teached that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised Act. 14. cap. 16. by Preaching but also had recourse to the power and authority of a Synod that in a Synod which is a Court essentially consisting of many Pastors and Elders they might be declared to be perverters of souls and liars as indeed they were judicially declared to be such Act. 15. 24. Hence I argue if the Apostles could not be said sufficiently to hinder Jezabels and Seducers by only Preaching and Disputing against their errors except in case of their persisting in their errors they should tell the Church convened in a Synod as Christs order is Mat. 18. Then the Angel of Thyatira or any one Pastor do not sufficiently hinder scandals but may be well said to suffer them by only private rebuking and publick Preaching except they use all these means to hinder Iezabels false Teachers and all scandalous persons that the Apostles used and therefore the Angel of the Church of Thyatira must be rebuked for not using the Authority and power of the Church against Iezabel And here by the way when these false Teachers had sinned against their brethren in perverting their souls they take not the course that Erastus dreameth to be taken according to Matth. 18. They complain not to the Synedrim or Civill Magistrate who should use the sword against them but to the Church Synodically convened at Ierusalem who used against them the Spirituall power that Christ the head of the Church had given them 6. Arg. If there be an Ecclesiasticall debarring of scandalous persons from the holy things of God especially from the Supper of the Lord by Censures and not by the preaching of the word only then there be Censures and power of jurisdiction in the word beside preaching of the word But the former I make good by these following Arguments 1. Arg. If the Stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God are to cut the word aright as approved workmen 2 Tim. 2. 15. And are to give every one their portion of bread according to their need and measure Matth. 24. 45 46 47. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2. 3. and must not sâ—ay the souls which should not die by denouncing wrath against the righteous nor save the souls alive that should not live by lying words Ezec. 13. 19. by offering mercy to the wicked and impenitent then as they should not deny the seals of salvation to Believers hungring and thirsting for Christ neither should they give the seals of life to those that are walking openly in the way of destruction But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is clear As the word should not be divided aright if wrath should be Preached to believing Saints and life and salvation offered to the obdurate and wicked so neither should the Stewards cut the seals of the word aright if the Supper were given to wicked men If they should say This is the blood of the Covenant shed for the Remission of your sins Drink ye all of it They should save alive those that should die with lying words for the seals speak to the Communicant and apply to him in particular the very promise that in generall is made to him and this will prove as the Magistrate being no Steward of the word and not called of God thereunto as Aaron was Heb. 5. 4. can no more distribute the word and seals to whom he pleaseth Ex officio then he can Preach and Administer the Sacraments nor should another man who is no Steward but a Porter or Cook Teach and that by his office how and to whom the Steward should distribute Bread nor is it sufficient to say by this one man not the Church is to debar from the Sacraments for the seals being proper to the Church as the Church he must act here in and with the power of the Church 2. It is another question whether by the Minister or by the Church any ought to be debarred and whether there be any such Censure as debarring from the Seals and it s another question by what power whether by the power of order or by the power of jurisdiction Ministers may debar the scandalous from the seals I conceive by both powers they may keep the Ordinances pure and if it belong to the Magistrate to debar any more then to preach the word and by the way of Erastus The Magistrate by his office as he is a Magistrate only is deputed of Iesus Christ to Steward the seals to whom he pleaseth Ergo say I to cut the word aright to whom he pleaseth must be his due 2. Arg. As the dispensers of the word must not partake of other mens sins 1 Tim. 5. 22. so neither should
22. A broken heart dryeth the bones And therefore it is to be observed that â—rastily Erastus insisteth most on those points and syllables of a Text whereon all Divines Ancient and Modern do place least strength for Excommunication I might therefore passe all Erastus his force against Excommunication in these and he shall be not a whit nearer his point 2. But I shall follow him when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirit are put together I see no reason that the one should signifie the body the other the soul I know the contrary to be Rom. 8. 1. Those that walketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the inordinate affections and lusts of the flesh are opposed to those that walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the spirit and Gal. 5. 17. the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lusteth against the spirit and the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the flesh Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is flesh it is not that which is born of the body as body and that which is born 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the spirit is spirit so Rom. 8. 9. 13 14. Erastus should have shewed us such places wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and the spirit signifieth the body and the soul when the matter of salvation is spoken of as here That the spirit may be saved ver 5. then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh is for the most part if not alwayes taken in an evil part for the corruption of mans nature Erastus How could they desire the Apostle not to deliver him to Satan that he might as Beza expoundeth it destroy his flesh that is bring him to repentance How could Paul assent to such a Petition How could the Apostle write that he did forgive him Did Paul by forgiving him permit him not to mortifie and destroy his flesh and sinfull lusts Ans Let Erastus answer How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul grant such a Petition as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul by pardoning the man permit that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord for the saving of the mans soul is no lesse a fruit of this delivering to Satan then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh 2. They might well desire that upon the mans repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends the mortification of his lust and the saving of his soul then the last and most dreadfull remedy which is the censure of Excommunication 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scripturall remedy for saving of the soul in the day of Christ at is clear Rom. 7. 7 8 9 10. Gal. 5. 24 25. But whether miraculous killing be such a mean ordained of God is the question and ought to be proved by some word of God beside this place in controversie Erastus These words that the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord do hold forth that the miserable man was presently to die Ans That they hold forth no such thing is evidently proved for how were they to cast him out and judge him And how was Paul to pardon him and they and Paul to confirme their love 2. When Peter saith 1 Pet. 1. 7. That your faith may be found unto praise honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ were all these presently Because Paul and the faithfull Philippians were waiting for their Saviours second coming who should change their vilde bodies were they to die presently When Paul prayeth that Onesiphorus may finde mercy in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. I pray you will it follow that Onesiphorus was presently to die Erastus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuke doth not signifie rejecting from the Sacraments 1. Rejecting from the Sacraments is never put for punishment in Scripture 2. It is but a rebuke inflicted by many and Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth him from this as a sufficient punishment a rebuke is no punishment Ans 1. To be debarred from the society of the faithfull as Hagar was as Cain was as David was Cast out of the Lords inheritance by Saul yea to be rebuked Ezech. 3. 25 26. are evils but they are not evils of sin Ergo He speaks not like a Divine who will not have them punishments if to injoy the Sanctuary Church holy things of God and the society of the Saints be a rich blessing of God as the Scripture saith it is Psal 42. 4. Psal 27. 4. Psal 84. 10. Psal 110. 3. Psal 63. 1 2 3. Cant. 1. 7. 8. Cant. 2. 16. 17. Cant. 5. 1. Cant. 6. 1 2 3. Rev. 2 1. and to deny this be a symtome of prophanity then to be separated from these as a Heathen must be to the children of God the greatest evil of punishment and matter of sorrow on earth it smelleth not of piety to deny this Erastus If the man was only rebuked How was he to be delivered to Satan to be tormented and killed Some Ancients answer he was but delivered to Satan to be afflicted in his body with sicknesse and at length delivered by Paul others say more congruously to the minde of Paul that Paul purposed not by himself to deliver the man to Satan but to do it with the Church congregated together and when the Church saw him swallowed up with griefe they deferred while they tryed Pauls minde and obtained pardon to him and in the means time threatned him if he should not repent and obtained at length that Paul should pardon him Ans Many learned Divines hold the former yet so as they conclude Excommunication out of this Chapter of this I say no more But Erastus hath a way of his own To which I say 1. There is no Scripture but this controverted one to warrant that the Apostles who had the gift of Miracles 1. Suspended the working of Miracles either on the prayers or free consent of the whole multitude of beleevers 2. That the execution of a miraculous work was committed to Deputies and substitutes under Paul who had it in their power miraculously to kill him or in their free will and Christian compassion to suspend the miracle and not kill 3. That the Apostles in acts of miraculous justice sought advise of any or might be broken by requests to desist from miracles as they saw the party repent or not repent or friends intercede or not intercede 4. So many circumstances of the Text laying a command on the Church of Corinth to put him out and judge him and yet the matter remaine a miracle These to me are riddles if God had told us such a History I could have beleeved it but to gather these by uncertaine conjectures without any
and every where to be observed in all Churches Yet Paul neither practiseth it here nor else where nor commandeth others to practise it now here he desireth they may be cut off but not excommunicated Ans We say the last is no question you never read in the New-Testament or in the Old that Prophets or Apostles consulted or advised with the people whether they should work miracles or not 2. Though Excommunication was an ordinary power as the power of binding and loosing given to the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 22 23. Yet the actuall exercise of Excommunication being the highest and weightiest censure and the most severe of any other on earth it is no wonder that Paul be as sparing and rare in the exercise of it as the Apostles were in killing mens bodies 3. It is a begging of the question to say Paul neither practised himself nor commanded others to excommunicate for he did both Erastus That which is Rom. 16. spoken for eschewing of those who cause offences is that every one single person beware of false Teachers it is not spoken to the Church to Excommunicate those false Teachers and therefore there is no such need of such a Presbytery as you dream of but only of good and diligent Ministers who may rightly instruct and prudently teach their hearers what Teachers they ought to eschew Ans 1. The eschewing of false Teachers is a generall and a duty no question given to all and every one of the Church But the place doth no more say in expresse terms that a single Pastor should give warning particularly by name that this man Iohn Hymeneus Alexander are those false Teachers to be eschewed then it saith that the Presbytery which we assert doth in expresse termes shew what false Teachers they be who by name are to be Excommunicated and eschewed but you see that Erastus is overcome by truth so far as he must say one single Minister may declare that such a false Teacher by name is to be eschewed as a Heathen and a Publican and so in effect excommunicated and put out of the Church but he denieth that the Church may declare him a Heathen as Matth. 18. and that many Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the name of Christ as it is 1 Cor. 5. may put out a false Teacher or a wolf out of the flock 2. We grant that it is spoken to every one that he should eschew false teachers yea and 2 Thes 3. All that walketh unordinately all fornicators extortioners drunkards 1 Coâ— 5. But that every man should eschew those whom he in his private judgement conceiveth to be such before he rebuke them and labour to gain them and in case of obstâ—nâ—cy Tell the Church as Christ commandeâ—h Matth. 18. is not commanded buâ— forbidden Matth. 18. Lev. 1917. Col. 3. 15. For if this should be that I might immediatly upon my own private grudge unbrother and cast out of my heart and intire fellowship every one whom I conceive offendeth me and walketh unordinately without observing Christs order or previous rebuking of him I make a pathway to perpetuall Schismes 2. A violation of all Laws of fraternity and Christian Communion 3. A dissâ—lving and breaking of all Church Communion and iâ— were strange if Erastus will have Christs order kept Matth. 18. in private offences done by one brother to another and not in publick offences when a brother offendeth twenty and a whole Church as if I were obliged to seek to gain my brothers soul in private and lâ—sse injuries and not in publick and more hainous offences Hence it is clear to me If we are to reject an Heretick after once or twice admonition and not to receive in our houses false Teachers and 1 Tim. 6. 3. If any teach otherwise and consent not unto the wholesome word even the words of our Lord Iesus Christ being given to perverse disputing as men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. We are to withdraw our selves from such and to save with severity and plucking out of the fiâ—e those that cannot be cured then certainly the Church of Christ must also turn away from such men and acknowledge them as no members of the body whereof Christ is the head if we say not this if one hath leave in a constituted Church to jâ—dge and condemne his brother and then we shall not take the course of the Apostles in the like case as Act. 15. which is not Apostolick for when false Teachers troubled the Brethren they would not peremptorily though great Apostles as Paul and Barnabas determine against either the false doctrine or the persons of the Teachers while the Apostles Elders and Brethren did meet in a Synod and determine against the Error and against the men as such as troubled the Brethren with words and perverted their souls Act. 15. Now Erastus is willing to acknowledge a sort of Divine Excommunication not a humane as he is pleased to call that Ordinance of separating of wicked men from the Church and holy things of God which yet was in the Church of the Jews instituted by Christ and his Apostles and which no Church wanted as learned Beza saith even in the time of persecution had Erastus explained to us his divine Excommunication as he calleth it it were easie to bring most of his owne Arguments with greater strength of reason against it then against ours which is the truely divine Excommunication CHAP. XIV Quest 10. Whether Erastus doth strongly prove that there is no Presbytery nor two distinct judicatures one of the Church another of the State Erastus I deny not First such a Presbytery as the Evangelists mention which is called a Presbytery a Synedry a Synagogue this was the civill Magistrate who had amongst the Jews the power of the sword 2. I deny not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. when the Church wanteth a civill Magistrate 3. I deny not a Presbytery of learned men who being asked may give their judgement of doubts of which Ambrose there was nothing of old done sine seniorum consilio without the Counsels of the Elders But I deny a Senate collected out of the body of the Church to judge who repenteth and are to be excommunicated and debarred from the Sacraments and who not or I deny any Ecclesiasticall judicature touching the manners and conversation of men different from the judgement or court of the civill Magistrate or that there be two supream Courts touching manners in one Common wealth Ans One simple head in a moment may deny more then many wise men can prove in a whole day it proveth they are more cumbersome in their disputes then strong that there was a Iewish Presbytery â—hat is a civill judicature is conâ—uted by Lev. 10. 10. where there is a Court of Aarons sonnes whose it was to judge of Church matters only and to put difference betweene holy and unholy betweene
should not delay to pray till he were first delivered from the gall of bitternesse and then pray Sure if Peter had said to Simon Magus First labour to be freed of the gall of bitternesse and to have thy thoughts pardoned and then pray that the thoughts of thy heart may be pardoned as Christ saith First bee reconciled to thy brother and then offer and as Paul saith First Let a man try and examine himselfe and so let him eate and drinke the reply of Erastus should have nerves 2. It is true Christ speaketh not of the externall government of the Church but it is as false that he speaketh of the internall acts of the minde but he speaketh of the right ordering of the externall acts of divine worship which are regulable though not quatenus as regulable by the Church and draweth an argument from the words by necessary consequence which consequence Erastus cannot elude 3. But how doth Erastus prove this consequence if our Exposition stand and if we were to doe nothing in offering gifts at the Altar except we bee first reconciled to our brother and if God approve nothing which we doe which deviates from this perfection we should doe nothing that is good and right and so all must be excommunicated 1. Is Christ here injoyning a work of perfection and of supererogation Is Erastus popish in this 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright so is it not to eate and drinke worthily while first we be reconciled to our brother Erastus was so surfetred with charity as we heard before that if any but desire the Sacrament and professe repentance he thinketh he is obliged to beleeve he is fit for the Lords Supper and here if Christ require but that the partie be reconciled to his brother ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament this is too great strictnesse it should excommunicate us all and we shall so never doe any thing that is right and good 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internall acts onely and of that which our minde injoyneth for the Lord speaketh of three externall visible acts 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother 5. He saith not if the Presbyters bid you saith he leave your offering true he saith not that in words but supposing this that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering he had beene killing his owne sonne to Molech as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer while he should testifie his repentance and finding him impenitent whether should they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God and to be cast out of the Church as 1 Cor. 5. Certaine this is Christs order Be first reconciled to thy Brother and then offer try thy selfe first and then eate and if the Church see this order neglected whether are they to suffer clean and unclean to come and eat and holy things to be prophaned Erastus He shall expede himselfe out of this doubt easily who can distinguish the internall governing of the Church which is proper to God onely who knoweth the thoughts and can judge them without error from the externall governing of the Church in qua falli infinitè omnes possumus in the which we may all infinitely erre and in which we can doe nothing nisi quod mandatum expessè nobis legimus except what vve read to be expresly commanded for here he vvho is not against us is vvith us Marke 9. and no man ought to forbid those which God hath commanded so they bee externally done all externall actions quoad nos to us are good vvhich are done according to the prescript of Gods Word though to God vvho judgeth the heart they be not good every vvay many to day the Pharisees of old many in Pauls time preach for gaine many are ambitious and some out of envy preach Christ never for bad them to teach nor Paul but rejoyced Phil. 1. that Christ was preached hovvever since no man can understand the internall actions or thoughts and without error judge them there is no punishment by mans Law for them onely God vvithout error judgeth and punisheth them Ans There be many untruths here 1. If this distinction of internall and externall governing of the Church remove most of the doubts here he that eates and drinkes unworthily which is an act of externall worship which may be regulated and ordered by the Church for the Church may not administer the Sacraments to Pagans without the Church is no sinne to the unworthy eater because God commanded that externall act expresly as Erastus saith and so it is a good action quoad nos even to the unworthy eater for he knoweth not his owne thoughts nor can he judge them without error especially being unregenerated 2. If Erastus himselfe acknowledge this his owne disâ—inction he must acknowledge an externall Church-government and who then are the Governours especially in the Apostolick-Church where heathen Magistrates are Pastors and Teachers no doubt what meaneth this then my Brother trespasseth against me and will not be gained I tell the Church Erastus saith I tell the Christian Magistrate but there is no Christian Magistrate then there was no externall Government in the Church the first hundreth nay nor three hundred yeers in the Church or then it must follow that the Apostles and Pastors were the deputies of heathen Magistrates Ergo the heathen Magistrates should with imposition of hands have been ordained the officers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church And that they were not it was their owne fault for the principall officer must be more principally called to office by Christ and given by him as a gift when he ascended on high to edifie the body of the Church Eph. 4. 11. 3. Erastus will have men debarred from judging the inward actions because God only can judge them sine errore without error But so God only should judge all things internall and externall and there should be no Magistrates because men may erre in judging the externall actions of men and will not this gratifie the Papists who say in this Tell the Church that is the Pope who cannot erre Then the Synod cannot erre Protestants deny the consequence Synods may judge as Act. 15. and yet Synods may erre 4. Erastus will have us lyable to infinite errors in externall actions therefore saith he we should do nothing in externalls but what is expresly commanded but first may we not infinite falli infinitely erre in internall actions and thought and acts of beleeving are we more infallible in internall then in externall actions New Theologie and are we not as well tyed to what is expresly commanded in internall as in externall actions I think the word is as strict a rule and the Law of the Lord as
the Iewes that he should not be taken and crucified as is clear in the words but he opposeth not his Kingdome to an externall visible Kingdom for his Church visible consisting of visible Officers is his Kingdom Eph. 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 13 c. The Word of the Kingdom is audible and it is visibly professed and Ministers are visibly and externally called to the holy Ministery by the laying on of the hands of the Elders and voices of the People but he opposeth his Kingdome to a Kingdome fighting with the Sword and using the coactive power of the sword to save him from being apprehended and crucified by the Iewes Now this is the Magistrates Kingdome for he beareth not the sword in vain Rom. 13. 4. and so Christ evidently proveth in these words that the power that beareth the sword which is the very essence of the Magistrates office as a Magistrate is not a part of his Kingdome for his Kingdome is of another World and Spirituall but the Magistrates power is of this World and useth worldly weapons as the sword Then it is evident that the Magistrate as the Magistrate 1. Is not subordinate to Christ as Mediator and head of the Church 2. That when it was said All power in heaven and earth is given to the Mediator Christ The sense cannot be the power of the sword was given to him as Mediator to be a judge and a Ruler on earth which he refused Luke 12. 13 14. though as God he hath the power of the sword 3. That the supream Magistrate as Magistrate is not the onely Deputie Delegate and Vicar of Christ as Mediator for if Christ as Mediator have a substitute and Deputie such as the Magistrate as the Magistrate who beareth his bloodie sword to cut off the enemies of the Church and to fight for Christ then 1. Christs Kingdome surely should be of this World 2. By the same reason since as Mediator he is Priest and a High Priest to offer a sacrifice to God as all Priests must doe that are proper Priests Heb. 8. 3. c. 9. 7. c. 10. 14. c. 10. 1 2 3. c. there must be Priests under Christ properly so called to offer some bloodie sacrifice satisfactorie for sinne which is blasphemie to say I meane proper Priests for otherwise in a figurative and borrowed sense all beleeevers are Priests to offer themselves to God Rom. 12. 1. Revel 1. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. but not the Deputies of the High Priest Iesus Christ and by the same reason he must have Prophets under him that are Vicars and Deputies which is unpossible for Christ as Prophet and great Prophet is essentially Lawgiver and the Author of Cannonick Scripture and he who really by a supernaturall power teacheth the heart but so he hath no Deputies nor any Ministers or Prophets nor any under Law-givers or under Prophets which by an action or any active power communicated to them can as under Lawgivers devise any part of Law or Gospell or any other part of Cannonick Scripture or have any active influence supernaturall to make a new heart Hence all our Divines say Christ as Mediator and King of the Church hath no Deputies neither King nor High Priest nor Pope nor Saint 4. It must follow that the Magistrate who as Magistrate beareth the Sword is not the head officer of the Church under the Mediator for as Magistrate he must act with the sword upon the Church as the Church and the Ministers of the Gospell as they are such whereas when the Magistrate doth act as Magistrate on the Ministers with the sword he doth it on them as men erring and sinning But onely so he procureth as a Magistrate the spirituall good of the Church as the Church indirectly and by the sword in driving away Hereticks and wolves from the flock That Church which is the pattern and rule to all the Churches unto the end of the world in those things that belongeth to a Church as a Christian Church must be our rule and paterne in Government But in the Apostolick Church of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Thessalonica Corinth Galatia Philippi Colosse the seven Churches of Asia planted and framed up as perfect Christian Churches by the Apostles the Magistrate was not the only supream Governour of Churches nor did the Apostles Elders and Teachers in those Churches nor the Church act preach dispence the Sacraments rule governe as servants under and through and from the Authority of the Magistrate or King as his Vicars deputies and servants But by immediate Authority from Iesus Christ placed in them without the interveening mediation of Magistrates Ergo that Church should be the patern of our Church though the adversaries deny the proposition to wit that the Apostolick Churches as Apostolick should be our patern in all things in regard that the Magistrates were then heathens enemies to the Church and Gospel and so de facto actually and by accident could not be the supream officers and Governours of the Church yet now when we have Christian Magistrates that are nursefathers to the Church and beleevers professing the Gospel such as David Solomon Iosiah Iehoshaphat and Ezekiah and other godly Princes of Israel and Iudah were and therefore that the Church as it is a Generall both to the Iewish and Christian Church should be our paterne in Government yet we have though I say they deny this Major a great advantage of the adversaries in these 1. We have the first Christian Church to be our paterne and the New Ierusalem that came downe from Heaven from God Revel 21. 10. The mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Which is builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone Ephe. 2. 20. to be our rule and paterne and all that was prophecied though not compleatly in all the degrees of the Church of the Apostles was then fulfilled as touching the essence of a Church 2. Yet here the Magistrate was no chief officer 3. The adversaries must prove Moses David Solomon and those godly Kings as Kings and Magistrates and virtute officij were supream rulers and Church-officers and so that Constantine and all the godly Princes and Emperours were by vertue of their office as Magistrates all such Prophets as were Moses David Solomon for certainly they as Prophets wrote Scripture had the form and structure of the Temple revealed to them of God received Laws from God for the Priests if our Kings as Magistrates now can do the like we shall then say something to their Headship over the Church 4. And if they reformed Religion in the time of the defection of the Priests when they were holy and zealous and walked with God and did right in the sight of the Lord like unto David such as Jehoshaphaet Josiah when the Priests were corrupt we shall grant the like to Parliaments made up of Josiahs and Ezechiahs when the Assembly of Divines are
1 2 3. ver 8 9 10. cap. 3. 8 9 10. Coming behinde in no gift 1 Cor. 1. 7. In Covenant with God casting out the incestuous 1 Cor. 5. Separated from Idols 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. Espoused to one husband Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. Established in the faith and increasing in number daily Act. 16. 5. Yea the Churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galile and Samaria and were edified walking in the â—ear of the Lord and in the comforts of the holy Ghost and were multiplied Act. 9. 31. Now if the Christian Magistrate be their only Head and chief Feeder and all Elders but his servants Edifying à sub Magistratu from and under the Magistrate How were they edified and the compleat house of God the house wanting a head and the Church of the living God without the chief feeder and shepheard the Magistrate when all this time the Lord set spirituall Pastors and watchmen over them It is true it might be some defect that they wanted a Christian Magistrate who was their Nurse-father and keeper and avenger of both Tables of the Law But this defect was 1. A defect of the Church as men who may be injured and do violence one to another as men if they want one who beareth the sword to be avenged on evil doers But it is no defect of the Church as the Church 2. There might be some defect in the Church as a Church in this regard that without the Magistrate his accumulative power the edification of the Church extrinsecally might be slower Church Laws lesse vigorous extrinsecally without the sword and evil doers might infest the Church more but there should be no privation or intrinsecall defect or want in the Church either of an officer or integrall part of the Church because they wanted the Magistrate 3. When the first three hundreth year the Churches wanted Christian Magistrates afterward Constantinus convocated the Councell of Nice against Arrius yet professing that he was Episcopus without After him the Empire being divided into three Constantinus Constantius and Constans the second adhered to Arrius oppressed the godly Constans and Constantinus lived not long Though Jovianus Theodosius elder yonger Gratianus Martianus were favourers of the Church yet most of the Northern Kings were persecuters In the sixth hundreth year they began to be obstinate favourers of Heresie In the West Antichristianisme in the East Mahumetisme rose for the most part the Church wanted godly Magistrates and alway hath wanted Whatever power or means of life Christ hath given to his Church or pastors for the edifying of their soules either in Doctrine or Discipline by these is the holy Ghost efficacious on the hearts and conscience of the people of God as immediatly given by Iesus Christ without the mediation or intervention of any other means But Christ hath given power and means of life to preach the word to admonish rebuke Excommunicate to the Church and Pastors by which the holy Ghost worketh efficaciously on the hearts of the people of God which God hath given immediatly to the Church and Pastors especially in the Apostolick Church when there were no Magistrates and the holy Ghost is no wayes efficacious in the hearts of the children of God by the Laws Statutes and sword of the Magistrate Ergo God hath given to his Church and Pastors not to the Magistrate power and means of life in which the holy Ghost is effectuall and that immediatly and not to the Magistrate Or thus Whoever is the supream officer and head of the Church having under him all Church-officers as his servants by such God is effectuall in the consciences of men But Pastors Teachers Elders are such and no wayes the Magistrate Ergo The Proposition is thus made good by the word of reconciliation and the rod of the Lords power in the hands of men The holy Ghost worketh efficaciously in men Now the question will only be to whom this word of reconciliation is committed and the rod of God the Scripture saith to the Ministers never to the Magistrate 2 Cor. 5. 18. And hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation ver 20. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification 2 Cor. 2. 13. If I come again I will not spare 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye Shall I come unto you with a rod or in love 1 Tim. 5. 17. Act. 20. 28. 29. 30. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not you judge them that are within Matth. 16. 19 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 21 22. This word is no where committed to the Magistaate nor is the holy Ghost efficacious by the Laws and sword of the Magistrate to convert souls we know not Magistrates to be Ministers by whom we believe but Ministers only 1 Cor. 3. ver 5. Nor is the sword a kindely and intrinsecall mean of conversion This Argument may be further confirmed by all the notable differences that the Scripture holdeth forth to be between the Magistrate and the Ministers and Church As 1. The Church judgeth only those that are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. The heathen Magistrate may â—udge both those that are within and without the Church and every soul is under his power Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15. Matth. 22. 21. And by these same Scriptures the Christian Magistrate being a lawfull Magistrate having under him both believers and heathen may and ought to judge both Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot judge those that are within by the word as the Church doth but only in some common coactive way by the sword to compell them to do their duty 3. The Magistrates Kingdom is of this world and he may fight with his sword to defend his own subjects and his subjects may fight for him But the Church and Kingdom of Christ are not of this world nor can the Church as the Church and the Ministers thereof fight or use the sword as is clear Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 4. The Magistrate beareth not the Sword in vain but he beareth the sword in vain over the consciences of men or to judge those that are within for the Church judgeth those that are within with no such weapon as the bloody Sword There is neither sword nor dagger nor any weapon of War required in the Church of Ephesus their censuring of grievous Wolves or false Teachers Act. 20. 28 c. Nor in the Apostles and Elders determining truth against perverters of souls Act. 15. 21 22 c. and 16. 4. Nor in the Church of Thyatira their not suffering Jezabell to teach Rev. 2. 20. Nor in Pergamus their not suffering those that held the Doctrine of Balaam Rev. 2. 14. Erastus l. 4. c. 6. p. 285. saith The Church can kill no man with the Sword There was no sword ever
dreamt of in rejecting an heretick after the first and second admonition Tit. 1. 10. Let our Adversaries shew what influence the Magistrates sword hath here yea say they The Magistrate may banish the heretick ou◠of the Church True Ans Not out of the Church as the Church but out from amongst his subjects as his subjects whom he is to defend in peace and godlinesse 2. It is evident Titus had no power of the sword but was an Evangelist Paul wrote not to Titus to banish the heretick the rejecting here is a spirituall censure performed by previous admonitions 3. What can the Magistrate as the Magistrate do to this 4. The Magistrate is a Lord and hath by Gods appointment a Lordly dominion over those that are under him the Minister is only a Minister a Servant a Preco or Herald and hath dominion in the Church Luk. 22. 24 c. Now those over whom the Magistrate hath a civill dominion as a Magistrate over those he may exercise that Lordly dominion of the sword But the Magistrate as the Magistrate may use no Lordly dominion of the sword over the Church as the Church to Preach Exhort Rebuke Admonish Excommunicate to judge those that are within as the Church may do 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot be the supream and highest Church officer having under him Church officers as his servants and deputies to Preach and censure as à sub under and from him because as a Magistrate he carrieth not that which hath any power over the conscience that is he carrieth no◠the word of the spirit as a Magistrate but the sword bodily to punish evil doers 5. He who by office is chief overseer and watchman in the Church he must by office keep his own vineyard and not be put to keep the vineyard of others Cant. 1. 6. He must watch for the souls of those whom by office he keepeth as one that must give an accompt Heb. 13. 17. He must as a speciall watchman by his office Take heed to grievous Wolves not sparing the Flock speaking perverse things Act. 20. 29. And as a watchman he must blow the Trumpet and give early and seasonable warning to the people of the sword Ezek. 34. 1 c. Yea he must watch for the souls of ministers and teachers and by office rebuke admonish censure and punish them and by office judge of their Doctrine and Discipline and is over the people in the Lord and to admonish them as 1 Thes 5. And worthy of Honour for well Ruling 1 Tim. 5. 17. But these the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot do 1. He keepeth another vineyard of the Civill state he is not Pastor to the Church as the Church over which the Holy Ghost hath set him Act. 20. 28. 1 Peter 5. 1 2 3. he is not to give an accompt for the soul◠and for the souls of Pastors by his office he may as a Christian be his brothers keeper to teach admonish Col. 3. 15. and exhort Heb. 3. 13. he is not by office to blow the trumpet as Ezekiel was Ezek. 33. 7 8. Ezek. 3. 17 18 19 20. he is not over the people in the Lord to admonish them as a Magistrate as a Magistrate he only is either to praise and reward well doing or take vengence on evill doing Rom. 13. 4. nor doth Paul think Nero 1 Tim. 5. 17. worthy of double honour all those are proper to Church-officers the proposition is necessary because if the Magistrate be the eminent and supream watchman over the Pastors as his under deputies and servants then must the Magistrate more eminently keepe the vineyard and watch for the souls both of Pastors and people feed the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath set him be over the people in the Lord be worthy of double honour as one that ruleth well and is worthy of double honour and that by office Now 1. The word never warranted him in the Old Testament to sacrifice to burne incense to Minister before the Lord to carry the ark But God separated the Priests and Levites for this only and was it such a sinne for Vzziah to burne incense and for Vzziah to touch the Ark and for any to bear the Ark but the Levites and are not these things written for our instruction are we all now to bear the Ark and are we all to dispense the word and Sacraments When Paul will not have women to teach in the Church and when God hath no lesse in the New Testament separated some by the laying on of hands and appointed a Ministery in the New Testament then he did in the Old 2. Where hath God in Old or New Testament set downe that all those qualifications in an eminent manner and as principally due to the Magistrate as he hath described the qualification of the officers of the New Testament in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Ephesians Ch. 4. v. 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Tim. 2. 1 Cor. 12. Rom. 12. 3. Did Christ put upon Church-officers in the New Testament all the proper titles priviledges and peculiar Characters of their calling as they are the deputies of Claudius Tiberius and Nero so they had been Christian Princes this the adversaries must prove and must all the Epistles of Paul to the Churches of Christ and of Iames and Peter Iohn and Iude which concern Church-officers be written First and principally to the heathen Emperours as they be Church Magistrates and Church-officers jure though they be in very deed enemies of the Gospel de facto It must put Erastus and all his to paines to prove that Magistrates as Magistrates were separated in the Old Testament to sacrifice to burne incense to bear the Ark of the Lord and Priests and Levites and Prophets were only the under servants and instruments of Kings and the like they must do in the New Testament But this is carefully to be observed that the adversaries though they speake of Government and some yield as Master Prynne doth that there is such a thing as Excommunication especially 1 Cor. 5. yet the truth is they deny all Church-government for I desire to know why they give to Ministers of the Gospel a power to try who are hereticks apostates and unworthy partakers of the holy things of God Yea such as may ordaine Ministers and reject hereticks after admonitions if Iesus Christ hath given this power of Government beside preaching the word I aske quo jure by what Scripture if by no warrant of Christ then it is unjustly given to them and the Apostles and Teachers then had no right to it if there be a right that by office Pastors should know what is soundnesse in the faith and integrity of conversation and so who are to be called to the Ministery who not who are to be excluded totally from the Church as Erastus and Master Prynne say who not Then what warrant hath the Magistrate to limit the
ordinary right to Ordinances Word Sacraments discipline but by the magistrate and all that the Churches did in the Apostles times or the first three hundred yeers after Christ being contrary to the magistrates will must be either seditious or then it was by no rule of the Gospell but by an extraordinary dispensation and we shall have no warrant for any dispensing of the Word and of Seals or Government from the Apostolique Church because all that must have beene beside the rule and extraordinary 6. From this pretended subordination as the supream magistrate may doe all that the inferiour magistrate may doe because the King is eminently all that the inferiour Magistrate is and something more so may he dispense the Word and Sacraments in regard that the King is by the same officiall power over the Church as the Church in sacris in all matters of Religion as in civill things and containeth in him in a high and eminent manner all that the Church and Pastors can doe as they are such and because the King hath the same power in all Arts and Trades then by his Royal power he might if he had time and leasure build houses because of his royall Eminency over all Trades he might sit at the helme of any ship and steer and rule it he might paint Images he might plow the ground because he hath the like Royall power over masons Sailors Painters Husband-men carpenters and the like as he hath over the common-wealth and the Church we must then say that God hath called the King to all these to be a minister a mason a Sailor a Painter and if he had leasure he hath Gods calling to be a Preacher a Sailor as to be a King yea and that as King he is all these Now the Apostle clearly distinguisheth between him who exhorteth and teacheth in the Church Rom. 12. and him who is the Minister of God and beareth not the sword in vaine Rom. 13. and clearly insinuateth a distinction of calling so that God never called one man to all callings as it is 1 Cor. 7. 17. But as God hath distributed to every man as the Lord hath called every one so let him walke ver 20. Let every one abide in the same calling wherein he was called And it is clear if the King be a Head in the body 1 Cor. 12. then he is not the feet though he have need of the feet for then the eye should be both eye and eare and hand and therefore the King cannot be all Pareus in Rom. 13. saith the King cannot doe some things ob defectum juris ex Dei limitatione He cannot preach Ans Ergo Preaching belongeth by Divine right to another and it s not subordinate to him jure Divino 2. Saith Pareus he wanteth law to use the wiâ—â— of another man as his owne Ans Then the right of Husband and Wife is not subordinate to the King so as he may use the right of a Husband because it is against the seventh Commandement nor can he invade the right of Pastors to dispense Word and Sacraments it being against the second Commandment he not being called thereunto 3. Other things saith he he cannot doe for want of skill as to teach in a Colledge and others he cannot doe because they are fordid as to sew shooes Ans If God have not called the Prince to these it is not onely sordid but unlawfull for him to thrust his sickle in another mans field for God must call to a lawfull calling else men use a lawful thing unlawfully so it is sordid and unlawfull for him to judge those and the like Erastus I know roundly granteth that the King or any Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments nothing hindereth him but want of time which is a better Answer then others give who hold the same principles with Erastus and that the King hath the same Royall power in things civill and Ecclesiastick except the adversary flee to our distinction of power and persons and of things civill and sacred they shall never expede themselves But the King say they is not capable of 1. The power of Order he cannot be a Pastor or a Doctor 2. He cannot as King be capable of internall power of jurisdiction he cannot preach he cannot dispense the Sacraments but he is say they capable of externall power of jurisdiction to governe the Church excommunicate to debarre Apostates and Hereticks from the Sacraments to create Prelates Primates Metropolitans and such cattell to call and ordaine make and unmake Ministers to make all Canons and Ecclesiasticall Lawes and appoint religious Ceremonies as holy Surplice crossing oyle and spittle in Baptisme to create holy dayes to command men to kneel to bread and to order all the externall worship of God and beside the Word to order many little and smaller things in the borders of worship externall such as is some little Idolatry and Superstition And for ought I know by their way who hold there is no certaine forme of Government of Gods House in the Scripture some harmelesse and innocent golden Calves as lawfull as religious symbolicall Ceremonies This power is no more due to the Magistrate as the Magistrate then to dispense the Sacraments as I have said before Nor doe the Arminians much honour the Magistrate who walking in the steps of Erastus doe hold that the Magistrate having power of publique places Preachers are obliged not to preach in publike places if the Magistrate forbid them but they may preach in private places But 1. These same Arminians hold that Pastors are to preach whatever in their conscience seems to be the truth of God a principle of those who are for tolleration of all Religions though Iudaisme Turcisme a way I am perswaded most abominable and which the Lord of his Church will crush when he shal bring down other AntichristiaÌ„ untruths to the ground Now it seems to the conscience of Papists and many Hereticall teachers that they are obliged to preach Turcisme Iudaisme in the Temple and in publike that distinction is false vain as it is in very deed contrary to the truth of God to preach what they think the truth of God to preach it in publike or private or in any place is indifferent as touching the place 2. The Lord hath no more given to Magistrates power of places or actions religious in places then he hath given to them power of truths Ergo they must be obliged in conscience rejecting a â—â—iâ— and saplesse distinction to preach in publike places for as that juditioâ—s and learned professor Iac. Triglandius saith The place is accident all to the worship and changeth not the nature of it and truly as that learned professor saith it is a poor honour that they put on the Magistrate to limit all his power to places and stipends 3. The Apostles knew not this distinction for they not only preached truth the Scribes and Pharisees forbidding
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
the Church in his dominion leave to live under him as Nebuchadnezzar did to the Church in captivity The Christian Magistrate is a Governour for the Church 1. Men are governed as men politically by Magistrates though Heathen 2. Men are governed as Christians and Citizens of Heaven and Members of Christs invisible body by the inward government of the Spirit and Word 3. Men are governed as Members of Christs visible Body in Church-society Ecclesiastically by Church-officers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13. 7. 13. who watcheth for our Souls and are over us in the Lord and must give an account to God whom we are to obey in a Church-society so Pilate is called Mat. 27. 2. it is given to Kings and Rulers 1 Pet. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 23. 24. so it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one that serveth Luk. 22. 26. no question it is a word borrowed from the seventy interpreters who use it Iosh 13. 21. Mich. 3. 9. Ezech. 44. 3. Dan. 3. 2. the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thes 5. 12. are ascribed to Church-officers Yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler or a Commander Act. 23. 5. is ascribed to the High-Priest who was but a Church-officer and the stile given to Rulers Exod. 22. 28. from which these words are taken is Gods so Ioh. 10. 35 36. compared with Psal 82. 1. Exod. 21. 6. and proveth the same though Church-officers be onely Ministers not Lords not Princes having any dominion over the Lords inheritance Obj. 8. But is not this an easie way to extricate our selves out of all doubts if we say in Church-government that the doctrinal and declarative part is in the Ministers of Christ as Mat. 28. Go teach c. and the punitive and censuring part in the Christian Magistrate Rom. 13. according to that for the punishing of evill doers as Mr. Coleman saith Ans This Erastian way will intricate us not a little and is destructive of the Covenant of both Kingdoms 1. It s a distinction void of Scripture and reason for the Apostolick Churches by it must have no Government as Churches at all for to publish the Gospel which is made the one half Yea all Church-government for this punitive part is a dream is not Church-government nor any part thereof 1. Master Coleman desires that the Parliament would give to preachers Doctrine and power of preaching and wages learning and competency as for Governing of the Church let the Magistrate have that Ministers have other work to do and such as will take up the whole man Sermon Pag. 24 25. Then preaching the Word to the Church cannot be any part of Governing of the Church 2. Because Church government is properly acted by the Church with the power of the keyes to bind and loose in earth as in Heaven by Church-censures and pardoning of an offender and committed to many to the Church to a society gathered together Mat. 18. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. But publishing of the Gospel is done by one single Pastor even to the end of the world even where there is no Church even in the hearts of the Athenienses Act. 17. 33 34. of Felix Act. 24. 25. of the Iayler not Baptised Act. 16. 29 30 31. of the woman of Samaria Ioh. 4. 28 29 30. The Gospel exerciseth a doctrinall and externall government on thousands the like without the Church visible yea and who never are members of a visible Church is this any Church-government of which we now speak and in all the Scripture a power of the keyes to govern the visible Church was never committed to any one single man by Iesus Christ if an Apostolick-priviledge of Pauls excommunicating his alone be objected I can easily answer Apostles continue not to the end of the world 2. This doctrinal publishing of the word is the plants and flowers of the Gardens but Church-government is the hedge and those two are not to be confounded 3. Paul differenceth them as two distinct qualities of a Preacher 1 Tim. 3. while he will have him apt to teach ver 2. and v. 4 5. one that can rule the Church of God well and 1 Tim. 5. 17. ruling well is distinguished from labouring in the Word and Doctrine as a charge worthy of lesse honour from a charge worthy of double honour 4. All Protestant Divines distinguish Doctrine and Government the former belonging to the being and essence of a visible Church as an essentiall note thereof I mean the publike and settled publishing of the Gospel the other is only a thing belonging to the well being of the visible Church and an accident thereof so it is a heedlesse tenent to make the former a part with the latter 5. When we swear a conformity of Doctrine and worship in one Confession one Catechisme one Directory we do not swear the same over again when we swear to endeavour the nearest uniformity in Church-government c. which we cannot but do if the Doctrine and Worship be nothing but a part of Church-government or if it be all Church-government nâ—w if Mr. Colemans punitive part be but his own dream as I hope is easily proved there is no Church Government at all Now how Mr. Coleman did swear to indeavour the nearest uniformity of a Chimera and a thing that is just nothing let himself consider As for Mr. Colemans punitive part of Church Government by the Magistrate this by his way is done by the power of the sword of the Magistrate saith he and therefore citeth Rom. 13. He beareth not the sword in vain c. Hence either the Apostolique Church had no censures at all and so no visible government and order but preaching of the Word was all and except we would adde to our pattern and be more wise then the Holy Ghost and the Apostles we ought to have no Church Government but onely preaching the Word or then the Apostles Pastors and Teachers medled with the sword of the Emperour Nero in discharging the punitive part for with no other instrument doth the Magistrate punish ill-doers but with the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. This text Mr. Coleman citeth to make bloody Nero a Church-governour But no ground is for this in the Word that Paul Peter Timothy Archippus meddled with the Emperours sword or that the weapons of their warfare were carnal or that Paul was the Minister of God bearing the sword for the punishment of evil doers I think Paul speaketh of civil bodily punishing Rom. 13. and no violence greater can be offered to the Word of God for if that power be an Ecclesiastical administration every soul and so the Christian Magistrate is to be subject to this Ecclesiastical and Church power and if so then to the Church If Mr. Coleman deny the consequence I conceive to be subject to the Magistrate is Rom. 13. to be subject
the civil Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments 4. They never condemned the Discipline of Geneva Erastus doth 5. They acknowledge there was in the apostolick Church an Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery Erastus saith this is a devise wanting Scripture 6. They denied Excommunication to be exercised by all the Church as a devise of the Anabaptists Bullinger saith 1 Cor. 5. a dilectis ad hoc hominibus Erastus saith it must be exercised by the whole Church if there be any such thing 7. Bullinger and Gualther think that Discipline is necessary in the Church Erastus refuseth any such thing 2. Bullinger and Gualther do think that the Lords Supper which is an action of publike thanksgiving and communion should not be turned into a punishment which is a Use that Christ and his Apostles hath not taught us But this is easily answered 1. The pearls and holy things of the Gospel are not turned into another Vse then Christ hath ordained because they are denied to dogs and swine as a punishment of their swinish disposition and if these pearls were given to swine should they not be turned to another Use then is ordained by Christ Is not the union of members in a Church-body a sweet bound is this communion translated to a bastard end unknown to Christ and the Apostles because the incestuous man is cast out of that Communion This is as who would say the Table of the House is a symbol of a sweet Communion of all the children of the House Ergo the Table is turned from its native Use and is abused if a flagitious and wicked son be turned out at the doors and removed from the Table I think the contrary is true the Lords Table ordained for children is converted into an Use not known to Christ and his Apostles when the Table is prepared for dogs and swine and this argument is against Christ Mat. 7. as much as against us 2. By this the excommunicated cast out of the House is not debarred from the Table of the House What sense is here the offender is cast out from amongst the children of the Lords family and yet is admitted to the Table of the family 3. These great Divines teach that in the dayes of Christ and the Apostles there was such an ordinance as excommunication and that the Church who worketh not miracles for any thing that we read and received a precept from the Holy Ghost for Excommunication as a moral and perpetual mean to remove scandals to humble and shame an obstinate offender to preserve the Church from contagion and to edifie all as is clear Mat. 18. 15 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. that the Church I say or men must be wiser then Christ and remove this mean of edification and substitute the sword of the Magistrate that hath no activity or intrinsecal influence for such a supernatural end as edification this cannot but be a condemning of the lawgiver Christs wisdom Whereas Mr. Prinne and others say that by the preaching of the Word not by Church-discipline men are converted to Christ as witnesse the many thousands of godly people in England where there have been no government but prelatical I answer 1. This is to dispute against the wisdom of Christ who ascribeth to private rebukes and Church censures the gaining of souls the saving of the spirit repentance and humiliation Mat. 18. 15 16. 1 Cor. 5. 5 6. 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. because preaching is more effectual Ergo is the Discipline not effectual 2. Consider if thousands more would not have been converted if Christs Government had been set up for which Mr. Cartwright Mr. Vdal Mr. Dearing and the godliest did supplicate the Parliament 3. Consider if there hath not been in Scotland as many thousands comparing the numbers rightly when the Church was terrible as an Army with Banners 4. Consider how the Tigurine Churches and others for want of the hedge have been scandalously wicked 5. The Magistrate by punishing drunkennesse or fornication or extortion for he cannot take away the life for these doth not keep the lump of the whole Church from being leavened and infected with the contagion of such The Church by removing and casting out such an one must do that and the personal separating from such as walk inordinately cannot be an act of the Magistrate and yet cannot but be a perpetual and moral mean or ordinance that the Church is to use not only when they have not a Christian Magistrate but perpetually for we are to withdraw from those that walk inordinately and are not to be corrupted with having intire fellowship with wicked men whether the Church have a Christian Magistrate or no I am to gain my brother by rebuking and by telling the Church and to esteem one that heareth not the Church as an Heathen or a Publican that I may gain him Whether there be a Christian or an Heathen Magistrate in the Church except it can be proved that the Magistrate as the Magistrate is to gain souls to God Yea Musculus Bullinger and Gualther have alike reason to say there is no need that we rebuke privately a trespasing brother and that we forgive him seven times a day when the Church hath a Christian Magistrate as they can say there is no need of Excommunication for if the sword can supply the room of one spiritual ordinance of God why not of another also and the text will bear us out as well to say we are not to eschew the company of a scandalous brother for shaming of him and for the danger of being leavened by him because the Magistrates sword may supply the want of that mean of edifying as well as it may supply the want of Excommunication Yea they may say there is no need of publike rebukes by the Word the sword may supply these also The Helvetian Conâ—ession is approved by the Tygurine Pastors by the Divines of Berne Basil Geneva Deus ad colligendam vel constituendam sibi Ecclesiam eamque gubernandam et conservandam semper usus est Ministris Ministrorum virga institutio functio vetustissima ipsius Dei est non nova non hominum est ordinatiâ— cumque omninò oporteat esse in Ecclesia disciplinam et apud veteres quondam usitata fuerit excommunicatio fuerint que judicia Ecclesiastica in populo Dei in quibus per viros prudentes et pios ipsisimum presbyterium exercebatur disciplina Ministorum quoque fuerit ad edificationem disciplinam moderari c. Magistratus officium praecipuâ—m est pacem et tranquillitatem publicam procurare et conservare Gallica Confessio the 29. Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ sive disciplinâ quam D. N. I. C. sanciviâ— ita ut viz. in ea sâ—nt pastores presbyteri sive
as he had said Yet a band of men had been more necessarie then the Ceremonies So 2 King 23. 10 Josiah is commended for defiling Tophet to prevent occasion of offering Children to Molech for this cause God iudgeth an house without Battlement and the sending abroad a goaring Oxe to be murther Deut. 27. 28. Exod. 22. 28. 29. 33. Exod. 23. â— Deut. 7. 3. and Levit. 19. 14. Thou shalt not lay a stumbling block before the blind Marrying with the Canaanites was forbidden for the ruine occasioned by that to the soules of Gods people I prove the Assumption Gretzer saith In Ceremonies Calvinists are the apes of Catholicks 2. If such a worship had been in the Temple or Synagogue so as the Jewes in the same act might have worshipped Jehovah and the Canaanites Baall or Dagon as at one table the Papists may kneele and adore bread with the Protestant receiving the Sacrament it would be a raigning scandall 3. Atheists have mocked Religion for the Surplice and other Masse-toyes 4. Papists say Protestants are returning to their Mother Church of Rome 5. Wee cannot in zeale preach against Popish traditions and practise Popish Ceremonies 6. Lascivious carousings drunkenness harlatrie come from observing of holy dayes That this may be more cleare 1. The nature of a scandall would bee cleared 2 The Doctrine of the Apostle Paul about Scandall proponed A Scandall is a word or action or the omission of both inordinately spoken or done whence we know or ought to know the fall of weake wilfull or both is occasioned to thâ—se who are within or without the Church 1. It is a word or deed seene to others Sinfull thoughts not being seen are not publick scandalls though to the man himselfe they occasion sinne Hence non-conformitie simply to a thing indifferent must onely be scandalous as joyned with contempt formall contempt in things indifferent is inward and invisible to men 2. Omission of words and deeds scandalize Silence in Preachers when God matters go wrong is scandalous So Sanches 3. Not every word deed doth scandalize but such as are done unorderly Sanches saith these words and deeds Quae carent rectitudine which want some morall rectitude oâ— as Aquinas saith of themselves are inductive to sinne doth scandâ—lize or that M. Anton. De Dominis Archiep. Spalatens saith which is indictive to sinne or the cause of great evill or hindereth good as our faith zeale love c. that scundalizeth For though none of these fall out if the work or word or omission of either be such as of it selfe is apt to scandalize it is an active scandall Hence every little scandall is a sinne either in it selfe or in the unordinate way of doing â— But what objects are properly scandalous shall be discussed 3. When we know such words and deeds doe scandalize and they be not necessarie to be done yea and if wee ought to know for though the pronness and proclivitiâ— of our brethren or others to sinne be in some respect questio facti yet is it also questio juris a question of Law the ignorance whereof condemneth when the things themselves are doubtsomely evill but not necessary to be done Hence the practice of a thing indifferent when there be none that probably can be scandalized and hath some necessitie is lawfull as Colos 2. 16. Let no man therfore judge you in meat â—r drinke c. yet in case of scandall it is unlawfull to cat See 1 Cor. 10. 27. Eat whatsoever is set before you asking no question for conscience sake 28. But if any say this is offered in sacrifice to Idolls eat not for his sake who shewedit for conscience sake Conscience I say not thine owne but of others Therefore practising of things indifferent or non-practising are both lawfull according as persons are present who may be scandalized or not scandalized but this is in things though in nature indifferent yet in use having some necessitie as eating of meats but the case is otherwayes in things altogether indifferent as our Ceremonies are which are supponed to lay no ty on the conscience before God o incline to either side as they say to crosse or not to crosse laying aside the Commandement of men For if no-crossing be all 's good as crossing then though there be non-scandalized yet because it is such an action in Gods worship as is acknowledged to be indifferent and hath appearance of adding to Gods word and worship it is inductive to sinne and scandalous though none should hence be actu secundo ruinated and made to stumble But if any in Pauls time as the case was in the Church of Corinth should eat meates at a table forbidden in the Law he not knowing that a Jew was there this may seeme invincible ignorance because ignorance of a meere fact not of a law if that Jew should be scandalized through his eating it should seeme to me to be scandall taken but not culpably given 4. It is said in the definition That these inordinate words or deeds occasioneth the fall of others 1. Because the will of the scandalized or his ignorance is the efficacious and neerest cause why he is scandalized that is why he sinneth actions or words are occasions onely or causes by accident for none ought to be scandalized as none ought to sinne ad peccatum nulla est obligatiâ— 2. Because as to be scandalized is sinne so to scandalize actively is sinne though actuall scandall follow not as Peter scandalized Christ culpably when he counselled him not to die for sinners though it was impossible that Christ could be scandalized 5. It is said whereby weake or wilfull within or withoâ—t the Church may be scandalized For I hope to prove that it is no lesse sinne actively to scandalize the wilfull and malicious then the weak though there be degrees of sinning here and we must eschew things scandalous for their sake who are without the Church For the Second I set down these Propositions 1. from Rom. 14. 1. Proposit The weake are not to be thraled in judgement or practice in thornie and intricate disputes in matters indifferent This is cleare Rom. 14. v. 1. Ergo When people know not mistie distinctions of relative and absolute adoration of worship essentiall or accidentall they are not to be here thraled by a Law to practice Ceremonies humane 2 Proposit If a weake one eat herbs fearing the practice of things forbidden by Gods law he is commended and his abstinence praise-worthy as Rom. 14. v. 2. 3. and he ought not to be judged and so ought not to be a wed by a Law Then abstinence and non-conformitie is lawfull in such a case 3. Proposit He that eateth he that eateth not he that practiseth he that practiseth not indifferent things is not to be judged 1. God hath received the eater 2. You are not to judge another mans servant It is against the Law of Nations 3. If the weake fall God is able
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
of policy because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore alterable at the will of men p. 19 20 Order requireth not a Monarchical pâ—elate p. 21 22 How the care wisdom of Christ hath left an immutable platform of Discipline p. 22 23 Christ the onely immediate King Head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars p. 24 25 SECT 3. 5. Argument p. 26 27 Moses and David might not alter or devise any thing in Worship or Government nor may the Church now p. 27 28 Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials as were in the Old p. 29 30 How Moses his doing all according to the patern proveth an immutable platform The Objections of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Pryn answered at length p. 30 31 32 33 34 c. Gods care to us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide theÌ„ natural Reason in all morals of Church-Discipline p. 33 34 The occasional writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable p. 35 36 Papists pretend as Formalists do that things are not written in the Word because of the various occurrences of providence p. 36 37 That there was no uniform platform of Government written in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now p. 39 40 Fundamentals because successively delivered are not alterable p 41 42 The Church of Ierusalem as perfect in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern p. 42 43 The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable p. 45 46 The Argument of Moses his doing all in the Tabernacle to the least pin according to special direction further considered p. 47. 50 The Ark of Noah proveth the same ib. Formalists acknowledge Additions to the Scripture contrary to Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. the same way that Papists do p. 51 -56 c. Moses and Canonick Writers are not Law-givers under God but Organs of God in writing and meer reporters of the Law of God p. 62 63 Papists say that the Church is limited in the making of Ceremonies both in the matter and the number and so do Formalists p 62 63 64 Four wayes Positives are alterable but by God onely p. 64 All things never so small are alike unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture p. 64 65 By what authority Canonical Additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses p. 65 Canonick Writers how immediately led by God p 66 The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same p. 67 What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing lawful according to Hooker p. 68 The Fathers teach that all things are to be rejected that are not in Scripture p. 69 70 â—t derogateth nothing fâ—om the honour of God in Scripture that hee be consulted in the meanest things p. 70 How things are in Scripture p. 71 Some actions are supernaturally moral some naturally or civilly moral some mixt p. 72 Some habitual reference to Scripture is required in all our moral actions p 73 Works of Supererogation holden by Hooker p. 77 Whether our obedience be resolved in all Church policy in This saith the Lord in his Word or in This saith the Church p. 79 Two thingâ— in the external worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals or Circumstantials p. 80 SECT 5. The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent in Church-policy not to purpose in this question p. 81 82 c. SECT 6. What are Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Religion Service Worship Love Adoration p. 82 83 84 85 Two acts of Religion imperated and elicite p. 83 Honouring of holy men is not worship p 84 The Religions object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civil object except the intention concuâ—s maketh not religious adoration of a civil object p. 85 86 What Worship is p. 86 87 Worship is an immediate honouring of God but some worship honoureth him more immediately some lesse p. 87 88 A twofold intention in worship p. 88 89 Vncovering the head is veneration not adoration p. 89 Consecration of Churches taken two wayes condemned p. 90 Master Hookers moral grounds of the holinesse of Temples under the N. T. answered p. 92 The place 1 Cor. 11. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in c. maketh nothing for hallowing of Churches p. 93 Nor the place Psa 74 8. p. 94 The Synagogue not Gods house as the Temple was ib. Question 1. The negative argument from Scripture valid p 95 Not to command is to forbid p. 96 How far Davids purpose to build the Temple was lawful p. 97 Of additions to the Word p. 98 Even perfecting additions of men are unlawful p. 99 Every moral action is to be warranted by the Word p. 102 What is man's in worship is not lawful p. 103 Not all actions in man as actions of meer nature of arts or trades of sciences but only moral actions are regulated by Scripture p 104 Helps of faith and the formal object of faith are different p 105 What certitude of saith is required in all our actions of our daily conversation p. 107 The Scripture a Warrant for the morality of our acts of the second Table p. 107 Many actions of the second Table are purely moral all actions of the first Table are purely moral p. 107 108 What ever is beside the Word of God in morals is contrary to it p. 109 The vanity of the perfection of Scriptures in Essentials not in Accidentals p. 110 Whatsoever is not of faith how true p. 110 111 Doubting condemneth p 113 Papists say the Scripture in general is perfect but not in particulars and so Form lists p 114 What is onely negative in Gods worship cannot be commanded ibid. Opinion of sanctity and divine necessity not essential to false-worship ibid. The distinction of worship essential and accidental of Gods general and particular will is to be rejected p. 118 119 The distinction of divine and apostolike traditions rejected p. 125 126 Circumstances not positive religious observances as ceremonies are p. 127 Ceremonies usurpe essential properties of divine Ordinances p. 128 129 130 We owe subjection of conscience collateral onely to Gods Ordinances p. 135 The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies p. 136 The place Matth. 15. concerning the traditions of the Elders discussed p 137 138 Ceremonies Magical p. 141 If the third command shall enjoyn decency in general then must it enjoyn this special decency Crosse and Surplice p. 141 142 Iewish and Popish Ceremonies are fruitlesse professions of unlawful worship p. 142 143 Whether the Ceremonies be Idolatry p 144 Of religious kneeling ibid. Four things in adoration ibid. Intention of worship not essential to worship p. 145 Religious bowing of its nature and not by mans arbitrary and free
scandalous a mean to save them p. 339 The similitude of a cut off member to hold forth Excommunication vindicated p. 340 No warrant that the Apostles killed any by the ministery of Satan p. 341 No miraculous faith required in the Corinthians to pray for the killing of the man p. 342 c. Of the Leaven 1 Cor. 5. p. 344 What it is to purge out the Leaven none killed for eating Leavened Bread p. 346 To eat the Passeover with Leavened Bread a violation of that Sacrament p. 348 c. Putting away of Leaven p. 349 What is meaned by the whole lump and what by leaven p. 352 533 Hymeneus and Alexander not miraculously killed by Satan p. 354 355 Erastus his expositions all without ground in Scripture p. 354 Withdrawing from scandalous Brethren argueth Excommunication p. 357 How eschewing intimate fellowship with a scandalous Brother is a Church-Censure p. 357 358 359 Sacraments though helps of piety yet not to be given to all p. 361 362 Erastus his contradiction in excluding both some and none at all from the Sacraments p. 363 How withdrawing from scandalous Brethren may infer Excommunication p. 365 The scandalous are forbidden to come to the Sacraments p. 368 An evident contradiction in Erastus thorow his whole Book p. 369 Whom Erastus excludeth from the Sacraments p. 370 Some on earth must try who are to be admitted to the Sacrament who not p. 371 Other arguments for Excommunication vindicated p. 37â— The place Gal. 5. 12. vindicated p. 373 Paul did not judicially condemn the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. p 374 To eschew the scandalous is materially to excommunicate them p. 377 What Presbyteries Erastus yeeldeth p. 379 A Presbytery at Corinth p. 380 Erastus granteth an Examination of such as are admitted to the Sacraments and yet denieth that any should be debar'd p. 382 383 The places Deut. 17. and 2 Chro. 19. do prove two different Iudicatures p. 383 384 How the Kingly and Priestly office are different p. 384 385 Erastus denyeth the Ministery to be peculiar to some but proper to all under the New Testament p. 385 386 Two distinct Iudicatures 2 Chron. 19. page 386 387 The Magistrates are not to dispence the Word and Sacraments as Erastus saith p. 391 392 The Magistrate is not to judge who is to be admitted to the Sacrament who not nor hath he power of Church Discipline page 394 395 How Erastus confuteth a Presbytery p. 398 A Church Iudicature in the Iewish Church Deut. 17. ibid. The â—â—iest put no man to death p. 401 Teaching and Judging not one p. 406 The Civil Iudge as a Iudge cannot teach p. 406 407 Erastus maketh the Magistrate or Priest and Pastor formally one p. 406 What are the Matters of the Lord and of the King 2 Chro. 19. p. 411 412 Levites sometimes imployed in civil businesses p. 414 The power of the civil Magistrate p. 417 Men haue need of two sort of Governors ib. Magistracy and Ministery both Supreme in their own kinde p. 417 418 Erastus alloweth no Government but Popedom and Monarchy p 418 419 Christs kingdom how not of this world p. 421 Moses David Salomon appointed to the Priests nothing as Kings p. 423 The Priests onely judged de questione juris of the questioÌ„ of law in matters of death p. 424 The Priests and Levites had no Law-power by Gods Law or from Caesar to put Christ to death p. 426 427 The Sanedrim had no Law-power against Stevâ—â— to stone him p 427 The like of their dealing with Paul true ib. How the Christian Magistrat is to be acquainted with Excommunication p. 429 430 A Colledge of Church rulers in the New Testament p. 431 The place 1 Cor. 5. again vindicated no miraculous killing 1 Cor. 5. p 435 436 Cap. 19. Quest 15. Of the use of Excommunication p. 437 Erastus yeeldeth there is a Presbytery p. 43â— The Magistrate under Church-discipline ib. The Magistrate not a Church-officer p 440 A Iudicature proper to the Priest as Priest ib. The Magistrate under Ch. -discipline p. 443 How the Magistrates consent is requisite in Excommunication ib. The Magistrates Sword no kindly mean of gaining souls p. 445 The Scandalous are forbidden to partake of holy things p. 448 The morally unclean debarred out of the Temple 452 453 No price of a Whore to be offered to God and what is meant p. 454 455 Our chief Argument for Excommunication not answered p. 456 The place Mat. 5. When thou bringest thy gift c. discussed p. 457 How men do judge of inward actions p. 460 A frequent contradiction in Erastus p. 462 What it is to be cast out of the Synagogue p. 464 Christ and the Apostles not cast out of the Synagogue that we read as Erastus dreams 467 Ministers subject to the Magistrate 471 472 Morally unclean debarred from the holy things ibid. Tell the Church discussed p 476 seque Though there was no Christian Church yet Christ might say Tell the Church p. 480 There was no more a right constiâ—uted Sanedrim in Christs time then a Christian Church ibid. External Government of the Church not in the hands of the Magistrate 481 482 Rebuking of Princes argue no lesse â—uâ—isdiction then all that the Presbytery doth p. 484 WhoÌ„ Erastus eâ—cludeth from the Sacrament ib Magistrates if Scandalous are to be debarred from the Sacrament p. 487 Every profession maketh not men capable of the holy things of God p. 492 All sins punished with death in the Old Testament are not therefore so punished under the New Testament p. 493 How great sins debar men from the Sacrament p 497 The Scandalous among the Iews debarred from the holy things p. 498 The Magistrate cannot admit to or debar from the Sacraments 499 The Sword no intrinsecal and kindly mean of gaining souls p. 500 Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiastical Discipline p. 503 c. Idolaters and Apostates are to be excommunicated as Erastus saith ibid. The Church as the Church not subordinate to the Magistrate ibid. Government peculiar to Church-officers as to Priests and Levites p. 506 The Epistles to Timothy Titus must chiefly be written to the Emperor and Magistrate if Pastors be but servants of the Magistrate p. 507 508 Civil and Ecclesiastical powers immediatly from God p 510 511 The Magistrate not subordinate to Christ as Mediator ibid. The patern-Church of the Apostles not ruled by the Magistrate p. 513 Erastus and Mr. Pryn grant there is such an ordinance as Excommunication ibid. Suspension ex naturá rei may be where there is no Excommunication ibid. Christs admitting Judas to the Supper no rule to us p. 516 517 The Gospel preached to those to whom the Sacraments cannot be dispensed ibid. The Sacrament a confirming ordinance p 518 We partake of the sins of many in dispensing to the unworthy the Sacraments and not in preaching the Word to them p. 520 We know no extraordinary conversion by miracles without the Word p. 522 The Sacrament
Manners of Nations except they mean sinfull Customes as Sacramentall eating and drinking And the like may be said of all the alterable Ceremonies sometimes in use in England and now in force amongst Papists 3. Arg. That Commandement which Timothy is â—o keep without spot unrebukeable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 13. is no alterable command that falleth and riseth with the Customes Civill Laws and Manners of men But Paul commandeth under that every Positive Law of Church-Discipline to be thus kept of which he speaketh in these Epistles to Timothy Mr. Hooker denyeth the assumption For Paul saith he restraineth the words to one speciall Commandment amongst many and therefore it is not said keep the Ordinances Laws Constitutions which thou hast received but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that great Commandment which doth principally concern thee and thy calling that Commandment that Christ did so often inculcate unto Peter Feed my sheep and that Act. 20. Attend to your selves and all the flock c. And that 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee in the sight of God c. Preach the word and teach the Gospel without mixture c. And these words till the appearance of Christ doth not import the time wherein it should be kept but rather the time whereunto the finall reward for keeping it was reserved according to that henceforth is laid up for me a crown of Righteousnesse It doth not import perpetuall observation of the Apostles Commandment for it bindeth not to the Precept of choosing of Widows as the Adversaries grant We do not deny but certain things were Commanded to be though Positive yet perpetuall in the Church Ans 1. If Paul restrain this to one speciall Commandment sure it is so generall and comprehensive a Commandment of feeding the Flock as taketh in all the speciall Positive Commandments belonging to feeding by both Word and Discipline which is enough for the perpetuity of all Positive precepts of Discipline and Policie even till Christs appearance to judge the world and I wonder that Hooker expoundeth this by 2. Tim. 4. 1. As if Paul did mean the precept of Preaching only and that soundly and without mixture and yet passe by the Parallel place 1 Tim. 5 21. Aâ—lmostin the same stile of Language in which place he speaketh of many speciall Positive precepts and Rules of Policie as of poor widows the Almes to be given to them the not rebuking of an Elder the office of Elders Governing and of Elders labouring in the Word and Doctrine the not receiving an accusation against an Elder but under two or three Witnesses the publike rebuking of those who offend publikely the not admitting to the Ministry raw and green souldiers not tryed and many other particulars of Policie of all which he saith gravely v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the Elect Angels that thou observe these things c. Certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things was not one Commandment but all the precepts of Faith and of Church-Government spoken of in this Epistle and truly â— shall think that Paul who particularâ—zâ—th that Timothy should not drink water but a little wine because of his infirmity and of bringing with him the cloak that he left at Troas and the parchments 2 Tim. 4 doth far more specâ—fiâ— all the positives of policie and writ how all the Timothies and Pastors are to behave themselves in the Church of God If Ceremonies and all these alterable trifles had not been excluded out of the Platforme for a Religious Masse-Surplice is of far more consequence then Pauls old cloak and yet Paul spake of the one in Canonick-Scripture never of the other and Oyle Spittle Salt Crosse in Baptisme being positive significant Rites and having continued in the Church so many hundred years should far rather have been specified in Scripture then Timothies drinking of water yea and if all the alterable positive things of Policy as Crosse Surplice be commanded as necessary in the generall though not in this or that particular as Hooker and other Formalists do teach then sure the meaning must be I give to thee O Timothy charge in the sight of God who quickeneth all things and before Christ Jesus c. That thou keep this Commandment of Crossing Surplice bowing to Altars of corner-Cap or of the equivalent of these without spot irrebukeable to the appearance of Jesus Christ for the precept of feeding the Flock must include all these and though Ceremonies in particular be alterable and not commanded in Hythothesie yet that in generall there should be such positive Ceremonies is necessary and the Apostle say they commandeth them 1 Cor. 14. 40. Yea as Dunam saith humane Holy-dayes are commanded in the fourth Commandment and Burges saith all the Ceremonies are commanded in the third Commandment and Formalists who denyed the Prelate to be of Divine institution made a Ceremony of him and made him a decent and orderly thing which as the Poet said to me is like the act of death that brought Great Alexander to whom the whole world was not sufficient in small bounds in the Grave under two foot of earth and this maketh the great Pope the Catholick Bishop of the earth a little Ceremony But this little Ceremony hath these many hundred years infested the whole earth 2. If this precept be not a perpetuall binding precept till Christs second appearance but only rewarded with life eternall at Christs appearance yet shall it follow that all things included in the precept of feeding the flock and so all the Surplice Crossing Will-worship or their equivalent without which feeding cannot be in a decent and orderly way as they say from 1 Cor. 14. 40. must be rewarded with life eternall let Formalists wait at the day of judgement for a reward of a Garment of glory for wearing a linning Surplice my faith cannot reach it 3. For the choosing of Widovves that are poor to take care of the poor and sicke in Hospitals we think it just as necessary now as then though no wayes if there be none sick and poor in the Church But that Widows were Church-Officers ordained as were Deacons Act. 6. 6. we never thought and therefore we do not see that the wanting of such Widows is the want of a Positive institution of Church-Policy for other positive things of policy that should be of perpetuall use and not all of the same kinde and of equall necessity I see no reason which I speak for Apostles which were necessary then and not now But if from thence Formalists infer that many positive things of policy are alterable I can infer with equall strength of reason that then Pastors and Teachers are alterable by the Church for if the one have a Divine institution to warrant it Eph. 4. 11 12 13. so hath the other and if Prelates may come themselves into the Church without any warrant but this that Apostles are
ratifying an Ordinance in heaven and of pardoning sins in heaven for he that can make the ordinance can make also the Gospel-Promise and he that can by an Arbitrary power make one Promise or part of the Gospel may make all And if either Magistrate or Church can appoint such an Ordinance as hath a Promise of bâ—nding loosing made good in heaven they may also take away such Ordinances and Gospel Promises for it is the same power to make and adde to unmake and destroy Ordinances Hence also I argue for the Immutabiliâ—y of a Scripturall Platform that the Church cannot alter at her will thus That must be of Divine institution which is an essentiall part of the Gospel but the Platform of Church-Government in the word is such and so must be no lesse Immutable then the Gospel I make good the major Proposition thus That which essentially includeth a Promise of the New Testament that must be a part of the Gospel which consisteth especially of Promises Heb. 8. 6. 2 Cor. 7. 1. Gal. 3. 17. Gal. 4. 23 24. But there 's a Promise of forgiving sins in Heaven made to the Church using the Keys aright and of Christs presence in the excercise of the Keys as walking amongst the golden Candlesticks Matth. 18. 18 19. 20. Math. 16. 18 19. Iob. 20. 23. Rev. 2. 1. Now if any shall object this Argument proveth only that which is not denyed to wit that some part of Discipline only is of Divine institution which is not denyed for a power of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins is of Divine institution But hence it is not concluded that the whole Platform and all the limbs joynts bones and toes are of Divine institution they being matters of smaller concernment I Answer As from a part of the Doctrine of the Law and Gospel that is of Divine institution for Example that I keep observe and do the Law that I believe and repent which are things of Divine institution I infer that the whole Platform of Law and Gospel is of Divine institution and the particulars of Obedience and Faith are not Arbitrary to the Church just so in Discipline I say the like there is no more reason for one part written by God then for another Farther if the Church be a visible Politick Kingdom as it is Mat. 13. v. 45 46 47 48. Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 8. 12. And if the Word be the Word Scepter and Law of the Kingdom as it is Matth. 6. 10. Matth. 13. 11. Luk. 4. 43. Matth. 4. 23. Mark 13. 8. Luk. 21. 10. 14. Luk. 8. 10. Yea the Sword and Royall power of the King Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 19. 15. By which he Ruleth and Raigneth in his Church Isa 11. v. 4. Psal 110. 2. Heb. 1. 8 9. Psal 45. 3 4. 5 6 7. Isa 61. 1 2. 2 Cor. 10. 4 5 6. 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. And if by this Word the King Raigneth bindeth looseth and conquereth souls and subdueth his Enemies Matth. 18. 18 19 20. Matth. 16. 19. Rev. 6. 2. Then certainly Christ must Raign Politically and externally in his Church and walk in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. 2. 1. And if Christ Ascending to Heaven as a Victorious King Leading Captivity Captive gave gifts to men and appointed an externall policie for the gathering of his Saints by the Ministery of certain officers of his Kingdom as it is Psal 68. 18. Even that the Lord God might dwell amongst them Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Then he must Raign in the externall Policie of Pastors Teachers Elders by Word Sacraments and Discipline Now the King himself the Lord who Raigneth in this externall Policie must be the only Law-giver Iam. 4. 12. Isa 33. v. 22. There can be no Rabbies or Doctors on earth who as little Kings can make Laws under him Mat. 23. v. 8 9 10. Yea not Apostles who can teach how the Worship should externally be ordered but what they receive of the King of the Church 1 Cor. 11. 23. Act. 15. v. 13 14 15 16 17 18. How the house should be Governed Heb. 3. 1 2. 4 5. Yea nothing more reasonable then that Whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven should be done in and for the house of the God of Heaven under the pain of his Wrath Ezr. 7. 23. 1. That there should be Officers in a Kingdom and Laws to Govern the Subjects beside the will of the Prince or Judges of the Land or that the Members of a Family or Souldiers in an Army should be Governed by any Rule Custome or Law beside or without the will of the Master of the House and of the Generall Commanders is all one as if Subjects Families and Souldiers should be Ruled and Governed by their own will and wisdome and not by their King Iudges Masters and Commanders for the question is upon this undeniable supposition that Christ is the only Head and King of his Church and so the Head and King of Prelats if they be of the body and of the Rulers Guides and Pastors of the Church which are to be Governed and Ruled by certain Laws no lesse then the people whither or no this Representative Church of Rulers being Subjects and Members of the Head and King of the Church are to be Ruled by the wisdome Laws and Commandments of this King the Lord Jesus or if they have granted to them a vast Arbitrary power to Govern both themselves and the people by adding Positive Mandats of Arbitrary Commanders such as Prelats are in the minde of those who think they have no patent of any Divine right and of Surplice Crossing kneeling for reverence to wood to bread and wine The matter cannot be helped by saying that Christ is the Mysticall Invisible King some doubt if he be the only King of the Church which is too grosse to be resuted of the Church in things spirituall and in regard of the inward operation of the Spirit but he is not a Politicall and visible Head in regard of externall Policie this distinction must hold also in regard of the people who as Christians and believers are rather under Christ as a Mysticall and invisible Head then the Rulers who are not as Rulers but only in so far as they are believers Mysticall Members of the Head Christ for Christ exerciseth no Mysticall and Internall operations of saving Grace upon Rulers as Rulers but upon Rulers as believers then he cannot be the Mysticall and invisible King of Rulers as Rulers to give them as a King an Arbitrary power to be little Kings under him to Govern as they please and the truth is Christ is a Politicall Head and King of his Church not properly a visible Head 2 Cor. 5. 16. Except that he is a visible Head in this sense in that he Raigneth and Ruleth even in the externall visible Policie of his Church through all the Catholick visible Church in his Officers Lawfull Synods
Ordinances giving them Laws in all Positive externals which place the Beast the King of the Bottomlesse Pit the Pope usurpeth But I would gladly be informed of Formalists how the King is the Head and Vicegerent of Christ over the Church if Christs Kingdom be only spirituall Mysticall Internall not Politicall not externall for sure the King as King exerciseth no internall and Mysticall operations upon the consciences of men under Jesus Christ his power is only Politicall and Civilly Politicall about or without the Church not properly within the Church Surely if Rulers be Subjects and Members under Christ the Head and King I shall believe that Christ must in all Positive things of externall Policie give to them Particular Laws in the Scripture and Rule them and that they being Members not the Head must as particularly be Ruled in all externals Positive by the will and Law of the Head Christ and that they are not Kings Heads and Law givers and Rulers to themselves And especially upon these considerations This King and Head must be particular in an immutable perpetuall and unalterable Platform of Church-Government 1. Salomon for wisdome in the order degrees number attire of his servants and Policie of his house to the admiration of the Queen of Sheba in this we conceive was a type of a greater then Salomon 2. The Positives of the policie of Christs house must be congruous to a supernaturall end the edification of souls and that Symbolicall Rites of mens devising speak supernaturall duties that Christ hath already spoken in the Scripture as that Crossing spell out Dedication to Christs Service Surplice pastorall holinesse which both are Gospel truths 1. Pet. 1. 18. 1 Pet. 2. 24. Isa 52. 11. Is as supernaturall a mean for edification as that bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood therefore the one more then the other ought not to be left to humane reason but must be expresly set down in Scripture 3. All these must lay a tie upon the conscience but if they have their rise from the vain will of Prelats and men they can never bind my conscience for how can they bind my conscience as the Scripture bindeth them on me and yet Rulers as Rulers in the name of Christ the King cannot presse them upon me Formalists give divers Replies to this As 1. Hooker You are constrained to say that of many things of Church-Policie some are of great weight some of lesse that what hath been urged of immutability of Laws it extendeth in truth no farther then only to Laws wherein things of greater moment are prescribed as Pastors Lay-Elders Deacons Synods Widows else come to particulars and shew if all yours be perpetuall and our particulars unlawfull Ans 1. Things of greater and lesse weight we acknowledge in Church-Policie and in Doctrinals too but in this sense only 1. That they be things Positive 2. They be both things that are unchangeable by any except by God himself and oblige us Necessitate precepti by the necessity of a Divine Commandment as Matth. 23. 23. To pay tythe of Mint Annise and Cummin is a lesse matter then the weightier duties of the Law Iudgement Mercy and Faith But there is nothing so small in either Doctrinals or Policie so as men may alter omit and leave off these smallest Positive things that God hath commanded for Christ saith Paying of tythe of Mint ought not to be omitted though the Church of Pharisees should neglect it and command some other petty small things in place thereof If therefore Prelats should obliterate the Office of Ruling Elders which Christ the Lord instituted in his Church and put themselves in as Governours in their Room they may put out Pastors and Sacraments and take in for them Turkish Priests and Circumcision with a signification that Christ is already come in the flesh We urge the immutability of Christs Laws as well in the smallest as greatest things though the Commandments of Christ be greater or lesse in regard of the intrinsecall matter as to use water in Baptisme or to Baptise is lesse then to Preach Christ and believe in him 1 Cor. 1. 17. Yet they are both alike great in regard of the Authority of Christ the Commander Matth. 28. 18 19. And it s too great boldnesse to alter any Commandment of Christ for the smallnesse of the matter for it lieth upon our conscience not because it is a greater or a lesser thing and hath degrees of obligatory necessity lying in it for the matter but it tyeth us for the Authority of the Law-giver Now Gods Authority is the same when he saith You shall not Worship false Gods but me the only true God And when he saith You shall not adde of your own one ring or pin to the Ark Tabernacle Temple yea either to break or teach others to break one of the least of the Commandments of God maketh men the least in the Kingdom of God Matth. 5. 18. And to offend in one is to offend in all Iam. 2. 10. 2. That our things of Church-Policie are perpetuall we prove and that what we hold of this kinde we make good to be contained in the Scripture either expresly or by due consequence and so the Church and their Rulers act nothing in our way but as Subordinate to Christ as King and Head of the Church and Surplice humane Prelats Crossing we hold unlawfull in the house of God because they are not warranted by the King and Head Christs word and because the devisers and practisers of these do neither devise nor act in these as Subordinate to Jesus Christ as King Priest or Prophet by the grant of our Adversaries Hooker l. 3. Eccles Pol. pag. 124. The matters wherein Church-Policy are conversant are the publick Religious duties of the Church as administration of the Word Sacraments Prayers spirituall censures of the Church and the like to these the Church stand alwayes bound and where Policy is it cannot but appoint some to be leaders of others and some to be led If the blinde lead the blinde they both perish and where the Clergy is any great multitude order requireth that they be distinguished by degrees as Apostles and Pastors were in the Apostolick Church And number of specialities there are which make for the more convenient being of these principall parts of Policy Ans 1. If Christ as King have appointed word and Sacraments in generall and Censures he hath appointed the Word Sacraments and Censure in speciall to wit such a word such Sacraments Baptisme the Lords-Supper such Censures Excommunication admonition or then he hath left the Specialities of written and unwritten Word to the arbitriment of men and that there be Excommunication or no Excommunication and this Doctrinall and the like he hath left to mens devising to wit Crossing is a Dedication of the childe to Christ now Jerome Advers Helvid saith Vt hec que scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt
Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercitâ— of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is tâ— come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the patternâ— shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And
was not to follow his own spirit but was to follow the patterne that God shewed him in the Mount then far lesse hath Christ the Apostle and high Priest of our Profession giving us a Platforme of the Church and Government of the New-Testament variable shaped according to the alterable laws customes manners of divers nations for as Moses though a Prophet was not to make one pin of the Tabernacle but according to the samplar patern that God did shew him so Christ manifested to his Disciples all that he had heard and seen of the Father Ioh. 15. But it is not to be supposed that the Father shew to Christ an alterable tabernacle in the new Testament that men might alter chop and change at their pleasure as the customes of Nations are changed If God thought Religion should run a hazard if the greatest of Prophets except Christ might have leave to mold and shape all the Leviticall Service and Ceremonies for as the judicious and Learned Interpreter Mr. David Dickson saith all the Leviticall Service is comprehended under the name of the Tabernacle Exod. 25. 40. according as he pleased far more should all be corrupted if erring men far inferior to Moses Prelats and Pastors should have leave to draw the Lineaments of the New Testament Tabernacle Church Service Officers Censures and all the Positives of Policie according to no patern shown by Christ but only the Fashions alterable Laws Customes forms of nations Now all the pins of the Tabernacle were but shadows and Types of Morall and Heavenly things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. Heb. 9. 9. And they were to be changed and done away by Christ Col. 2. 17. Heb. 7. 12. 2 Cor. 3. 11. Yet could neither be devised by Moses nor altered by any mortall man Church or Priests how can we imagine that men may now devise and set up an alterable and changeable New Testament-frame of Prelats Altars Religious dayes Surplice Crossing or any the like toyes And though David was a Prophet and a man according to Gods heart yet in the externals of the Temple nothing was left to his spirit he might neither in the least jot adde or omit 1 Chron. 28. 11. Then David gave to Solomon his Son the patern of the Porch and of the houses thereof and of the Treasuries thereof and of the upper Chambers thereof and of the inner Parlors thereof of the place of the Mercy-Seat Here be many particulars But whence had David all these From the patern according to which Crosse Surplice Altars and humane Prelats are shapen Alas no therefore it is added v. 12. And he shewed the patern of all that he had by the spirit of the courts of the house of the Lord and of all the chambers round about v. 19. All this said David the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me even all the works of this patern I see no reason to deny that the form of the Temple was written by the hand of God as the Ten Commandments were written in two Tables of stone by him the Text seemeth to say no lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pagni and Ar. Mont. render it Omnia in Scriptura de manu domini super me intellegere fecit So Jerome Omnia venerunt Scripta manu domini ad me Vatablus in notis Omnia ista dominus Scripsit manu suâ— et digito â—uâ— ut me familiarius doâ—eret We shall not contend with Tostatus who saith It might have been written by Angels though we go not from the letter of the Text we have from this Papist Tostatus all we desire for he saith We must say that it was not by Davids own thought that he builded all for David durst not build a Temple to the Lord of his own heart because he knew not if that would please God but by Divine Revelation And therefore the old Translation is corrupt in this as in many things which rendreth v. 12. Thus Dedit David Salamoni descriptionem pâ—rtiâ—us c. Nec non et omnium que cogitaverat As if Davids thought had been his guide for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the spirit by Tostatus Corneli a Lapide Lyra is meant not Davids spirit but the spirit of Revelation from the Lord and Lyra saith on v. 12. Per hoc designatur quod deus pater dedit homini Christo notitiam omnium agendorum in ecclesiâ And Pet. Martyr our own Doctor saith on 1 King 8. It cannot be told how unpleasant the institution of new worship is to God And there should be nothing in Baptisme but the Word and the Elements any thing added as Crossing Oyl Salt came from the Prelats Lavater in 1. Par. c. 28. ver 14. condemneth all additions even though Solomon should have added them Ezech. 43. 11. Thou Son of man shew the house to the house of Israel 12. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done shew them the form of the house and the fashion thereof and goings out thereof and the comings in thereof and all the forms thereof and all the Ordinances thereof and all the forms thereof all the Laws thereof And write it in their sight that they may keep the whole form thereof all the Ordinances thereof and do them Now it is most considerable that the Form Fabrick and Structure of the Temple Ezech. c. 40. In the visions of God is shewn to the Prophet by a man by Christ the great Angel of the Covenant who with a measuring reed of six cubits measured the Temple and in these chapters c. 40 41 42. Christ sheweth to Ezekiel all the patern and form which evidently typifieth the Church of the New Testament the Bride the Lambs Wife in the Kingdom of Grace and glorified in Heaven revealed by the Angel to John Rev. 21. 9 10 11. It may be thought that the Porches Chambers length and bredth of them East West South and North the Laws about the Priests their linnen garments Sacrifices washing and the like are of lesse concernment then the Doctrine of Christs nature person offices of Faith Repentance Iudgement Heaven c. And therefore being not so necessary nor so weighty there was no necessity that all the like Positive externals of Church-Policie written to a rude and carnall people should be written to us who are now more spirituall and upon whom the day-spring from above doth shine the shadows now being past and who have greater liberty then they had who were as children under Tutors Ans 1. I do not deny but all Ceremonials are of lesse weight then the Morals but the question is if they be of lesse Divine authority so as we may devise of our own Spirit such Ceremonials and may alter omit or remove these or any new Ceremonials in the Sacraments under the New Testament for New Testament Ceremonials as to take Bread Eat and drink are not so necessary nor so weighty to us under the New-Testament
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
the Church of the Jews never took on them to command the observation of these forgeries under the pain of Church-censures as Papists and prelats did their Crossing and their Surplice Hooker saith A Question it is whither containing in Scripture do import expresse setting down in plain terms or else comprehending in such sort that by reason we may thence conclude all things which are necessary to salvation The Faith of the Trinity the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father are not the former way in Scripture for the other let us not think that as long as the World doth indure the wit of man shall be able to sound to the bottom of that which may be concluded out of Scripture Traditions we do not reject because they are not in Scripture but because they are neither in Scripture nor can otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God That which is of God and may be evidently proved to be so we deny not but it hath in its kinde although unwritten yet the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God Such as are alterable Rites and Cystomes for being Apostolicall it is not the manner of delivering them to the Church but the Author from whom they proceed which gave them their force and credit Ans 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many and more then are known to us and the particulars of that Government that we contend for are in Scripture that is there should be no Government but what is either expresly in Scripture or may be made our by just consequence we believe if they cannot be proved from Scripture let them fall as mens hay and stubble But in the mean time these are two different questions Whither there be an immutable Platform of Discipline in the Word Or whither ours be the only Platform and no other If we carry the first Ceremonies must fall And certainly in all reason we are on the surest side If we cannot observe all that is written it is not like that God hath laid upon us unwritten burdens 2. Hooker doth not reject all the Popish Traditions as our Divines Reformed do because they are not warranted by the Word so that if the Images of God and Christ and the Worshipping of them and Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Pope can be proved to be of God though they be no more in Scripture then Crossing and Surplice then would he receive all these as Having the self same force and authority with the Written Laws Now we know no other weightier Argument to prove there 's no Purgatory but because the scripture speaketh of Heaven and Hell and is silent of Purgatory 2. That naturall reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship such as Surplice betokening Pastorall Holinesse without any Scripture is a great untruth for naturall reason may warrant new Sacraments as well as new Sacramentals 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God not from the manner of delivering them that is from being contained in scripture or not contained in it then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah by the Vocall Preaching of Paul or by the written scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles it is all one it is the same word and coming from Christ must be of the same Divine authority But this is to beg the question for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition because it is unwritten to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God For Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius Com. in 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine Tannerus Malderus Becanus say Whither the Lord deliver his minde to us in his Written Scripture or by Tradition it is still the Word of God and hath authority from God But the truth is to us it is not the Word of God if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses or the Prophets and Apostles for though the Word have authority only from God not from the Church nor from men or the manner of delivering of it by word or writ yet we with the Fathers and Protestant Divines and evidence of scripture stand to that of Basilius Homil. 29. Advers câ—lâ—mnianâ—es S. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Believe what are written vvhat are not vvritten â—eek not after And so seek not after Surâ—lice Crossiâ—g and the like And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every word and so this That Crossing Surplice are Religious signes of spirituall duties and every thing or action must be made good by the Testimony of the heavenly inspired Scripture these things that are good and so Religiously decent and significant may be fully confirmed and these that are evil corfounded And to us for our Faith and practise if it be not Law and Testimony it is darknesse and not light And as Gregor Nyssen the Brother of Basyl saith Dialog de anim et Resurrect tom 2. ed. Grecolaâ— pag. 639. Edit Greâ— pag. 325. That only must be acknowledged for truth in which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seal of the Scriptures Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how shall it be true to us iâ— Scripture say it not Or how shall it appear to us to be from God For Cyril Alexandrin saith What the holy Scripture saith not such as are your Positives of mens devising how shall we receive it and account it amongst things that are true And it is not that which Hereticks of old said for their Heresies to say â—s Hooker doth that any thing may be proved to be of God which is not written in Scripture For saith Hieronimus in Hag. c. 1. Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi Traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius dei The Scripture doth bar the door upon Hereticks saith Chrysostome And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then the Scripture And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Crosse and Suplice are of God But by that same reason Papists without Scripture can and may prove their Traditions to be of God And if we admit reason and exclude Scripture it is as easie to prove their Traditions as our Positive additions to Worship And what Answers Papists give for their Traditions to â—lude the power of Scripture and evidence of Testimonies of fathers all these same are given by Prelats for their additions to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be Gods Word and in the very stile of the Councel of Trent we are to acknowledge Traditions though unwritten yet to have the self same authority and force with the Written Laws of God And shal the Surplice and Crosse and such stuffe be of the self same force and authority with the Evangel according to Luke and John
that he dishonoreth God 2. The Jewes to this day as of old used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour But by the contrary covering was a sign of honour If therefore the Jews being made a visible Church shall receive the Lords Supper and Pray and Prophecy with covered heads men would judge it no dishonouring of their head or not of dis-respect of the Ordinances of God Though Paul having regard to a Nationall Custome in Corinth did so esteem of it Antonius Corduba a Franciscan enumerateth nine externall acts of Adoration but speaketh nothing of uncovering the head as 1. Sacrificing 2. Martyrdome 3. Giving and Receiving the Sacraments 4. Suiting of Pardon 5. Suiting of Grace 6. Smiting the breast 7. Building of Churches 8. Institution of Feasts 9. Vows and Oaths Prelaticall Formalists side with them in Building and Consecrating of Churches and Holy-dayes which are but will worship as used by them And for Martyrdome it is formally an act of Christian fortitude not worship the confession of Gods truth a Concâ—mitant of Martyrdome is indeed worship How suiting of Pardon and suiting of Grace are two externall acts of Adoration I see not for by this way if we regard the multitude of things that we suit there should be moe then two Consecrating of Churches is taken two wayes 1. For a meer dedication or Civill destination of any thing to its end and use As when a house is builded a garment is first put on when we refresh our selves with a draught of water we may pray for a blessing on these and on all the Creatures for our use and the very habituall intention of the builder of an house to dwell in is a Civill dedication of it to that use for which it is Ordained Prayer added to it for a blessing of it in the use maketh not a Consecrated thing for then my clothes every day put on my sleep my dayly walking in and out my Physick my meals my horse my ship I sail in should all be Holy Consecrated and Religious things which I were to Reverence as Religious things for all these may be blessed in their use But here is that we condemn in Religious dedication of Churches 1. That the end being sacred to wit the habituall worshipping of God in that place 2. The praying for the Church or house of worship to say nothing of the vain Ceremonies used in the dedication of Churches These two are applyed to make the Church holy and to denominate it the house of God and capable of Religious veneration and salutation Then certainly all the Synagogues of Judea should be Religiously holy as was the Temple 2. And Prayers should be more acceptable to God in the Synagogue for the houses sake then prayers in any other place 3. God shall binde himself by promise to hear prayers in the Synagogue or made with the face toward the Synagogue as he did toward the Temple we were obliged in the New Testament to pray with our faces toward the Churches or meeting places in the New Testament and we should have one famous and celebrious Church for all Iews and Gentiles more holy then all the little holy Temples now consecrated as holy places and where shall this be And what typicall signification shall it have It must signifie Christ to come or already come both is unlawfull 2. Again if habituall Dedication by vertue of Prayer make a place holy by the same reason actuall Dedication should make a place holy and the belly of the Whale should have been holy because there Jonah prayed and every place a believer prayeth shall be holy his closet a private corner of his Orchard or Garden where he prayeth shall be holy for these may be habitually destined and appointed if you call this Dedication for prayer only and it shall be unlawfull to do any civill businesse there more then it is unlawfull as Formalists teach to do any other civil businesse in the Churches or places of meeting in the New-Testament 3. God himself appointed the place the Time when it should be built the person by whom by Solomon not David the length the breadth the Chambers Porches Ornaments of the only holy place at Jerusalem he hath no where appointed and prescribed these for the meeting places of the New Testament but hath said that all places are alike as touching any Religious holinesse Ioh. 4. 23. 1 Tim. 2. 8. 4. Shall we think God is not acceptably served and that the Synagogues of the Iews of which we read not any patern or rule for Dedication are Prophane because they are not Dedicated by the Bishops laying the first foundation stone of the house Or because they want the ornaments of whorish Ceremonies that Durandus enumerateth or because they have not the surpassing beauty of admirable Temples that Christians now a little overswelling with the zeal of prosperity builded for the worship of God out of superlative detestation of Dioclesian and Maximinus who had demolished all the Churches which Christians had leave to build under tollerable Emperors such as Severus Gordianus Philip and Galienus as Eusebius teacheth Or that we are to give a Testimony of as cheerfull affection for the beautifying of Temples void of all typicall relation to the glory of Iesus Christ as David did show 1 Chron. 28 14. 2 Chron. 2. 5. And that it is Morall and perpetually obligatory under the New Testament that we bestow charges upon sumptuous Temples upon these fancied grounds of Master Hooker For his first Morall ground is Nothing is too dear to be bestowed about the furniture of Gods service 2. Because sumptuous Temples serve to the world for a witnesse of his almightinesse whom we outwardly serve and honour with the chiefest of outward things as being of all things himself incomparably the greatest 3. It were strange that God should have made such store of glorious creatures on earth leave them all to be consumed on secular vanity allowing none but the baser sort to be imployed in his own service 4. Rarest and most gorgeous treasures are too little for earthly Kings 5. If the corruptible Temples of the holy spirit are to be served with rich almes what should be done for houses to edifie the living Temples redeemed by Iesus Christ To all which I say 1. The Temple of Ierusalem in its glory proportion and beauty was a Positive worship and so must be warranted by the positive Warrant of the Word and the like Warrant must all our Churches in the New-Testament have 2. If we must extend our liberality and bounty towards God to the highest and to testifie the greatnesse and Almightinesse of him whom we serve then did David and Solomon in both fail there were more glorious and rich houses on earth and divers times have been builded to the honour of false gods and to declare the Royall magnificence of mortall Kings God never for his own honour appointed such a banquet as
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
should be according to the word of God and not beside the word of God If it be said they have Gods Commanding will in so far that he doth not forbid any thing not contrary to his own word but hath given the Church Authority to adde to his worship things not contrary to his word as they shall see they do promove godlinesse or may edifie the Church But then if the Church must see by the light of reason and naturall judgement aptitude in these to promove godlinesse they are Commanded by God who hath even stamped in them that aptitude to edifie and so are not beside Gods word 4. Our Divines condemne all the Traditions of the Church of Rome as Purgatory Prayer for the dead Imagery Adoring of Reliques all the Crossing Holy water Chrisme Oyl Babies Bells Beads c. Because God hath no where Commanded them and sins veniall and beside the Law and sins mortall and contrary to the Law we condemne because as what is capable of seeing and life and hearing and yet doth not see live nor hear that in good reason we call blinde dead and deaf all beside the word are capable of Morall goodnesse and yet not Morally good because not warranted by Gods word therefore they must be Morally evil III. Conclus Opinion of Sanctity holinesse and Divine necessity is not essentiall to false worship Formalists will have their Ceremonies innocent and Lawfull so they be not contrary to the word of God 2. So they be not instamped with an opinion that they binde the Conscience and are of Divine necessity holinesse and efficacy So Morton their Prelat for opinion of justice necessity efficacy and merit saith he make them Doctrinals and so unlawfull But this is but that which Papists say So Suarez saith That their unwritten Traditions are not added to the word of God as parts of the word of God but as things to be believed and observed by the Churches Commandment and these who did swear by Jehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. esteemed Malcom and an oath by Malcom not so Religiously and so holy as an oath by Jehovah and Malcom and yet no doubt they ascribed some necessity to oaths by Malcom and Jehoram saying Am I Jehovah to kill and make alive who yet worshipped Ieroboams Calves esteemed the worshipping of these Calves lesse necessary and lesse holy and meritorious then the worshipping of the true Yehovah yet the Calves called their gods which brought them out of the Land of Aegypt had some necessity and opinion of holinesse For 1. Aaron in making a Calf and Proclaiming a Feast to the Calf committed false worship but Aaron placed not holinesse justice or merit in that worship Because Exod. 32. 22. for fear of the people who in a tumult gathered themselves together against him he committed that Idolatry Ergo necessity of Sanctity Merit and Divine obligation is not essentiall to false worship Ieroboam Committed Idolatry in saying These are thy Gods O Israel but he placed no efficacy or merit therein because 1 King 12. 27. He did it least the people going to Ierusalem should return to Rehoboam and kill him And the Philistims dis-worship in handling the Ark unreverently had no such opinion they doubting whither God or Fortune ruled the Ark 1 Sam. 6. 9. It were strange if these who say in their heart There is no God Ezech. 9. 9. Psal 94. 6. And so fail against inward worship due to God should think that the denying of God were service and meritorious service to God and that Peter denying Christ and Iudaizing Gal. 2. 12. for fear thought and believed he did meritorious service to Christ therein Pilate in condemning Christ Iudas in selling him the Souldiers in scourging him did dis-worship to their Creator the Lord of glory Shall we think that Pilate who for fear of the people did this believed he was performing necessary Divine and Meritorious worship to God 2. If opinion of necessity Divine of Merit and sanctity as touching the conscience were essentiall to false worship it were impossible for gain and glory to Commit Idolatry to preach lies in the Name of the Lord for a handfull of barley as Ezek. 13. 19. Mic. 3. 5. 1 Kin. 22. 6. 1 Tim. 4 1 2. Tit. 1. 11. For its a contradiction to Preach Arrianisme Turcisme Popery against the light of the minde only for gain and yet to think that in so doing they be performing meritorious service to God Yea they who devise will-worship know their own will to be the Lord-carver of that worship at least they may know it yet shall we think they hold themselves necessitated by a Religious obligation so to do Else it were impossible that men could believe the burning their Children were will-worship indifferent and Arbitrary to the worshippers which is open war against reason Now a worship cannot be false wanting that which is essentaill to false worship 3. False worship is false worship by order of nature before we have any opinion either that there is Religious necessity in it or meer indifferency Ergo Such an opinion is not of the essence of false worship 4. By that same reason opinion of unjustice or opinion of doing justice should be of the essence of unjustice Cains killing of his Brother should not be Man-slaughter except Cain placed some divine Sanctity in that wicked fact which is against all reason and the reason is alike in both Gods Commanding will and his forbidding will They Answer Gods will constituteth Lawfulnesse in essentiall worship and mans will in things arbitrary but this is to beg the question for when we ask what is essentiall worship they say it is that which God commandeth and what is accidental or arbitrary it is that which human authority commandeth this is just Gods wil is the essentiall cause of that worship whereof it is the essentiall cause mans will is the essentiall cause of that whereof it is the essentiall cause 5. All the materials of Jewish and Turkish worship might be appointed for right worship so we held them to be Arbitrary 6. God cannot forbid false worship but in that tenure that he commandeth true worship but whether we esteem it true or not holy or not he cōmandeth true worship Erg. c. IV. Conclusion It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to divide worship in essentiall which hath Gods 1. Particular approving will to be the Warrant thereof and worship accidentall or Arbitrary which hath only Gods generall and permissive will and hath mans will for its father so Ceremonies say they In these hath Gods generall will according to their specification whether a Surplice be decent or not is from mans will therefore they are called worship reductively because in their particulars they have no Divine institution and they tend to the honouring of God not as worship but as adjuncts of worship so Morton so Burges Ans As Sacramentall worship is lawfull essentiall worship
Barnabas Angels and Cornelius forbade men to worship them 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life farre more to adore a dumbe and livelesse creature August ps 113. Chrysostome is against Images 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them 2. God must be honoured as he willeth himselfe 3. It is a depressing of soules to worship Images It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him it is mockerie that man should be the creator of God the Creator of all things Cyrillus Alexandrin who lived An. 415. saith We neither beleeve the martyrs to be gods nor doe we adore them Damascen a superstitious man much for Images acknowledgeth two things 1. That Images are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten traditions 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent the Cherubims were made for signification not for imitation or adoration i Gregorius Magnus though he be alledged by Papists for adoration of Images Yet in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images and alloweth onely the Historicall use of them as is observed by Fran. White by Hospinian and Catol testum veritatis and this man being the first who brought Images into the Church hath this Caveat atque indica saith he to Sirenus quod non tibi ipsa visio historiae quae pictura teste pandebatur displicueri◠sed illa adoratio quae picturis fuerit in competenter exhibita si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita sed hoc solicitè admoneas ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem conjunctionis percipiant in adoratione solius Trinitatis prosternantur It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images though he make them onely bookes to the rude This same Gregorius will have the signe of the crosse adored because when the Devill came to a Iew sleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll the Iew being afraid signed himselfe with the Crosse and the Divell fled but when doth Iewes come in any Christian Churches or Idoll-Temples who abhorre the name of Christ and so hate both the Crosse and Christ and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan In the eighth age Beda Imaginum cultus adoratio the worshipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull 1. Because they have no office in the doctrine of the Gospell 2. We are forbidden to adore salute or worship them 3. The d Church is not taught to seeke the Lord by Images but by faith and good workes 4. The Apostolique Church did not worship God in Images 5. Images want documento antiquitatis antiquity example and the Scripture 6. We frustrate God of worship due to him 7. Peter Paul Angels forbad to worship them but God only We forbid the Church saith the civill Law to be obscured with Images Have the Image of God saith Ephrem in thy heart non colorum varietate in ligno not in Images and colours Who can make saith Damascen a representation of the invisible God Gretserus saith the Iewes would not admit of Ensignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images should be hidden under them So said Josephus before him Their own men say with us Hulcot who lived an 1346. saith Latreia divine worship belongeth to God onely the Image is not God neither the Crosse saith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula Concl. 3. nor the Image of Christ is to be adored adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas with divine worship the guise of Thomas Aquinas Peresius Ajala a Popish Bishop for adoration of Images saith he there is neither Scripture nor Church tradition nor consent of Fathers nor good reason to make it good For saith Gabriel Biel The image either considered in it self as it is mettall or stone or as it is a holy signe is a sensible Creature to which Latreia Divine honour should not be given and the Romish Decrees saith We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worshipped The Doway Doctors say Idols have eyes and cannot see c. Now if they have Images of God and Christ which can see and hear and speak we exceedingly desire to know Alexander Allensis Durandus say That images in themselves and properly are not to be Worshipped Geo Cassander wisheth That they had continued in majorum suorum sententia in the minde of their forefathers and that the Superstition of people in Worshipping images had been suppressed The Councell convened by Constantius Capronimus condemneth Worshipping of Images or placing them in Churches 1. Because it is forbidden in the second Commandment 2. The Picturing of Christ is a dividing of the two Natures 3. It is against the Ancients Epiphanius Nazianzen Chrysostome Athanasius Amphylocius Theodorus Eusebius Pamphili The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies Adrian Bishiop of Rome writeth to the Councell of Nice That the Emperour Constantine being a Leaper and labouring to cure his Leprosie by shedding of innocent Babes blood Peter and Paul appeared to him by night in a Vision and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylvester and that he to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul This is as true as the Image of Christ spake to Tho Aquinas at Naples Bene Scripsistti de me Thoma Why is not all Evangell that Aquinas hath written then For their own Platina saith The story of Constantines Leprosie is a fable and Socrates saith That Constantine was sick when he was 65. years and he maketh no mention of his leprosie so Hospinianus saith and our own Simson saith That Sylvester and Marcus his successor were both dead before Constantine was Baptized Genebradus a Papist saith down right that the Councell of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Councell But Bellarmine Suarez Sanderus ' Alanus deny that the Doctrine of the second Nicene Councell for Adoring images is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford they say it is onely expounded and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifest Yea saith Nauclerus Sabellicus and Blandus The Councell of Frankford reserveth due honour to images and saith nothing against the Councell of Nice But this is to deny daylight at Noon-day For Annonius is most clear in it and Abbot Vspergens the Book of Charles the Great saith the same The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of purpose to condemne the second Synod of Nice called the seventh pretended and false Synod Aventinus saith expresly Scita Grecorum in Synodo Nicena decreta de imaginibus adorandis in concili◠francofurtensi rescissa abolita sunt and Vspergensis saith in this Synod it was decreed Vt septima universalis Synodus nec septima nec
this worship 8 Only the rich who are able to sustain Images should be saved and not the poor 9. There is no profit but great vanity in adoring Images To the Arguments from miracles it is answered that these miracles are lying signes for Ea miracula nulla Evangelii lectio tradit 2. They deny that all things are to be adored in the which or by the which God wrought miracles Gregorius Nyssenus bowed his knee to the Image of Abraham What then the Councell saith these books of Nyssenus are perished The fable of Agbarus to whom the Image of Christs face painted in a cloath was sent was not in the world till the year of God 700. It is a counterfeit work ascribed to Athanasius in stile and phrase of writing not like to him where it is said that it was the image of Christ crucified by the Iews in Berythus a Town in Syria out of whose side flowed blood and water which being mixed with water could cure all diseases so Symson The Testimony of the Councell of Eliberia is clear that images should not be in Churches Canus Surjus and your own men say this Councell condemneth images For 370. years there were no Images in Churches in this age Martyrs were admired and the Grecians first especially Gregorius Nyssenus the brother of Basilus had Images in Churches Sozomen saith Christians took into Churches pieces of Christs image broken by Iulian the Apostat in the first age when Religion was born down and holy Pastors killed Gregorius Magnus first defended that images should be in Churches It s like the Apostate Iulian would hate any thing bearing the name of Christ most falsly yea and Antiquity beareth contradictions most aparent touching images But Nicephorus saith the creatures of God are the Lawfull Images of God But it is more then evident by what I have said that ancient Papists and Synods used images to be memorials of God and not to be adored CAP. II. QUEST 1. Whither kneeling or sitting be the most convenient and Lawfull gesture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and blood 1. Conclus SItting is the most and only lawfull gesture That gesture that Christ and his Disciples used upon morall and unalterable grounds which doth not concern the first Supper as first but as a Supper and that not upon no occasionall and temporary reasons belonging to that Supper more then to all the Suppers of that kinde that we are to follow as a pattern and must be most Lawfull But the gesture of sitting is such Ergo The Proposition is evident in Scripture I prove the Assumption 1. Sitting was either 1. Miraculous 2. Customable 3. Occasionall or 4. Morall None in reason can say the first that sitting was a miracle 2. Nor is it customable For 1. Customes laudable are grounded upon decency and reason and so morall or grounded upon no reason at all But Christ did nothing in Gods worship nor did he any humane morall actions for the meer fact and will of others going before for these were not reasonable humane actions and if it be customable only it is not lawfull to put away a customable action out of worship and to put a morall action of kneeling and Divine signification in the place thereof for so we might change places times persons and all physicall circumstances and make them supernaturall 2. The action could not be occasionall for then the occasion of the Supper as first and because of such persons such time at night such place an upper chamber should have moved Christ to sitting rather then to kneeling or to any other gesture but kneeling or any other gesture might have consisted well with that first Supper with the upper chamber with the time and persons as well as sitting except the Law givers will had been a reason of the contrary Some object Christ choosed an upper chamber not the Temple twelve persons not ten not twenty at night for he might have celebrated it at dinner but we are not holden to imitate Christ in these Ergo neither in sitting Ans Occasionall properly is that which hath a reason not from the nature of the thing it self but from such occasionall occurrences of Providence as God will not alter and its that which hath no morall nor sacred conveniency with the nature of worship but hath only a conveniency for such a time and place as Christs preaching in a ship when he is at the sea side and a multitude are to hear him the ship hath no agreement with the nature of preaching more then an house hath time place and persons are clearly such as agreed with that supper as first not as a sacred worship and therefore were meerly occasionall and so not imitable and though Christ might have altered them yet had they been occasionall and they have no sacred conveniency with this Supper as this Supper and if Christ had altered these for meer will upon no reasons that concerneth all Suppers they had not been occasionall but positive points of worship and so had obliged us yea the upper chamber and these twelve persons by no possibility can concern all Suppers to the end of the world but sitting agreeth kindly and natively to all Suppers in generall as kneeling to all praying indefinitely Christ might have changed bread and wine in flesh and milk or water will it hence follow we are not to imitate Christ in bread and wine And that bread and wine are occasionall Lastly Pauls practise in passing from an upper chamber and from twelve men to a Church full of men and women 1 Cor. 11. 23 17 18 22. warranteth us to passe from these we have not the like reason to warrant us to passe from sitting 2. That gesture which Christ choosed and that refusing all other even kneeling having the same Religious reasons at the first supper as now that must be most convenient and lawfull But sitting is such Ergo The Proposition is clear The Assumption is proved from Matth. 26. While they did eat the Passeover he took bread Mar. 14 22. As they did eat Jesus took bread But while they did eat the Passeover they sate Ergo while they took the Supper they sate I prove the Assumption Matth. 26. 20. And when the evening was come he sate down with the twelve Mark 14. 18. And as they sate and did eat Jesus said c. v. 22. And as they did eat Iesus took bread eating the Passeover and sitting were co-existent and taking the Sacramentall bread of the Supper and eating the Passeover were co-existent Ergo Taking the bread of the Supper and sitting were co-existent Paybodie saith Paul expoundeth as they did eat after they had ended eating and so after they had ended sitting and possibly passed to another gesture 1 Cor. 11. After Supper he took the Cup. Ans If you wholly remove the Passeover you remove the Table also 2. Though the
Magistrate in matters Ecclesiasticall QUEST 1. That Christ hath a spirituall Kingdom not only in the power of preaching the word but also in the power of the keys by discipline COncerning the Christian Magistrate we are to consider two heads the one negative what he cannot do in the matters of Christs Kingdom 2. Positive What he ought to do for the opening of the former We are to cleare whether or no all externall scandalls Ecclesiasticall as well as civill are to be punished by the Civill Magistrate and that as in Civill scandals that disturbeth the peace of the Common-wealth the Magistrate hath a twofold power one to command what is good and just another to reward and punish so the Lord Jesus in his Kingdom hath not onely a directive power to teach and forbid but also a power by way of Discipline upon the external man ecclesiastically to reward and punish to binde and loose in an externall Court on earth It is granted by the Adversaries that Christ as King hath a power of binding and loosing but meerly internall purely spirituall in regard of the Conscience by the Preaching of the Word but for any externall power to take in and cast out of the Visible Kingdom of Iesus Christ his Visible Church This they deny and so refuse all externall Ecclesiasticall censures of receiving into the bosome of the Church and casting out by rebukes or Excommunication and therefore that there is no externall Court in the Church to punish Ecclesiasticall scandals all scandals and externall offences of the Church are to be punished by the Christian Magistrate onely In opposition to which error I say 1. Conclusion There is not only a rebuking of an offender in the Church by private admonition as between Brother and Brother common to all Christians Col. 3. 16. Levit. 19. 17. And of the Pastor only he applying the Word by way of Preaching to such and such offenders and closing the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven upon impenitent sinners which is acknowledged by the Adversaries But there is also a Church-rebuking by way of censure which must presuppose an Ecclesiasticall Court and a rebuking of a Publique sin put forth by many whereas one only not a Church or multitude may Preach the Word and so rebuke by way of Preaching which I make out from the Word of God 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rebuke or punishment in the old Translation it is Objurgatio in the Newer Increpatio Piscator Muleta is a chastisement whether this punishment was actuall excommunication as many Learned Interpreters do not improbably gather out of the Text or if it was a Rebuke of the Church in order thereunto Certain it included a rebuking not of one man but a Church-rebuking inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And by the Representative Church of Corinth gathered together with Pauls spirit and the power of the the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. And so presupposeth a Court or Convention of many inflicting this punishment 2. The Adversaries who deny that there is such a thing as Excommunication say it was onely a rebuke but if it was Excommunication it must include a rebuke coming from the many who do excommunicate 3. It is such a rebuke as must be taken off and pardoned by many as ver 7. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him ver 10. To whom ye forgive any thing I also forgive So here is a rebuking put upon an offender by many convened in a Court who did rebuke by way of judiciall Authority and the power of the Lord Iesus Ergo it was some higher censure which was inflicted by many and taken off by many then that which was inflicted by one by way of Preaching where there is no necessity that many either rebuke or comfort the rebuked for one Pastor is to give out the sentence of Death or Life rebuking and comforting toward any one offender or a person Repenting whether many be convened to consent and joyn or not Yea I may being a Pastor of Iesus Christ dispense rebukes and comforts by way of Preaching against the will and minde of the whole flock But a rebuke and a forgiving by many cannot be dispensed except these many convene together in the Name of the Lord Iesus in a Church way and consent 2. If the convened Church must be heard and obeyed when she rebuketh a Brother for a fault done between Brother and Brother and that upon the Testimony of two or three witnesses then is the Church a Court that is to rebuke an offender and so to convene him before her and that is some other censure then by way of Preaching but the former is true Matth. 18. 16 17. 3. If the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch convened in a Synod do give forth an Ecclesiasticall rebuke on false Teachers as those that troubled the Churches and perverted their Souls with false Doctrine then is there rebuking of offenders by a Church or Churches beside a Pastorall rebuking by one single Brother or Pastor But the former is true Act. 15. ver 24 25. The Proposition is clear in that a select company of Apostles Elders and Brethren doth not only Doctrinally conclude against their errour who did hold the necessity of Circumcision but also against the Persons and their Schismaticall way of troubling the Church by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in making a side and Faction in the Church ver 2. 24. And this not any one single man could do in an ordinary way except we say that it was an idle and unnecessary remedy which the Apostles used to quench the sire as if any one man might have done all this or as if they had rebuked these men publikely not having heard and convinced them by the Word of God or as if an offence touching conversation and against the second Table had risen betweene Church and Church no lesse then in the present case of an offence in matter of doctrine that the Apostles would not have taken the same course all which are not to be imagined And in very deed this was not a point of meer doctrine but also of peace and charity violated by a Faction ver 2. And a scandall in eating things strangled was raised in the Churches Acts 15. 24. 1 Cor. 10. 28 29. Rom. 14. 14 15 16 17. 4. If Timothy be to rebuke publikely those that sin publikely and that judicially upon the Testimony of Witnesses Then is there a publike Church-rebuking by way of censure beside the pastorall rebuking But the former is expresly said 1 Tim. 5. 19 20. This must be a rebuking in a Church-court except we say Timothy his alone was the Church and a Monarch of the Church who hath power to lead witnesses against Elders 2. Conclusion There is such a censure as excommunication in the hands of the Church by
which scandalous offendors are to be debarred from the society of the Church and other holy Ordinances that they do not prophane them which is proved from Mat. 18. 15 16 17 18. Thus he who is to be of a brother esteemed as no brother but as a Heathen and a Publican and whose offence is bound in Heaven as the Church bindeth on Earth and that upon the testimony of Witnesses he incurreth some other censure of reall ejection out of the society of brethren in a Church State then Pastorall rebuking But he who trespasseth against his brother and will neither be gained by private admonition nor by the Church rebuking him is in such a case Ergo such a one is to be excommunicated and so Christ must have instituted such a censure Divers reasons are alledged against this sense as not favouring excommunication Object 1. If thy brother trespasse against thee is if thy brother trespasse against God thou knowing him to be guilty art to deal with him and to bring his fault to publike hearing that he may be punished Answ 1. The same phrase in the same doctrine of scandals is Luke 17. 3. Take heed to your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thy brother trespasse against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him But it cannot be said that if our brother transgress against God we knowing of that we are not to forgive him a sin committed against God though he should come to us and say that he repenteth for then might any private brother pardon murthers and sorceries and if this private brother were a Magistrate by this he is to forgive bloods and not use the sword against the evill doer and is to dispence with it seventy seven times if the offender say he repenteth 2. The text saith expresly If thy brother trespasse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against thee not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against God It is true sinnes against a brother are sins against God but it is evident from the text that Christ speakes of such sinnes in a speciall manner committed against me or a particular brother which are within the verge of my power or his to pardon as no◠being yet publikely scandalous 3. Camero saith to sinne against any here is not to sinne against God with the knowledge of a brother but it is to sinne in private against a brother so as the offended brother is in meeknes to labour to gaine him and not bring his fault to publike if he can be cured in private and therefore with much lenity we are to proceed whereas before Christ had exhorted not to contemne our brother here he teacheth with what loving patience and longanimity we are to labour to gaine him when he is fallen else Christ should say but the same thing over againe that he said once Object 2. But by this place of Scripture I should rebuke any brother whom I know to sinne against God to the end I may gaine him to repentance and that before two witnesses Now this is absurd my Father my King and Prince before two Witnesses And therfore by the Church is meant a number of private Christians before whom I am to convince my brother and that I am not to rebuke any offender whatsoever is cleare in that Solomon saith it is a mans glory to passe by an offence and we are not to over-heare our servant cursing us Ergo We are not to rebuke every one nor to bring them before any Church Court Answ 1. This argument is against Christ as well as against us for it tendeth to conclude that it is not universally true that I am to rebuke every offending brother which I will grant in some sense For 1. If the fault be small and possibly a matter of goods with which I may dispence without lesse hurt to my brothers soule then the evill of scandall may be if I complaine to either the Church or Magistrate I am rather to suffer wrong 1 Cor. 6. 7. But because I am not to rebuke my brother imprudently may I not conclude from Christs words I may rebuke him Or because a meane person may not rebuke a Ruler or a Prince or King Will it follow that a Nathan may not rebuke King David and because Ionathan may not rebuke King Saul his Father shall it follow that no other may rebuke King Saul Or because I may not rebuke a scorner though a professing brother or because I may not rebuke my brother before two or three witnesses who to my knowledge bear the offender ill will and so I see my rebuking shall be so far from gaining him to repentance that it shall provoke him to a greater offence shall it therfore follow I am to suffer sin in my brother and not to rebuke him at all which the Spirit of God calleth a hating of my brother in my heart Lev. 19. v. 18. This argument concludeth not that I may not rebuke my brother but onely that I may not rebuke my brother imprudently or that any brother may not rebuke any brother whoever he be King or Ruler Negatis modi non negat rem ipsam so we are to passe by offences and to be willing to forgive them Ergo we are not to rebuke an offending brother it doth not follow I must be willing to forgive all friend or enemy Ergo by this reason I am not to rebuke any at all and Solomon willeth us onely not to be swift too glad and willing or too quicke and sharpe eared to heare every ill word Eccles 7. 21. Also Heb. Give not thy heart to all words that are spoken least thou hear thy servant curse thee So is the same phrase Eccles 1. 13. Prov. 23. 26. Eccles 1. 17. Not unlike this is the phrase Dan. 6. 14. The King set his heart to deliver Daniel But this will not prove we are not to rebuke an offending brother 2. That by the Church here is meant a number of private Christians is against the Text for then three witnesses should be a Church being three private Christians but sure it is Christ ascendeth in his speech to an higher degree to the Church who is to heare the Witnesses the Plaintiffe and the Offender who hath power to binde and loose which is nothing but a Church-court 2. Thou hast gained thy brother must be a spirituall gaining of him to repentance as 1 Pet. 3. 1. That they may be gained by the conversation of the wives 1 Cor. 9 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I may gain those that are under the Law Ver. 21. That I may gain those that are without Law ver 19. That I might gaine the more Ver. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I might gain the Iewes so is the Word used for spirituall gaining Mat. 2. 17 20 22. and Christ in his Sermons never speaketh of civill gaining of brethren And 2. Because he speaketh of the brother as he is a member of a society where there be three
or more brethren and a Church of brethren whose helpe he may seeke to gaine a brother it is cleare he must speake of a Church-gaining or of a gaining in order to a Church and not with reference to any civill Sanedrim or Court of Magistrates Object 3. The place saith Erastus is to be understood of lighter faults for which one brother may pardon another and which a private brother hath power to conceale it cannot therefore in good sense be extended to weighty scandals that are to be punished with Excommunication Ans 1. A fault may be light and small in its rise so long as it is private which deserveth not excommunication but if contumacie shall come to the fault as it is here in its growth and tendencie to scandalize many it is not small 2. A private fault is not hence concluded to be small because a brother may pardon it and conconceale it For Christ saith to scandalize on of the least of these that beleeveth in him is so great an offence that it were good for the man so offending to be cast in the Sea having a milstone hanged about his necke ver 6. And yet a brother is to forgive such an offence Luke 17. 2 3 4. 3. In that a brother is obliged to gaine his brother from this fault it is cleare it is not so small a fault and 2. Because it is a fault to be brought to the Church and 3. If the Offender remaine obstinate he is therefore to be esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican or as no brother nor any member of the Church and 4. This sinne is bound in earth and heaven 5. The text will not bear that all weigh y faults such as Muâ—ther that defileth the Land or solicitation to follow strange Gods may be transacted betweene brother and brother and concealed Deut. 13. 8. Though Ioseph be in this called a just man as Beza observeth in that he would not make Mary his wife a publike example nor reveale her Adultery which was by the Law to be punished by death for so Ioseph conceived of her Tell the Church that is saith Erastus tell the civill Synedry of the Iewes and therefore this place is nothing for excommunication or any Spirituall Church Discipline and if the Offendor refuse to heare the Orthodoxe Magistrate then may the offended brother plead his right before the Heathen Magistrate and deale with the Offendor as with a Heathen and a Publican Answ In the Word of God the word Ecclesia Church applyed to matters of Religion as it is evidently here where it is said that the offended brother is to labour to gaine the soule of his offending brother doth never signifie a civill judicature and therefore the exposition is insolent and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can never beare such a sense we desire one paralell place in the old or new Testament for it 2. The scope of the place is the removall of scandals in Christs meek brotherly and Christian way ver 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who ever shall scandalize c. and ver 7. Wo to the world because of offences ver 8. Wherefore if thy hand or foot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cause thee to offend cut them off ver 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones c. And then he cometh from active scandals whereby we offend others and the way of removall of them to passive scandals whereby others offendeth us and the way of removall of them ver 15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespasse against thee go tell him the fault betvveen thee and him Now these sins that are to be punished by the sword of the Civill Magistrate or not such sins as may be transacted between brother and brother for homicide blasphemy sorcery extortion are to be taken away by the publick sword and this must have place Thou shalt not conceal it thy eye shall not spare him and the Magistrate is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil Rom. 13. 4. 3. Christ hinteth not in any sort at any word of blood wrath vengeance the sword evil doing fear and terrour for the sword such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the office of the civil magistrate is holden forth to us in other places as Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2. No man except he intended violence to the text can dream of such a latent forrain and co-acted sense in the words and if such a sense had been intended by our Saviour he behoved in this place to erect a throne from a divine institution for the Magistrate which no impartiall interpreter can with any half side of a shadow perceive in the words 4. The end of this processe is spirituall If he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother to repentance as is confirmed already from Scripture But whether the offender be gained to repentance or not the Magistrate is to use the sword that others may fear as a Magistrate he is to regard the peace of the Common-wealth not the salvation of the offender directly 5. Christs way of proceeding to take away scandals between brother and brother is spirituall Tell him admonish the offender tell the Church that they may rebuke and admonish and this is a Morall way all along But the Magistrates proceeding is not Morall by requests orations admonitions but by the reall use of the sword to compell for he beareth not the sword in vain Rom. 13. 4. 6. The proceeding here is with much lenity patience and long suffering to gain an offender but having recourse to the Magistrate to use his club and sword is rather a way of irritation to make the gap the wider and therefore Paul 1 Cor. 6. condemnes this as repugnant to love that they should go to law one with another before the heathen Magistrate 7. Such an expression as this Let him to thee as an heathen man and a Publican is never taken for the civill complaining of him before an Heathen judge nor doth it expresse the use of the sword by the Magistrate it s so insolent a phrase that all the Greek Authors that ever wrote cannot parallel it for this is a Spirituall and Morall reproach put on the offender the Magistrates way is a reall inflicting of punishment 8. This remedy is contrary to Pauls 1 Cor. 6. For there the offended brother though the offending party be never so contumacious hath not this remedy of Christs to implead his brother before an heathen Magistrate that the Apostle taketh for a sinfull scandall and sin cannot be Christs remedy Pauls remedy is Suffer rather wrong and defraudation Paul by this interpretation should have commanded them the contrary 9. Where is ever the supreame Magistrate who cannot be excluded if this exposition stand called by the name of the Church 10. How incongruous is it
that Christ should direct the Jews who were to be dispersed through all the earth to go up to Jerusalem for judgement seeing Ierusalem was to be laid equall with the ground and the Iews their state Church policy and the Scepter now removed from Iudah let wise men judge 11. The complaining to an Heathen Magistrate or the punishing of an offender by the sword by no Scripture is such a binding on earth by the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as this is expounded Matth. 16. 19. And such a binding as is ratified in Heaven and that by the joynt Prayers of two or three on earth as is here spoken ver 18 19 20. A Heathen Magistrates Sentence though never so just should not be valued except it were confirmed by the Prayers of the Church as the Sentence of Excommunication must be 12. The Iewish Saenedrim was now to take an end and expire with all the Iewish policy it is not to be imagined that Iesus Christ would appoint a perishing remedy for a perâ—etuall and ever-enduring disease now offences and scandals between brother and brother were to be in the world to the end ver 15. If thy brother offend c. And Christ saith Offences must be and the remedy here is morall and perpetuall as 1. That Christ shall have a Church visible on earth against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail 2. That we first deal to gain our brother in private ere to his greater shame he be brought in publick before the Church 3. The Lords ratifying in Heaven what his servants shall binde and loose on earth 4. The agreeing of two to pray together the convâ—ening of two or three in the name of Christ with a promise of the presence of Christ all these are Morall and perpetuall The Lord never did the like of this before or after 13. In all the New-Testament we do not read that Christ who was the end of the Law and the body now come in the flesh to abolish all Ceremonials and temporary Laws of the Iewish Church and policy as Iewish did institute any old-Testament Law such as the Sanedrim was for offending brethren if it be said that this was but the right expounding of an old divine Law now almost buried through the corruption of men then must Erastus shew that this was an old Law of divine institution that the Iews were to keep this threefold order in gaining an offending brother and that this is now abolished and that the power of the Magistrate in Church-businesse by this place is not established to the end of the world both which are contrary to the Principles of Erastus not to say that there is not in this whole Chapter or Luk. 17. where the same purpose is handled any shadow of reason to assert that Christ is restoring any Ceremoniall or Iudiciall Law to its genuine and sound meaning and sense but by the contrary Christ speaketh of the Morall and perpetuall Doctrine of scandall and how we are to deal with an offending brother to gain him to repentance either by our selves or the Church and to forgive private injuries even to seventy seven times Lastly since Publicans and Romans converted to the Christian saith from Paganisme even at this time were Brethren who might both give and take scandals it shall follow that Christ commandeth Gentiles to submit to the Jewish Magistrates this was against Christian liberty and to take from Cesar those things that are Cesars which is unjust But saith Erastus Publicans were not in Iuda excluded from sacrifices Luâ— 18. A Pharisee and a Publican went up to the Temple to pray Christ himself did eat with Publicans and sinners therefore this phrase Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican cannot expresse this Let him be excommunicated except you say that all heathen and Publicans were so served by Christ and the Iews as if they had been excommunicated Ans 1. Publicans that were by Nation Heathens were excluded from sacrifices and the Temple jure by Gods Law but not de facto because the Iews being under bondage to the Romane Emperour and spoiled of their Liberties and Laws might not put their Laws in execution against Heathen and Publicans it is sufficient to us saith Beza that Publicans were execrable and hatefull to the Iews and say I that Heathen and Publicans remaining such are without the Church and not to be reputed as brethren but enemies to the true Church of God and this is that which to us is Excommunication I do not doubt but Publicans went to the Temple to pray but that is but to Argue A facto ad jus not the right way A jure ad factum Publicans ought not to have done so 2. Christ the Supream Lawgiver who is above the Law did often dispense with sacrifice and positive Laws for a work of mercy and if he touched the dead and touched the skin of the Leaper and suffered his disciples to pluck the ears of Corne on the Sabbath day what marvell then he did eat with Publicans and sinners contrary to the Letter of a positive Law Knowing his own whom the Father had given to him from eternity were to be brought in to himself by his familiar conversing with them why should not the Physitian converse with the sick the shepheard with the lost sheep the Redeemer with his ransomed ones But this is no warrant that therefore the cleansed Leaper should not shevv himself to the Priest or that an obstinate offender should not be reputed as a Heathen and not admitted into the Sanctuary 3. That simple Publicans or Heathen remaining such should sacrifice I never read sacrifices were offered for Iobs friends who were not within the visible Church But 1. by Gods own speciall and immediate command as we read Iob 42. 7 8. A positive Law for it which yet was requisite for ordinary worship of that kinde we read not 2. I think Iobs friends cannot in knowledge Religion Profession be esteemed meer Heathens and therefore as God tied not himself to a positive and standing Law here so neither was Christ being the same God equall with the Father so restrained from not familiar conversing with Heathen and Publicans but he might leap over a Ceremony to save a lost soul Object 6. But the adversaries say Christ here useth words proper to the Iewish Synedry and the Old-Testament as witnesses Ecclesia or congregation Heathen Publican and these are not New Testament words nor was there such a thing as a New Testament Church on earth at this time and Christ having not yet ascended to Heaven nor sent down the holy spirit cannot be thought to hold forth the power and jurisdiction of a thing yet destitute of all being such as was the Christian Church nor can he here speak of Christs spirituall Kingdom Ans 1. Christ did well to use these words Witnesses Church Congregation Heathen Publican as well known to his hearers and these
same words in use amongst the Iews are used in the New Testament as 1 Cor. 16. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 19. Act. 15. 7 17. Revel 11. 2 8. 1 Pet. 4. 3. 2 Pet. 1 19. 20 21. Anathema Maeranatha Witnesses Gentiles sinners of the Gentiles imposition of hands c. Indeed in ordinary the Pastor under the New Testament is not called Priest nor high Priest nor the Communion Table an Altar But the words here used are obvious and very significant and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church is a most obvious word in both the Old and New Testament and doth signifie any Assembly Religious civill or prophane according as the nature person and use or end of the meeting or Assembly was Religious and Prophane as is evident by many places of the Old and New Testament where the seventy Interpreters use the word for a Church-Assembly for which see the due right of Presbyters page 349 350. and page 473 474. And since the word Church here is cleerely a company convened to gaine an offending brothers soule by rebukes and censures and which hath power to binde and loose on earth so as their fact is ratified in heaven it cannot be any other then a New Testament Church-meeting seeing we find the Church of Corinth commanded to conveene and exercise such a power 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4. And therfore it cannot be expounded of the â—ivill judge not to adde that Erastus who objecteth this saith the Synâ—dre had both civill and spirituall or Ecclâ—siasticall power and therefore he hath no ground to expound the place of the Civill Magistrate 2. Because he was not yet ascended to heaven and had not sent downe the Holy Spirit it is no consequence to say he speaketh nothing of the Christian Church of the Nevv Testament for before his Ascension he appointed the Ministery the Sacraments the power of Censures and the keyes given to the Church of the New Testament Math. 28. 19 20. Joh. 20. v. 2â— 22. Math. 26. 20 21 22 23 c. Now it is as inconvenient that precepts such as Do this in remembrance of me take yee eate yee and he that heareth you heareth me should be given to the christian Church which yet had no being as for Christ to hold forth the power of jurisdiction of a Christian church destitute of all being Yea this recurreth upon Erastus who will have Christ here to hold forth the power of the Christian Magistrate as yet remoter from being all Magistrates being professed Enemies to Iesus Christ whereas there was at this time a seed a bottome of a christian visible Church There being eleven Apostles seventy Disciples and many others who professed faith in Christ already come Yea though there be no formed instituted visible Church of the New Testament yet it became our great Prophet who taught that Gospell yea all that he heard of the Father Ioh. 15. 15. to his Disciples which was to be a rule of the Faith of the Christian visible Church not yet instituted and who erected a Ministery to teach them before his ascension also to furnish that Ministery with the powerof the keyes censures as he expresly doth before his death Mat. 16. 17 18 19. Not to adde what Camero saith that he spake these words when he was now to offer himselfe on the Crosse and Math. 2. 16. He mentioneth the edifying of the Church of the New Testament and the Disciples aske vvho is to be greatest in the Kingdome of God ver 1. Object 7. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publican can not meane as much as Let him bee excommunicated but onely let him plead vvith his obstinate brother vvho contemneth the Christian Magistrate before the heathen Magistrate and in preserving the offendor vvho is novv obstinate let him deale vvith him as with a Heathen and a Publican onely in this matter of pursuit but otherwise the Publican was not excommunicate 1. Because the Publicans place and office was good and lawfull and from God then to repute him as a Publican is not to repute him as a prophane man 2. When Iohn Baptist is demanded by the Publicans what they shall doe he doth not bid them lay downe the office of a Publican but onely not abuse it to rapine and extortion nor is Zacheus compelled by Christ to lay downe his office but onely to make restitution Answ 1. There is no necessity to condemne the office of the Publican or the birth and condition of the Heathen as unlawfull But a Publican went for a prophane man and for a man who is a stranger to the true church of God as Mat. 5. 46. If you love them that love you what reward have you Doe not even the Publicans the same Ergo It is Christs mind to exclude the Publicans from any spirituall or eternall reward promised to these within the visible Church and when Christ was slandered by the Jewes because he went in to be a Guest with a Publican Luke 19. 7. And because hee did eate vvith Publicans Mat. 9. 12 13. Christ taketh it as granted that Publicans were prophane men and sinners But he saith they were sicke sinners and lost that is such as were sensible of their by-past prophanity and desired the Physitian Christ to cure them and Gentiles or Heathen is taken for these who are without the Church and are void of Religion 1 Cor. 5. 1. Such fornication as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles 1 Pet. 4. 3. Let it suffice you that ye have vvrought the vvill of the Gentiles Eph. 2. 11. Ye vvere in times past Gentiles what is that but Ver. 2. Ye vvalked according to the course of the World according to the Prince of the povver of the aire So a Samaritan is taken for one that hath a Devill yet to be a Samaritan by birth and nation is not unlawfull it is then a distinctive terme spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be an Heathen or counted an Heathen and a Publican that is counted a prophane wicked person not a brother not a member of the church Theophylact expoundeth this with us If he heare not the Church let him be an out-cast least he rub any of his vvickednes upon others vvithin the Church And these words Let him be to thee is a word of command as Mat. 5. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let your speech be yea yea Mat. 20. he that vvould be greatest let him be your servant and let him be to thee is not to exclude the Church but it is set downe in a Law-manner in the second person for farre more must the obstinate offender be as an Heathen and a Publican to the Church Ver. 18. Verily I say unto you What yee bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven These words contain a reason why he who contemneth the Church is to be holden as a Heathen and a Publican Why is it such
an offence before God to despise the church Yea saith our Saviour with a grave asseveration Verily I say unto you they that despise the sentence of you the Ministers of the Gospel being according to truth given out they and their sinnes shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith he is said to bind who doth retaine the sinne when he maketh the obstinate brother unexcusable and he looseth who remitteth or pardoneth the injury and gaineth to repentance his brother by a brotherly admonition for except he speake of a brotherly composing of private injuries to what end should Christ subjoyne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again I say to you if two agree c. Answ 1. Christ doth argue from the lesse to the more he proveth what the Church bindeth on earth shall be bound in Heaven because if the prayers of two or three gathered together in the name of God and agreeing together on earth are not rejected in Heaven farre more shall that be ratified in heaven which the whole church of Christ decreeth on earth in the name of the head of the Church Iesus Christ 2. When in the chapter going before Christ had ascribed to the Apostles and Pastors which are the eyes of the Church a power of the keyes and here he ascribeth to them the power of binding and loosing there was no cause to dreame that he speaketh here of a private forgiving of private finnes betweene Brother and brother for then he might have said at the first step Thou hast gained thy brother that gaining or convincing of thy brother shall be bound or loosed in heaven no lesse then the Churches judiciall binding and loosing in heaven which yet is set downe as an higher degree of power But I may here say with Beza in the whole Scripture the word of binding and loosing is never spoken of any other but of these who are in publike places and by a borrowed speech here it is spoken in regard of Spirituall power To bind and to loose is by a judiciall power in subordination to Christ the King to remit and retaine sinnes So Iosephus saith the Pharisees ruled all so that they would banish or recall from banishment loose and binde whom they pleased and upon the Authority according to the which Christ sent his Disciples as the Father sent him so he instructed his Ministers with power to remit and retaine sinnes Ioh. 20. 23. and Mat. 16. 19. What thou bindest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on earth shall be bound in heaven what thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So doth Lucian bring in that prisoner speaking to Iupiter Loose me O Iupiter for I have suffered grievous things Mat. 22. 13. Then the King said to his servants take him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binde him hand and foot binding here you see is done by the command of the great King Acts 21. 11. So shall the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binde Paul they bound Paul with Law and authority such as it was Iohn 18. 12. The Captaine and Officers tooke Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bound him they bound him not by private authority Mat. 27. 2. and Act. 24. 27. Felix left Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bound if Lictors binde any Malefactors they doe it by authoritie and Law So do the Hebrews speake Psal 105. 20. The Ruler of the people loosed him Psal 102. 20. The Lord looketh downe from heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to open or loose the children of death Psal 146. 7. The Lord looseth the Prisoners Iob 12. 18. 3. It cannot be denyed but when one private brother pardons another repenting Brother God ratifieth that in heaven But it is cleare the pardon here holden forth by our Saviour is such a loosing as hath witnesses going before 2. Such an one as cometh higher to the knowledge of the Chuuch Nor doth the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again signifie any thing but pretereà moreover 4. And who can say that binding and loosing here is some other thing then binding and loosing in the Chap. 16. ver 9. Where the same very phrase in the Greeke is one and the same except that the Lord speaketh Mat. 16. 19. in the singular number to Peter as representing the teachers and Governours of the Church and here Mat. 18. He speaketh in the Plurall number relating to the Church Now Mat. i6 i8 19. binding on earth and loosing which is ratified in heaven is evidently the exercise of the power of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven I will give to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven What be these keyes he expoundeth in the same very verse and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven then binding and loosing on earth must be in these to whom Christ hath committed the power of the keyes but 1. Christ hath not committed the keyes to all but to Church-rulers that are the Stewards of the House and the dispensers of heavenly Mysteries Hence the keyes in Scripture signifie authority and officiall dignity that is in Rulers not in private men as Esa 22. 22. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder So Christ is said to have the key of David to open and no man shutteth to shut and no man openeth By which out of doubt saith Camero is pointed forth the kingly authority and power of Christ so saith Vatablus And our owne Calvin Musculus Gualther Piscator Beza Pareus agree that the keyes are insigne potestatis an Ensigne of power given to the Steward or Master of a Noblemans house who is a person in office The giving of the keyes saiâ—h worthy Mr. Cotton is a giving power for the preaching of the word the administring of the seales and censures by which these invested with power doe open and shut the gates Now we desire any Word of God by which it can be made good that the keyes and power to binde and loose is given to all that are in the house even private Christians But we can shew the Keyes and binding and loosing and opening and shutting to be given to the Officers and Rulers of the house Hence I argue that interpretation that confoundeth the key-bearers and the Children with the Servants of the House and the Governours that are over the people in the Lord with the governed and putteth the Characters proper to the Officers and Stewards conâ—usedly upon all that are in the house is not to be holden but this interpretation is such Ergo c. also to binde and to loose is expounded by Christ Ioh. 20. 21. to be a power to retain and remit sins on earth which are accordingly retained and remitted in Heaven and that by vertue of a calling and Ministeriall mission according to which the Father sent Christ Jesus and Iesus Christ
they distribute to wicked and scandalous men such Ordinances as they see shall certainly be judgement and damnation to them and as maketh the Communicants guilty of the body and blood of our Lord Now that the Stewards Communicate with the sins of these manifestly scandalous to whom they administrate the Supper I prove 1. Because they that sow pillows under the head of the openly wicked preaching peace to these who should die do hunt souls Ezech. 13. 20. and partake of their presumption and they that heal the wound of the people with smooth words are false dealers and concurreth to the wound of the people Ier. 8. 10 11. As the Prophet that preacheth lies partaketh of the peoples presumption which believe those lies Ier. 14. 14 15 16. 2. If Eve should but reach the fruit of the forbidden Tree to Adam and say take and eat she partakes of Adams sin if the mother give poyson willingly and wittingly to a childe she killeth her childe though it be told the childe that it is poyson The Supper to those who knowingly to us eat unworthily is forbidden meat and poyson 3. A third Argument is from the nature of holy things It is not lawfull to give that which is holy to dogs nor to cast pearles before swine least they trample them under their feet Matth. 7. 6. But the Sacraments are holy things saith Erastus and no man can deny it Ergo we are not to give the Sacraments to the scandalous and openly prophane But Erastus answereth That the Lord preached the word to Pharisees and the word is a holy thing and a pearl and by Dogs and swine he meaneth open persecutors They that will seem members of the Church and confesse their fault and promise amendment are not such as will trample on the Sacraments and will turn again to tear you Et si quis talis reperiatur hunc ego admittendum minime censeo for such saith he Are not to be admitted to the Sacrament Ans These holy things which prophane men and openly scandalous can make no use of but pollute them to their own destruction and the abusing of the Ordinances no more then Dogs and Swine can make use of Pearls to feed them but onely trample on them are not to be given to the prophane and openly scandalous But the Lords Supper is such a thing being Ordained only for those that have saving Grace not for Dogs Now the Assumption applied to the word is most false as it is applied to the Lords Supper it is most true for the Word is Ordained by speciall Command to be Preached to Dogs and Lions that thereby they may be made Isa 11. 4 5 6 7. Isa 2. 3. 4. Lambs and Converts the Supper is not a mean of Conversion and since Dogs can make no use of it but trample it under foot we are forbidden to give such holy things to them It is true They 'll trample the Pearl of the word but we are Commanded to offer the word to all even while they turn Apostates 2. If Christ Commanded the word to be Preached to Pharisees and Saduces these were such persecuters as sinned against the Holy Ghost Dogs in the Superlative degree Matth. 12. 31 32. Joh. 9. 39 40 41. Joh. 7. 28. Joh. 8. 21. Ergo Christ Commanded some holy things the word to be given to Dogs and yet his precept cannot be obeyed if we give them the Sacrament 3. By what Doctrine of Scripture will Erastus have these that trampleth on Ordinances and turn again to tear us debarred from the Supper For in his Thes 26. 27 28 29. he holdeth it unlawfull to debar any Judas from the Supper doth he think there be no Dogs in the Visible Church Peter saith There be such Dogs as have known the way of truth and turn to their vomit and such may promise amendment confesse their sin and desire the Sacrament 4. Arg. Those who will not hear the Church but doth scandalize not only their Brethren but also a whole Church and are to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans are not to be admitted to the highest priviledge and to feast with Christ when the Church knoweth they want their wedding garment But there may be and are many in the Church of this sort Ergo such should not be admitted For the Major I set down the words of Erastus granting it The Assumption both Scripture and experience proveth for there be in the Visible Church Dogs Persecuters Jezabels as there be many called and few chosen 5. Arg. If the incestuous man must be cast out lest he leaven the Church then can he not be admitted to Communicate with the Church in that which is the highest seal of Christs love but the incestuous man must be cast out lest he leaven the whole Church 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 c. Ergo The Proposition is clear because none can be put out of the Church but they must be separated from the Table of the Children of the Church the Assumption is 1 Cor. 5 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Put him out ver 7. Purge him out Now the Church hath no power by bodily violence to attempt a locall separating of him in person from them as they are men though they may separate themselves from him then it must be a declarative casting of him out as unworthy to Communicate with the Church in such holy Ordinances as distinguisheth the Church from other Societies and these be the Seals of the Covenant 6. We are not to suffer sin in any Levit. 18. 17. Rev. 2. 20. but to hinder it so far as we can according to our vocation 1 Sam. 3. 13. As the Priests hindred Vzziah to Sacrafice 2 Chron. 26. 18 19 20. And must pull them out of the fire Jude ver 23. As the Law of nature would teach the Mother not only not to co-operate with her sonne attempting to kill himself but to hinder and stop him by pulling a knife or sword out of his hand when he is about to destroy himself if so then ought not the Church and her Officers to co-operate so far with those who do Eat and drink their own Damnation as to exhibite and give to such the seals of the Covenant to pray that these seals may be blessed to scandalons ones which is to pray directly contrary to the revealed will of God in his word and against that which the faithfull Pastors and Paul Preacheth That every one should try and examine themselves and so eat and drink Now a reall and physicall co-operating of the Church with such manifest impiety must then be the Churches suffering of sin in a brother or not hindring him â—o eat his own Damnation if the Lord have committed a power of dispensing the seals to Christians not to Pagans and Turks Let Erastus show any precept or practise why we might not admit Jews Turks Indians though never Baptized to eat and drink the Lords body and blood we are to Preach
the Gospel to them if they were amongst us except that such as are to communicate according to the will of Christ are Christians members of the Church who doth try and examine themselves and Jews and Turks though dwelling and born amongst us are not such yet Erastus would that such should never be admitted to the Lords Supper though they should desire it Officers also have a command not to dispense some parts of the word to all as we are not to rebuke open Scorners Should any of our Church turn Iew and blaspheme Christ and pertinaciously after conviction persist in his Apostacy might not Erastus aske by what command of Christ will ye not Preach the Gospel to such an one Christ made no exception but said Preach to all Nations why do you make Exceptions might we not answer Christ hath given a power of dispensing the Gospel to all yet hath he excepted some because it s against the will of Christ that such can obey the Gospel We are bidden pray for all yet are there some that we are not to pray for because they sin unto death so is the case here in some kinde 7. It is for our instruction that the Priests were rebuked for that they admitted into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in flesh and heart that they put no difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and prophaned the holy things of God Ezek. 44. 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. And this was a shadow of things to come as was observed before teaching us that farre lesse should the Pastors of the New Testament suffer the holy things of God to be prophaned 8. We read that Iohn Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sinnes and professed â—aith in Iesus Christ it would then appeare to be the will of Christ that every one should not be admitted to the Lords Supper though some say the Apostles baptized single persons not in Church communion so that Pastors administer the Sacraments by reason of the power of order as they are Pastors not by power of jurisdiction as having warrant from any Church in regard Churches at the beginning had the Word and Sacraments before they had any Church Government yet I conceive the Lords Supper is a Seale of a Church-communion 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. and the like I say of Baptisme typed by Noahs Arke 1 Pet. 3. 19 20 c. and though the Apostles partly by priviledge partly through necessitie the parts existing before the whole were necessitated first to baptize and then to plant Churches yet the Churches being once constitute these are Church priviledges to be dispensed both by the power of order and the power of jurisdiction CHAP. VI. Quest 2. Some speciall Reasons of Thomas Erastus against Excommunication examined THomas Erastus a Physitian who medled not much with Divinity save in this in which he was unsound in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame and nothing but a device of Pastors affecting domination 1. Object Onely Petâ—r killed Ananias onely Paul excommunicated Alexander and Hymeneus onely Paul said he would come to the Corinthians with the rod and for a long time onely Bishops excommunicated Presbyters gave advise onely Ergo This power is not in the Church Ans The consequence is naught Christ said only to his Disciples in person Go teach and Baptize Is it a good consequence therefore that none hath power to teach and Baptize but only the Apostles Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians to mourn for the incestuouâ— mans fall therefore no Pastors have power to exhort in the like kinde 2. We grant the Apostles did many things out of their Apostolick power which in a constitute Church the Church onely may doe as Paul his alone disputed against Circumcision of the Gentiles Act. 15. 2. What Ergo Paul in a Synod and a Synod hath not power to dispute and determine the same the contrary is evident Act. 15. 12 22 23. 3. It is false that the Authority and rod with which Paul said he would come to the Coriuthians 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apostle the same he giveth to Timothy and to all the Elders 3. If Bishops exercised the same power for many ages Erastus must shew us Bishops who could kill miraculously such as Ananias and Elimas and work miracles now beside that Erastus must with his new opinion hold up a new creature called a Prelate unknown to the Apostles or Ierome and the Fathers he must parallel Bishops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apostles Obj. 2. The Apostles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven and so bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments so also do the Ministers daily and yet Christ in his word commanded not those to be debarred from the Lords Supper Ans It is very true the Apostles and Pastors of Christ that now are denounce eternall wrath and that authoritatively against those that are invisibly to men heart-hypocrites who yet before the Church who know not the heart go for Saints and are neither excluded from Sacraments nor so much as rebuked But it is a vain collection that therefore externally scandalous are not to be debarred from the Supper and Excommunicated The Prophets 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God yet Heathens cannot be Excommunicated and yet I hope Erastus dare not deny but Christ hath forbidden that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sacraments Though I dare provoke any Erastian and attest them by their new Doctrine to shew me a warrant from Christs Testament why the Church should refuse the Seals to a Turke they will say A Turk is not willing to receive and therefore the Seals may be denied to him and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though scandalous if he desire it and professe repentance But I answer Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals What if he should be willing and require to be Baptized yet remaining ignorant of Christ and the Gospel we should not Baptize him Now by the Doctrine of Erastus we have no more re warrant to deny the seals to him then to deny them to Judas we desire a Scripture from the adversary which will not conclude with equall strength of reason against the giving of the seals to any scandalous member of the Church it is true a Turk ignorant of Christ though he should desire the seals is uncapable and he is unwilling vertually in regard he as yet refuseth the knowledge of the Gospel and so is the scandalous professor no lesse uncapable though we may grant degrees of incapacity for he is vertually unwilling to receive Christ in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-sins 2. Though a Turk should be unwilling as its like enough he will be yet we desire a Scripture why we cannot make offer of
holden out of the Sanctuary as the Lord saith Ezech. 44. 7 8 9. then those who were only uncircumcised in flesh Erastus Those that morally sinned were not debarred from the holie things because they were invited to come and offer sacrifice for their sins Ans And because they might not enter into the Temple while the Priests offered a sacrifice for them they were no lesse excluded from the holy things of God then an Excommunicated person is while the Church see him swallowed up of grief and do relaxe and forgive 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. Is this a good Argument The Excommunicate person is invited to come again that the Church may pardon then it will follow he was cast out Erastus Paul forbiddeth to eat with fornicators 1 Cor. 5. It shall never follow that they are worthie of holy convention that are worthy of a common Table and that they are unvvorthy of the Supper who are unworthie of a common Table they vvere debarred from a familiar Communion with the godlie 1. That they might be ashamed 2. Least they should infect them Paul saith be not mixed vvith them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he saith not exclude them from the Lords Table and other holy things In the Sacrament I must try my self not others in my familiar Tabling with others I am to try them that I may gain them yea 2 Thes 3. Though we are to eschew familiar conversing with those that walk unorderly yet are we to keep communion in holy things with them and to admonish them as brethren Ans Erastus propounds an Argument of his own 1 Cor. 5. in place of ours we said never that they that are unworthy of the holy Supper are unworthy to be Tabled with in common familiarity as brethren though that be most true But we reason thus Those that are to be delivered to Satan and cast out as 1 Cor. 5. 5 13. of the Church and judged ver 12. and with whom we may not eat ver 11. These are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper which is the proper feast of the Church But such are all incestuous and scandalous persons and therefore Paul doth indeed command them to be excluded from the holy feast 2. To say the Church and her Officers must try themselves not others ere they come to the Lords Supper is to beg the question for ere they be admitted into the Sanctuary they are to be tried whither they be uncircumcised in heart and flesh or not Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. As we have proved 3. Paul not only useth a passive verb be not mixed with them but 1 Cor. 5. 5. he useth four active words v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purge him out 3. v. 12. He willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge him 4. He saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put away that evil one Hence I argue The men whom they convened together were to judge to deliver to Satan to purge out to put away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them ver 2. or from amongst them v. 13. This man they did Authoritatively either put from amongst them as they were Christians from their common Table or out of their fellowship as they were men to kill him Or 3. out of their Church-Communion that they should not keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them Let Erastus give a fourth now we cannot dream of the first two for 1. Would the Apostle command a Church-meeting to interdict a man of Tabling with them in common eating and drinking What needeth a Church-court for they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did this And what needed a judging Court for this for not to eat with him was no censure of the Church as Erastus saith 2. It is no Grammar nor can it bear sense that the Corinthians could say we Corinthians gathered together in the name and power of the Lord Iesus do cast out such a one out of the midst of us that is from our common-Table this would say they had all one common Table and that all the Church of Corinth met at this time to some Feast to cast him out of their love-Feasts a dream no man ever conceived 3. The Text speaketh of eating in their houses could they cast the man out of his own house and from his own Table they had no power so to do But ye will say they might forbid any brother to go into this mans house to his Table True but this was not to put the man out of the midst of them as Paul saith Nor fourthly was Pauls spirit and the name and power of the Lord Iesus required for eschewing of a common Table with this man Erastus saith Paul commanded this Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. To all and every beleever at Rome and Thessalonica by themselves Nor 2. were they to kill him Never did a Church conveen to kill a man This is so insolent that Erastus must give precept for it or a practise beside the present case therefore here must be some Church out-casting 4. Though Paul will have us admonish a cast out man as a brother 2 Thes 3. It s private admonition that I owe to all men Lev. 19. 17. And that one woman is to performe to another Col. 3. 15. But not any of the holy things of the Sanctuary Erastus The Iews accused Paul of nothing but that they lied that he brought Greeks into the Temple The Law bad all the clean eat the Passeover and excepteth none for their wickednesse Christ admitted Iudas to the Passeover and said Drink ye all of this Paul reciteth a Catologue of wicked men in Corinth 1 Cor. 5. With whom we are not to have private dealing but he commandeth never to exclude any who are willing to come from the Lords Supper We are to trie our selves not one another nor is it a sin to eat at the Lords Table with wicked men Ans Belike it was a crime then to bring the Greeks into the Temple 2. It is a begging of the question to say all were admitted to the Passeover See how this is before answered 3. Christ admitted Iudas into the Passeover What then may Timothie lay hands suddenly on all he knows to be Iudases that they come in and lap the blood of souls contrary to 1 Tim. 3. Christ is above the Law and if his practise in this were the rule because Christ admitted Iudas whom he knew to be a Traitor and did eat ordinarily at Table with him and committed the flock to such a known wolfe We are also to eat with covetous extortioners which Paul forbiddeth 1 Cor. 5. 11. And we are to commit the flock of God to known Wolves where we have a precept on the contrary 2 Tim. 2. 2. Christ would rather teach that we are to admit to the seals all not ignorant and scandalous and not be too curious in striking up a
window in the conscience of others 4. Pauls practise at Corinth is but a negative ex particulari and not concludent The heathen came to hear the word at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. 23. And Paul doth no where command the Heathen should be excluded from the Sacraments Will Erastus then have them admitted 5. When Paul saith that unworthy Communicants were guilty of the Lords body and blood and required fidelity in the Stewards 1 Cor. 4. He taketh for confessed scandalous persons should not be admitted by the Church its true the sin of others who communicate unworthily is not the sin of another fellow-communicant who hath not authority to debar his fellow-communicant Erastus The Scripture debarred no Iews of old neither from sacrifices nor other sacraments but commandeth that all the male children Iews or Strangers that were not legally unclean nor from their homes should thrice a year appear before the Lord in Ierusalem for to partake of the holy things of God Ergo None were Excommunicated from the holy things of God for morall wickednesse Ans Erastus counteth this an Argument that cannot be Answered but it Answers it self to me And Erastus proposeth a Law that is Catholick to all the males yet he maketh it not Catholick himself but propoundeth a number of males that are excepted as he excepteth those that were legally unclean those that are from home and yet Deut. 16. 16. Exod. 23. 17. Exod. 34. 23. in the Letter of the Law there is no such exception as Erastus maketh I hope if he make an exception so may we according to the word of God Though we should give but not grant that there was no Excommunicaâ—ion amongst the Iews but only for Ceremoniall uncleannesse yet it proveth not there is no Excommunication in the Christian Church but the contrary for if for touching the dead by Gods Law men were separated from the holy things in that Church far more for Morall uncleannesse are men to be separated from the holy things of God under the New Testament for undeniably Ceremoniall separation signified and typed out Morall separation Col. 2. 21. 2. What ground Erastus hath to except those that were Ceremonially unclean and so as uncircumcised in flesh that they were not to appeare before the Lord let him shew the Letter of Scripture for it the same ground have we to shew that the uncircumcised in heart are not to appeare before the Lord Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Nor shall I thinke God would both command all the male without exception to compeare before him thrice a yeare whether they were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters or not such but truly sanctified and holy and that he would expresly rebuke the Males that were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters because they compeared for him in his House Ier. 7. 8 9 10. So then as he commandeth the the Males to compeare except they be legally uncleane or Lepers and would rebuke them if they should appeare before him being Ceremonially unclean and therefore in that case God would have them not to come So also if they should be Morally unclean he would have them not to come that is it is not their sin that they appeare before the Lord quoad substantiam actus but their obedience but it is their sinne that they appeare â—ali mâ—do in their unrepented guiltinesse yet is it the sinne of the Priests in not differencing betweene the cleane and the uncleane that they suffer them to come tali modo that as Swine they pollute the holy things of God to the Male it is their sinne that they come so and so guilty and that they come not it is their sinne but to the Priests it is their sinne that they admit the uncleane and cast Pearles to Dogs But as God would not rebuke unworthy Eaters at the Lords Table 1 Cor. 11. if they might eate unworthily by Gods Law so neither would he rebuke Theeves and Murtherers for appearing before him in his Temple if they ought not by Law not to appeare in that state No doubt saith Erastus pag. 106. there were many wicked persons in the time of Ioshua Iudges and the Kings in such a multitude yet they were bidden all to compeare before the Lord and none are excepted for their wickednesse and it is certaine God would not both bid them compeare and not compeare Ans All that sinned in Israel were bidden offer Sacrifice yet those who are wicked as Sodom are expresly debarred from Sacrifices except they were morally clean Esai 1. 13. Bring me no more vaine oblation incense is an abomination unto me 16 Wash you make you cleane So say I here God said expresly Ier. 7. 9 10. Except you be washed from your lying stealing come not before me to stand in my house to prophane my holy Name Ergo the Morally unclean are excommunicated from those holy things so all the wicked by the same reason were forbidden they remaining in their wickednes without Repentance to eate the Passeover yea to take the Name of God in their mouth Psal 50. 16 17. to Sacrifice Esai 66. 3. to touch the Altar of God except their hands were washed in innocency Psal 26. 6. And the Priests had the charge of the house of God to put difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and the Priests are said to violate the holy things of God if the wicked as well as the Ceremonially unclean were not debarred Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 22. 25 26. Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. and certainly the Males that were Leapers were expresly excepted and forbidden to come in the Congregation of Gods people as is before proved Erastus The Pharisees and Sadduces debarred none from the Sacraments for their wicked life Ans What will Erastus make the Pharisees practise our Rule they killed the Lord of Glory and then eat the Passeover with bloody hearts and hands Is such a Practise our Rule Erastus Iohn Baptist refused Baptisme to none willing to bee baptized and referred the inward Baptisme by the Spirit and fire to Iesus Christ Ans Iohn baptized those who confessed their sinnes and professed their Repentance and the like we crave of those that are admitted to the other Sacrament And the instance of Iohn or an Apostles baptizing cannot warrant the Baptizing of all Murtherers Idolatrous persons or the wickedst living as Erastus saith and the vildest on earth if they should but desire Baptisme and give no confession of their Faith nor profession of their Repentance Erastus Christ who rebuked many abuses and cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple would have rebuked the pollution of the Sacraments also but that he never did and Christ said that Peter should forgive his offending Brother often in one day if he but say It repenteth me and he saith This transaction shall be ratified in heaven Will you be more cruell then God Do not we often lie to God in our Confession to God He meaneth well who desires to
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
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth
Circumcision did typifie much naturall and originall heart corruption which cannot be punished by men or the Church but it followes not because Legall uncleannesse signifieth some other uncleannesse then that which is scandalous and censurable by the Church Ergo it signifieth not sinnes scandalous and censurable by the Church Erastus He that was legally unclean a long time or all his life as a Leper was not esteemed as no Iew or uncircumcised or a damned man he was to keepe the Sabbath yea none unclean were excluded from the Sacrament of the generall expiation in the 10. Moneth Lev. 16. and 23. Yea every soul under the pain of cutting off was to afflict his soule that day then the Lepers were not as Heathen and Publicans and condemned men yea the Magistrate could not punish a man for Leprosie Ans This is a poor argument because Ceremoniall Excommunication differeth from Christian Excommunication Ergo the former is not a type of the latter it followeth not Isaacs blood was never really shed Christ was really crucified Isaac was not mocked spitted on did not wear a crown of Thornes Iews and Gentiles crucified him not between two Theevs Ergo Isaac was no figure of Christ offered for our sins it followeth not 2. Nor are Lepers no Iews but in some respect they might no more come to the Temple 2. Nor amongst the people of God nor 3. Eate the Passeover then Heathens might doe and so are the Excommunicated with uâ— they are not exempted from faith repenting afflicting their soule for the sinnes of the Land nor are they eternally damned so they repent But Erastus hath no ground to say because the unclean were to afflict their soules and abstaine from servile worke in the day of atonement as our Excommunicants are not loosed from the duties of the ten Commandements wholly but from some publike Church duties but I see not how it followes Ergo The uncleane were to come to the holy convocation in the day of expiation and to observe the publike solemnities with Gods people One Law of God is not contradicent to another and the Leper and unclean were separated Ergo God could not tie them to be mingled with his people 3. The Leper was not punished by the Magistrate for he suffered onely for his Leprosie But it followeth not that the Magistrate should not punish a person obstinate to the Church Erastus When some uncleane persons were debarred from the Tabernacle and sacrifices many wickedmen were admitted Ergo. Moses both commanded men at the same time to come to the holy things and not to come Answ Moses bade the unclean come he bade all clean so they were not scandalously and openly wicked come and some came that were not bidden but rebuked for their coming as Ier. 7. 8. 9. Psal 50. 15. Here is no contradiction Erastus There be no figures of things present but of things to come morall uncleannesse was present at least there be no figures of things that incurre in the senses as theft and homicide Ans Circumcision the Lords Supper are signes and Symbols of things present as of Originall sinne our present union with Christ and communion of love amongst our selves Col. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 16 17 18. 2. Scandals as they are spirituall wickednes incurre not in our senses yet other wayes they are visible 3. Christs dying was both tyipfied to Iohn the Apostle and Mary and his death incurred in their senses they saw him die So was Christ raised from the dead typified by Ionas in the belly of the Whale and with their eyes they saw him after he rose againe Erastus Houses cloaths trees stones were capable of legall uncleannes men onely of Morall Legall uncleannes is a qualitie wickednes morall is in actions Ans I am ashamed and wearied to put in Paper such childish things all this will not prove that Legall uncleannes is no type of Morall uncleannes Isaac was but a man Moses a man onely Ergo they cannot be Types of Christ who is more then a man Bread and Wine are some other thing then Christ then cannot these be symbols of Christ and our spirituall communion with him I see nothing here but a challenging of Gods wisedome who hath chosen leprosie bodily to figure out sinnes spirituall Leprosie Erastus will say not so Leprosie is in the category of quality and sinfull actions in the category of actions Erastus Legall uncleannes signifieth naturall corruption not scandals Ans Yea but Leprosie and other uncleannes legall was contagious and infectious and did relate to wicked actions that infect as a canker sin originall being common to all is not that contagious from one to many nor did the Lord ever command Separation for sinne Originall but for transgression of Ceremoniall Lawes he did Erastus The Ceremoniall uncleannes does typifie the justification and washing of a sinner in Christs blood because no unclean thing can enter in the New Ierusalem and so the Scripture Rev. 21. Esa 4â— Ioel 3. Acts 15. And it shadowes out no such thing as Excommunication out of the Church Ans All the arguments that Erastusmade to prove that legall separation and uncleannes proveth not Excommunication and Morall uncleannes will with the same force conclude that Legall uncleannes is not that which excludes men out of heaven As for instance to begin with the last Legall uncleannesse signifieth sinne originall not wicked actions therefore it signifieth not scandals then by this Legall uncleannes that caused legall separation is signified mens exclusion out of the high Jerusalem for onely sinne Originall not for actuall sins This type must be a lying type for actuall sins especially debaâ—res us out of the New Jerusalem Rev. 21. 8. c. 22. 15. 1 Cor. 6. 9. 2. Legall uncleannes and corruption of nature differ as much as legall uncleannes and actuall wickednesse But Erastus said the former cannot typifie the latter 1. Because Legall uncleannes is often involuntary 2. It is not universally forbidden 3. Many godly men may be legally unclean but actuall morall wickednesse is not so even so say I. 1. All naturall or originall uncleannes is voluntary in Adam 2. Is universally forbidden 3. It cannot consist with that holines which we must have or we cannot see God 3. By Erastus his fourth difference legall uncleannes was otherwise punished then naturall corruption for naturall corruption is punished with the first and second death Ephes 2. 2. Rom. 5. 15 16. the like may be said of all the rest 4. Numb 12. 14. Shame was unseparably annexed to Leprosie with contagion so leavening of others and shame is annexed to â—oul scandals and annexed to casting out of the Church 1 Cor. 5 6 7. 2 Thes 3. 14. Gal. 5. 9 10. But though a necessity of washing may be holden forth to us in Legall uncleannes ere we enter into Heaven yet not so directly as in legall separation for in it men scandalous are excluded out of the church least the uncleane
should infect the clean as is cleare as the light Num. 19. 22. Hag. 2. 13. Gal. 5. 9. 10. 1 Cor. 5. 6 7. but wicked men are not excluded out of the New Ierusalem in heaven for fear they should infect and defile any person in heaven 2. Separation from the Church is medicinall Num. 12. 14. that the party may be humbled and pardoned 2 Cor. 5 6 7. that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. and the man shamed for his further good 2 Thes 3. 14. But exclusion of men out of the New Jerusalem for their uncleannes Rev. 21. is not medicinall that they may be humbled but for their everlasting shame and destruction and therfore a separation from the Church by way of discipline is here intended not any exclusion out of heaven Erastus All Legall uncleannes is punished with exclusion but no man for corruption of nature is excluded out of the Church Ans We grant all and therefore legall uncleannes did hold forth actuall scandalousnesse not naturall corruption Erastus The actions of unclean men were punished by death Ergo Not by exclusion out of the Church Ans The Antecedent is not universally true Capitall faults as I said before were onely thus punished the consequence is null Erastus He that was legally unclean did defile all beside him even vessels places garments but Theeves adulterers doe not defile but these that consent to their wickednes nor did they defile the places The adulterous women brought to the Priest and temple did not defile the Priest or Temple Ioh. 8. Nor did Moses and others abstain from the worship the Manna c. because many wicked men did partake thereof nor were the vessels purified after wicked men touched them therefore it followeth not because God is more offended with the sacrifices of the wicked then of those that are onely legally uncleane that therefore wicked men are no lesse to be debarred from the holy things then those that are legally unclean Ans This is to dispute with God God made a law that he who being legally unclean should touch men or things legally unclean should pollute This Law God freely made as a positive statute who can tye God to make the like Law touching those that are morally uncleane no man now because God made no such Law it leaveth not off to be the sinne of the Priests that they brought the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary as God complaineth Ezek. 44. 8 9. c. 22 26. And that the Church should hinder the wicked to pollute the holy things of God 2. The adulterous woman was brought to the Priest and Temple to be judged God had so commanded and therefore no wonder she polluted neither Priest nor Temple but had shee not polluted the Passeover Morally though I say not Ceremonially if she had eaten without Repentance and offering for her sinne I thinke she would Erastus Though God punish not pollution of holy things by debarring men from them it followeth not that he winketh at them for he punisheth them with death and more grievously Ans But by this that God punisheth the pollution of non-converting Ordinances with death we gather that the Church should also hinder the pollutions of them and punish Swine that trample on Pearles and not prostitute holy things to their lust Beza said those that were unclean had need of Sacrifices Ergo They were guilty of sinne Erastus saith that externall uncleannes was not sinne but because it put us in mind of our naturall corruption that had need to be purged in Christs blood Ans The breach of a Law is sin a Ceremoniall Law is a Law 2. It was punished often with cutting off from the Congregation but God did not cut off men from the Congregation for naturall corruption as Erastus granteth Erastus If legall uncleannes were sinne God would not have commanded it But God commanded or at least permitted the Priests and others to pollute themselves with the dead Levit. 21. Ezek. 44. Ans It is weakly argued for the father to kill the sonne then should be no sinne God commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac it is not properly a defiling nor a sinne when God Levit. 21. willeth the Priest to be neer those of his kin when they die it is Gods owne exception from the Law though to come neere to others when they are dead be sin Gods commanding and forbidding will is the formall cause and rule of obedience and sinne Erastus Where finde you that the Priests were to judge whether any had repented that so he might be admitted to the Temple Ans It is written Ezek. 44. 99. c. 22. 26. the Priests should not have admitted the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary Ergo they should have tryed if they were such ere they admitted them Yea if in the very day of his oblation ere he offer the sinner must first restore what he hath unjustly taken away Lev. 6. 4 5 6. Ergo The Priest except he rule unjustly should judge whether he have first restored it in the principall and added the fift part more into it Levit 6. 5. As Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them yee have transgressed and have taken strange wives now therefore make confession and separate your selfe from the people of the Land and from the strange wives Ezra c. 10. v. 11 12. And this they did ere they sacrificed Ergo the Priests judged of their repentance before they were admitted to Sacrifice and the washing of the hands in Innocency before the person compassed the Altar Psal 26. 6. must be tryed by the Priest if not the Priest offered to God the Sacrifice of fooles and did eate the sinnes of the people in offering for contumacious impenitents Erastus saith the putting away of their wives was a civill busines and belonged to the Magistrate Ans Ezra was a Priest and Shechaniah saith ver 5. Arise this matter belongs to thee and he is ordinarily called Ezra the Priest CHAP. 8. Quest 4. How Erastus acquitteth himselfe in proving that the place Mat. 18. maketh nothing for Excommunication ERastus The scope of the Lord is to teach how great an evill scandall is and how without offence scandals of vveake may be removed because vvhen vve referre an injury to the judge the vveak may be scandalized he speaketh not here of great injuries to be removed by Excommunication but of lesser and private ones betvveen brother and brother before we bring them before heathen judicatures proper to Heathens and Publicans Ans There is no scope of our Saviour to prevent heathen judicatures dreamed of in the Text nor a shadow thereof Vel per decimam tertiam consequentiam 2. He speakes not of small injuries onely 1. Christ must not be straitned in his words he speaks of scandals in generall ver 7. Woe to the vvorld because of offences they be not light that bringeth a woe upon the world
Apostate wretched leud Iew. Erastus But I have demonstrated that no man was debarred from holy things for Morall uncleannesse then neither should a Publican be counted a separated man will Christ command him to be cast out whom the Iewes could by no Law cast out Ans If we give the matter to Erastus his word all he sayes are demonstrations Let the reader read and judge 2. All his argument here proceedeth on a false ground while he contendeth so much to justifie Publicans he presumeth to be as a Publican to â—e in our sense all one with this to be excommunicated But 1. we lay the least weight on the word Publican and more on this to be as an heathen 2. We take them not divisively but as Christ speaketh them copulatively We say not to be excommunicated is all one as let him be as a Publican but that to be excommunicated is to be as an Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as a Publican Erastus The article â— is set before both the word Heathen and the word Publican by the holy Spirit which signifies either the very nature of the predicate heathen and Publican or must put a great Emphasis and a great edge of difference between the Heathen and Publican here and in other places as these be not one Petrus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et Petrus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter is a man and Peter is the man or that man So when we say pleasure is that good thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that chiefe happinesse We say more then when we say pleasure is good so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Publican must signifie a Publican as a Publican if there be an Emphasis here common to both the heathen and the Publican now there can be no other thing in the matter of eschewing Scandals common to both but that both acknowledged no other but the Roman Magistrate and therefore except you make to be a Publican to be debarred from the Sacraments all one you have not another place in all the New Testament for your Excommunication for no Publican because a Publican was debarred by Gods Law Jure divino from the Sacraments Ans 2. All the wits on earth cannot make us see another place for Erastus his explication of this place Matth. 18. and of 1 Cor. 5. But we hope it shall appeare we have more from Scripture to say for Excommunication then this one place or then Erastus and all his party can say against it here is all that Erastus can say against this strong place builded upon one Article â— a poore and ignorant Grammattication 1. He culleth out the word Publican of lesse weight with us from the word Heathen and would prove that no Publican because a Publican and for the office was debarred from the Iewish Sacraments which we grant for no office or place lawfull in it selfe debarred any from Christ Centurions were hatefull to the Iewes and put over them by the Romans yet I should conceive the Centurion whose servant Christ cured Luke 7. was a Proselite and a member of the Iewish Church a lover of the Nation else I see not how the Iewes would have accepted that he should build them a Synagogue as he did v 5. and Publicans might have bin Proseliâ—es also but that which was signified by a Publican to the Iews was no lesse odious then the name of a hangman or a most wicked and flagitioâ—s man as Matth. 5. 45 46 47. and by Christ decourted from the number of the children of our heavenly Father Amongst the Iews it was counted abomination to eat with Publicans Matth. 9. 11. Matth. 11. 19. Luk. 7. 34. And when Christ saith Matth. 21. 31. of the Rebellious Iews Verely I say unto you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publicans and harlots shall enter into the Kingdom of God before you He clearly maketh Publicans the wickedst of men shall these two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make us think Erastus were not dreaming if he should from these words gather that Christ meaneth only of such Publicans and Harlots as acknowledged no other Magistrate but the Roman Magistrate And the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is doubled in the following verse also 2. Let us retort this Argument he that heareth not the admonitions of brethren in secret and of the Church in publick is to be reputed not as a Iew or a brother and member of the Church having right to the holy things of God but as a Heathen Now a Heathen to the Iews was no brother and had no right to the Sacraments either of the Iewish or Christian Church as is clear by the word of God therfore he that heareth not a brother in secret or the Church in publick is to be reputed as no brother I mean in that publick visible way he once was but as a Heathen who hath no right Iure divino by Gods Law to the Sacraments 3. What means all this trifling about the Article Say that the Article should restrict Heathens and Publicans to such and such Heathens and Publicans I shall deny In eternum this consequence Ergo He means no other but only such Heathens and Publicans as did acknowledge no other Magistrate but a Roman Magistrate There is no shadow in the Scripture or any Greek author for the Word but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the qualitie and spirituall condition of any especially when Christ speaketh of gaining of souls as here Mat. 18. 15. so I am sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Ioh. 1. 14. Maâ— 6 â—0 1 Pet. 1. 19. so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie Mat. 6. 5. and elsewhere enough I deny not but it may signifie a civill or naturall siâ—â—â—â—tude but Christ doth here speake of neither as is cleare 4. If here a Publican as a Publican be meant as Erastus saith Ergo All Heathens and all Publicans are here to be understood Ergo Not these only that had this common to them both to wit that they both acknowledged no civill Magistrate but the Romans the contrary of which Erastus asserteth 5. Yea this is not emphatick and discretive of Heathen and Publican Christ acknowledged no civill Iudge as King over the Iewes at this time but onely Cesar when he said Mat. 22. Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and to God the things that are Gods And the Iewes themselves did so when they said We have no King but Cesar If then to be as an Heathen and a Publican bee all one as to acknowledge no King nor judge but Cesar then to be as a Heathen and Publican must be all one with this to be as Christ and the Iewes for this was common to Heathens Publicans Iewes and Christ to acknowledge Cesar was their onely King and civill Judge 6. They were the worst of the Heathens and Publicans who in a peculiar manner acknowledged no lawfull Iudge but Cesar and hated the Iewes the onely Church of God
a word of God for their warrant commanding them to pray O Lord give power to Paul to kill such an incestuous man miraculously For such Faith of miracles had Christ and all the Prophets and Apostles Joh. 11. 41. So did Sampson pray in faith Judg. 16. 28. and Elias 1 Kings 18. 36 37 38. and so did the Apostles pray Act. 4. 24 29 30. and with them the Church of believers for working of miracles in generall for the Apostles had a word of promise in the generall for working of miracles Mar. 16. 17 18. But that the Apostles had before hand revealed to them all the miracles they were to work I cannot believe by any Scripture But that it was revealed to them upon occasion only by an occasionall immediate Revelation Do this particular miracle Hic nunc And this I am confirmed to believe Because Elisha 2 Kin. 4. was mistaken in sending his servant with his staffe to raise the dead son of the Shunamite a Pastor with nothing but a club and naked words cannot give life to the dead ver 31. and therefore the working of a miracle in particular Hic nunc was not alwayes revealed to the most eminent Prophets such as Elisha was and so I beleeve as working of miracles on this and this man came not from an habit in the Prophets and Apostles far lesse from a habit subject to their free will but God reserved that liberty to himself to act his servants immediatly both to pray by the faith of this miracle Hic nunc and to work this miracle Hic nunc Now to the Assumption How can Erastus or any of his followers assure our conscience that God had given the Faith of miracles to all the sanctified in Christ Jesus at Corinth whom Paul so sharply rebuketh 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. That this being revealed to them by God and they having the faith that it was the will of Iesus Christ that Paul should kill or as some say deliver to Satan this incestuous man to be miracuously tormented in the body or flesh as Iob was that he might repent is it like Christ would reveal more of his will touching every particular miracle to be done by Paul to all and every secure one in the Church of Corinth that were puffed up and mourned not for this mans fall then he revealed to the Apostles themselves But I have proved that the Apostles and Prophets knew not nor had they the particular Faith of this and this miracle how then had all and every one of the Church of Corinth this Faith Now they behoved to have this light of Faith of this miracle revealed to them that this was Christs will that Paul should work a miracle for the destruction of the man else the Corinthians could no more be justly rebuked because they prayed not to God that Paul might work this miraculous destruction of the man which yet he never wrought as its clear 2. Cor. 2. he was not killed but repented and was pardoned then because they prayed not that he miraculously might cure the criple man at Lystra Act. 14. or that he might work any other miracle Now how was this revealed to all of the Church of Corinth that this was Christs will If it be said they were to pray conditionally that God would either by a miracle take him away or then in mercy give him repentance to prevent destruction 1. We have no surer ground for a conditionall and dis-junctive Faith of miracles in the Corinthians then for an absolute Faith 2. If it was the will of Christ that the man should by himself be miraculously killed why did not the Apostle immediatly by himself kill him Why It was the Apostles fault as well as the sin of the Corinthians that the man remained as a leaven to sowre and infect the Church yea it was more the Apostles fault then theirs for he had only the immediate power miraculously to purge the Church some may say as the Lord Iesus was hindred some time to work miracles because of the peoples unbelief Matth. 13. 58. So here Paul was hindred to work this miracle on the scandalous man because of their unbeliefe Ans Paul could not professe this for he had not assayed to work any miracle of this kinde as Christ had done Matth. 13. But only sheweth them of a report came to him of the fact and of their security and not mourning 2. Paul should then rather have rebuked their unbelief and not praying that God would miraculously destroy the man but this Paul doth not 3. Paul rebuketh them for not judging him not putting him out of the midst of them Must that be Pauls meaning pray to God that I may have grace and strength immediatly from God to kill him miraculously and to judge him Now they knew the Apostle miraculously thus judged those that are without as he stroke with blindnesse Elymas who was without the visible Church I conceive the whole Churches were to pray as the Apostles do with the Saints Act. 4. 29. 30. That miracles may be wrought both on those that are without and within But of this judging he saith ver 12. What have I to do to judge them also that are without Do not ye judge them that are within 4. It is directly contrary to Christs direction Matth. 18. Which is that by rebukes we gaine the offending brothers soul Now Erastus will have him gained to Christ by removing his soule from his body and by killing him Yea the Apostle writing of the censuring of those in Thessalonica who walked unorderly and obeyed not the Apostles Word which doth include such as breake out in Incest Adulteries Murthers is so farre from giving direction to kill them miraculously that he biddeth onely keep no Church company nor Christian fellowship with them but yet they are to be admonished as brethren Ergo they were not to be miraculously killed for then they should be capable of no admonition at all being killed And could there be worse men then was amongst the Phillipians Enemies of the crosse of Christ whose end is destruction whose God was their belly Yet there was no blood in the Apostles pen he chides not the Phillipians nor the Galathians who had amongst them men of the same mettall Gal. 5. 7 8 9 10. Ver. 19. 20 21. Nor the Timothies who would have to doe with farre worse men 2 Tim 3. 1 2 3 4 5. Nor Titus who had to doe with wicked Cretians Tit. 1. because they cryed not to God for Pauls bloodie sword of vengeance that these wicked men might be cut off by Satan nor doth the Apostle to the Hebrewes draw this Sword against those who sinned against the Holy Ghost c. 10. c. 6. Nor Iames against bloody warriours Murtherers Adulterers Oppressors c. 4. c. 5. Nor doth Peter and Iude use this sword or command the Churches to use such carnall weapons against the wickedest of men but recommended long-suffering
retorted 2. They were not to bee sorry at the mans repentance but to rejoyce yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christs body as a father may be glad at the life and health of his childe and and yet be sorry that by no other mean his health can be procured but by cutting off a finger or a hand of his childe 3. They knew that miraculous killing as Erastus dreameth was also a saving ordinance the remaining in the Church or not remaining is all one because Paul chideth them as he dreameth that the man might be miraculously killed Erastus What need was there that the Corinthians with such diligence should intercede for the man if they knew when he repented he was to be received againe into the Church Now that they interceded for him is clear for Paul saith 2 Cor. 2. 10. To whom yee forgive any thing I forgive also Ans Because there is a great hazard in Excommunication of an higher degree of obduration and condemnation if the party be not gained 2. I see no ground for this conjecture that the Corinthians interceded for him at Pauls hand for if he ought to have been miraculously killed then whether he repented or repented not both Paul and the interceders sinned Paul in being broken they in requesting for a dispensation of a Law in which God would not dispense as he that would request to spare the life of a repenting Murtherer against Gods expresse Law should sinne and Paul should sinne in pardoning upon request where God would not pardon Erastus How excuseth Paul himselfe that he would try their obedience that c. 7. he would have their care for him made manifest if he had not commanded a greater thing then to debarre a wicked man from the Sacraments Ans This is but a shadow of a reason against the Word of God for to be cast out of Christs body and not acknowledged for an Israelite of God and that in heaven and earth and so to be debarred from the Seals is a higher thing then bodily killing as to be received as a Member againe and to be written amongst the living in Ierusalem is like the rising from the dead as may be gathered from Rom. 11. 15. and is farre more then deliverance from miraculous killing Erastus These words ye was made sorry according to God that ye might receive dammage of us in nothing cannot agree with the purpose they should have suffered no losse by obtaining pardon to a miserable man excluded from the Sacraments while he should repent but if he was to be killed they should have lost a brother and so suffered dammage Ans The hazard of losing his soule repentance not being so easie as Erastus imagineth had been a greater losse then the losse of a temporall life the soule being to be saved in the day of the Lord. Erastus Paul requireth his Spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus to this worke Ergo It was more then to debarre from the Sacraments Ans Erastus should prove Ergo It was more then to Excommunicate 2. Ergo It was rather more then bodily death His seventh reason I hope after to examine Erastus Paul saith he decreed to doe this and does not command the Church to doe it or that the Church alone should doe it We never read that Paul whether alive or dead did write to one or many to deliver any to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that was proper to the Apostles onely as the gift of healing was Act. 5. and c. 13. and he writeth he will come himselfe with the rod and he himself 1 Tim. 1. delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan Ans This is much for us you never read that Paul did write to one or many and did chide them because they prayed not that he might worke this and this particular miracle or that without error he might write this or that Canonick Scripture and therefore because this delivering to Satan was commanded to the conveened together Church with his Apostolique spirit and warrant to deliver such a one to Satan and to judge him v. 12. And to purge him out and cast him out therefore am I perswaded it was no miracle proper to Paul onely 2. How prove you that Paul his alone without the Church Excommunicated Hymeneus Paul saith that Timothy received the gift of God by his laying on him hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. Ergo By the laying on of his hands onely and not of the whole Presbytery It followeth not the contrary is 1 Tim. 4. 14. 3. Delivering to Satan v. 5. is all one with purging out v. 7. as is cleare by the Illation I have decreed though absent to deliver such a one to Satan Hence his consequence v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purge out therefore 2. To deliver to Satan is either all one with judgeing those that are within v. 12. And so with judging this man and with putting of him out v. 13. or it is not all one if these be all one then hath the Church a hand in this delivering to Satan and so it is not a miraculous killing Erastus granteth the consequence if these be not all one this is two judgings of the man one of Pauls v. 5. by miraculous killing and another of Pauls and the Church v. 12. This latter must be some Church judgeing of those that are within the Church common to Paul and the Corinthians as the words cleare and which is opposed to Gods judging of those that are without and this is so like Excommunication that Erastus must make some other thing of it Now we cannot say that there was any miraculous judging of this man common to Paul as an Apostle and to the Corinthians the ordinary beleevers and Saints as Erastus yeeldeth 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away the man which is expresly commanded to the Church of Corinth v. 13. must be the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and putting away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is v. 2. But that taking out of the midst of them is a miraculous killing of the man as Erastus saith now this cannot be for then the people must be joyned in the same work of miraculous killing with the Apostle Paul now both we and Erastus must disclaim this Ergo there must be some common Church casting out common to both Erastus To put away out of the midst of them is not to debar from the Sacraments but to kill if it were but to extrude the man out of the society of the faithfull what need was there of publick mourning and if he had been to be cast out amongst the heathen how could the spirit be saved as is said for without the Church there is no salvation Ans To put away out of the midst of them is to put the man out of the Congregation as the word Careh is expounded before and
ground of other Scriptures is a thing I can hardly beleeve But since Excommunication is an ordinary censure the Church might well as they see the man penitent or contumacious cast him out or not pardon or not pardon Erastus Paul delivered to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander that they might learne not to blaspheme not that the dead are capable to learne or to be blasphemed but this be saith as a Magistrate when he saith he will give an ill doer to the hangman that he may learn to steale no more and to rob no more Ans 1 Tim. 1. 20. I delivered them to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is like to edifying discipline and agreeable to Pauls use of the rod of discipline 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our authoritie which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction Now it were safer to give a sense congruous to the intrinsecall end of discipline which was not for destruction of the body but for the edifying of souls 2. Yea so Paul had no lesse the Sword then the rod of the Word Nero had not so heavy a sword as miraculous killing Should not Paul speake rather as a Pastor of Christ then as a bloody Magistrate Erastus If to deliver to Satan be all one with debarring from the Supper onely yet it is not all one with being cast out of the Church without which there is no salvation but the Supper is not absolutely necessary to Salvation Ans Nor doe we put that necessity on the Sacraments but where the man is excluded from the Sacraments for such a sinne as if he repent not he is excluded from Salvation it concerneth him much to thinke it a weighty judgement to be excluded from the Seales Erastus These two are inconsistent which you teach to wit that he is not debarred from the Sacraments who desireth them and that his desire whether it be a right or a wrong and unlawfull desire shall depend on the judgement of others to wit the Presbytery Ans Erastus should have made others see how these two fights together I see no inconsistencie no more then to say a childe that desireth food is not debarred from food and yet his desire of food may be subject to wise Stewards whether every desire of food be right or no as whether he should be answered by the Stewards when he desireth poyson or bread not to eaâ—e but to cast to dogs and this will fight against preaching of the Word the Professor that longeth for the comforts of the promises of the Gospel is not debarred from them yet are preachers to try whether threatnings be not fitter for him in his security then the comforts of the promises Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 12. and 13. threatneth not exclusion from the Lords Supper to those who had not repented of their schisme drunkennesse denying of the resurrection but he saith he would severely punish them according to the authority and power given him of God and he did this frequently but we read not exclusion from the sacraments Answ 1. It is true he threatneth those who had not repented of their uncleannesse and fornication and lascivionsnesse 2. Cor. 12. 20 21. and c. 13. v. 2. threatneth that he will not spare but use his authority but doth Erastus read that he either threatneth or doth actually miraculously kill any of the beleevers at Corinth and let him answer why the Apostle did not write to the Church that they would conveene and take course with them as he did with the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. 2. when he saith He will not spare when he comes he must be expounded according to Erastus to come as a miraculous Magistrate to kill them 3. He saith not they were impenitent but he feareth it should be so 4. We hold if any should be contumacious he would not onely deny pearls to such Swine as his Master commanded Mat. 7. But also follow that rule Mat. 18. 4. Erastus himselfe granteth if there shall be found a man that tramples upon the Pearles and holy things of God as there must be some one or other which is such as deserveth to be miraculously killed By this Argument he granteth I say that such a one should not be admitted Hunc ego minimè admittendum censeo but how shall he be not admitted by this Argument Erastus There were many amongst the Ancients who deferred their Baptisme to the end of their life when therefore it is not written that these are damned who are excluded from the Supper against their will and not those who willingly exclude themselves from Baptisme why should the one more then the other be delivered to Satan for he is in a better condition who is excluded by the Presbyters against his will from the Supper then he who doth of his owne free will exclude him selfe from Baptisme Ans That the Ancients in the Apostolique Church which is our rule did deferre baptisme till they died Erastus cannot prove the Ancients after them is not our rule 2. That these were admitted to the Supper a Sacrament of the nourishment of these in whom Christ liveth before they were baptized which is the Sacrament of Regeneration and our first birth cannot be defended by Erastus and so he argues from an unlawfull practise 3. We reach not that any is damned because he is excluded from the Supper that Exclusion is a punishment men are damned for sins not for meer punishments but his sin is bound in heaven because of a great scandall such as incest and that if he repent not is the cause of damnation and therefore Erastus should have compared sinne with sinne the scandall with sinfull refusing of Baptisme and not have made a halting and lame comparilon an argument that concludeth nothing 4. Though those who deferred baptisme till death should not have been delivered to Satan yet will Erastus say they should not have been otherwise censured for these behooved with Socinians to hold Baptisme but an indifferent rite and by this many lived in the contempt of a necessary ordinance though not simply necessary and so died with the sinfull want of Baptisme many times Erastus The exclusion of men from the Sacraments did creep into the Church when men did ascribe salvation to the Sacraments therefore the Supper was given to dying men though excommunicate as the deniall of the Supper damneth Ergo the receiving of it saveth And so of Baptisme they reasoned Answ Erastus nameth this his own probable conjecture But it is to beg the question he may know how singular Augustine was for the necessity of Baptisme and how many of the Ancients were against him in it 2. He may know this consequence to be a conjecture and that it is not stronger because it is his owne 3. He granteth that exclusion of the unworthy from the Sacraments is ancient so much gain we by his conjectures Erastus When the Church wanted a Magistrate
the Church though amongst the Turkes is in the world but not of the world If he keep the faith and if he do so he shall repent and come home to Christs visible Kingdom but because he keepeth the faith yet he is not a member of a visible Church except he professe it and repent for even the sound in faith if obstinate in Scandals may deserve Excommunication 6. There is nothing said against Excommunication in the two last Reasons but what striketh against Timothy his publike rebuking and threatning wrath against those that sin openly for they may through their owne corruption so farre abuse publike threatnings as they may be led on despaire and hypocrisie Now Erastus as we shall hear granteth those are to be rebuked openly who sin openly 7. We say not to deliver to Satan any man is to deliver him to the World but to cast him out of the Church that consequenter he may be left to the World but that he should sinne and be led away with the World is neither the intrinsecall end of Excommunication or of the Church but an event or end by accident the intrinsecall end is the Salvation of the man Beza saith that Paul speaketh of a spirituall punishment and not of a corporall Erastus saith When Peter killed Ananias corporally was not this corporall punishment When Paul gave some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and God punisheth our sinnes with temporall death how shall you prove that God and the Apostles punisheth not sinnes with corporall or politicke punishment Ans The instance of Peters killing Ananias is in vain brought in It s but a begging os the question for it is not said Peter delivered Ananias to Satan that his Spirit might be saved Who revealed this secret to Erastus that Peter used the Ministery of Satan in killing Ananias We have as good reason to say Peter delivered Ananias to a good Angell to be killed as Erastus hath for his dreame 2. We deny not but God and the Apostles did punish sinne with corporall punishment but let him show without the bounds of the place in controversie for we must expound Scripture by Scripture where ever the Church conveened together in the Name of the Lord Jesus did judge and miraculously kill any member of the Church that the Spirit may be saved in the day of God Beza said This killing by the people would be ground of a great Calumnie to make many say Christians did usurpe the Sword of the Magistrate and that they were not subject to the Magistrate Erastus We give this power of miraculous killing onely to the Apostles Ans Yea But the calumny standeth so long as Erastus giveth to all the people the faith of Miracles to conveene and pray that Paul might miraculously kill those that offended the Church and its probable when the enemies objected to Christians all they could falsely they would not have omitted this that the very people by their prayers meet in one Church-jury to kill Cesars Subjects Beza said The Christian Magistrate should by this kill all the drunkards fornicators and the like with the Sword Erastus answereth 1. All faults deserve not killing but some other punishment of a lower degree 2. The Lord himselfe appointed that the Magistrate should compell men to doe their duty why then should Beza speake against God and call this a compelling of men to be Hipocrites Ans If other sins as drunkennesse fornication extortion doe infect the Church and be scandalous to the very Gentiles as the Apostle saith of incest 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6 7. Upon the same reason Paul should have rebuked them because they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict some miraculous judgement by the Ministery of Satan though lesse then death for other sinnes But I pray you Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man or he had none at all If he had a warrant why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magistrate without the prayers of the Corinthians Did Paul chide them because they prayed not to God that he might doe his duty if he had no warrant at all Why should he chide the Corinthians for that they prayed not that he might doe a duty which was not his duty For that is not Pauls duty for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God if it was his duty onely conditionally 1. What warrant is there in Scripture to say Paul should have miraculously killed the incestuous person upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles prayed that he might worke that miraculous slaughter which because they did not Paul was either exonered of that as no duty or then Paul chided them because they prayed not to prevene Pauls sinfull neglect 2. How was this revealed to the Corinthians that they should pray that God by Paul as by his Magistrate might revenge this incest and not revenge their fronication coveteousnes extortion Idolatry especially seeing he saith that v. 9. He had written to them in another Epistle not to keâ—p company with such Whence I thinke it evident that Paul in another Epistle had ordained separation of Fornicators Coveteous persons and the like from amongst them and so censures for all scandalous persons And how shal we believe he would not teach them to cast out incestuous persons that are far more scandalous And if so he must have written in another Epistle of this miracle that they were to pray he might work Is it not evident by this that Erastus his way is full of Conjectures and groundlesse uncertainties 2. We deny not that the Magistrate may compell men to do their duty nor doth Beza deny that But that the Church hath or had any influence in the blood of an incestuous person and in working of miracles for the bodily destruction of any is most false and cannot be proved by this Text Nor do we think that the Church the weapons of whose warfare are carnall can compell any man by corporall punishment to duties by the Sword for so their Spirituall way which is terminated on the Conscience should lead men to Hypocrisie in profession of the truth for so reasoneth Erastus the Magistrate with the Sword rather punisheth sins committed in Gods Service then forceth to duties The fifth Argument of Beza is vindicated already Erastus We say not that Paul was to deliver the man to Satan that he may be saved but that Paul was to punish this high transgression with the Sword to the terror of others but only he set bounds to Satan that he should only kill his body but not meddle with his soul but because the man repented Paul hoped well of his soul that his soul should be saved in the day of Christ Ans 1. Here Erastus doth more fully reveal the vilenesse of his opinion for he granteth the intrinsecall end of this miraculous killing is not the Salvation of the mans
soul but the revenging of the wickednesse of the sin for the terror of others Which is 1. Contrary to the Text which saith He was to be delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the spirit may be saved This noteth that the intrinsecall end of this delivering to Satan was the Salvation of the mans soul But the Text saith nothing of Erastus his end that others may be terrified though that may be an end It is a wonder to me that since Erastus granteth the man repented even when Paul did in this Chapter chide with the Corinthians that they delivered him not to Satan For Erastus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done this deed not he that continueth pertinaciously in it saith he hence it is clear that he repented at this time How doth Paul chide them for not delivering a repenting man to the Devil that his Spirit may be saved if he repented his spirit was saved Ergo Paul was in the fault and chid them without reason if they say though he did repent yet for example to terrifie others he should have been killed 2 Cor. 2. saith He was not killed and Erastus saith it Ergo yet Paul failed and they also 3. It is against the intrinsecall end of that power which Erastus saith is miraculous For Paul saith the end of that power is for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now the intrinsecall end of bodily killing is peace and terror to others that they may be afraid to do so any more But the intrinsecall end and finis operis is not Edification but finis operantis onely for acts of Magistrates are not acts of the first Table which kindly and per se regardeth edification but acts of the second Table if their soules be saved who die for their enormous crimes by the hand of the Magistrate It is not from the violent death as if it were an intrinsecall mean and ordinance appointed of God for conversion But because God giveth to those who die that way repentance Yea it is no more a mean of saving of the soule then if they should die in their beds by some disease To the examples of Hymeneus and Alexander that they were not killed miraculously I answered before Erastus addeth no new reply to Beza CHAP. XI Quest 7. Of the leaven 1 Cor. 5. Erastus his sentence in his l. 3. c. 6. and â— c. 7. Examined Erastus I shall grant since Beza will have it so that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven in the celebration of the passeover and that he doth not only allude to it Paul compareth the feast of unleavened bread to the pilgrimage of our life in this world and leaven signifieth wickednesse Hence as the Iews all the time of the feast might eat no leavened bread so all our life are vve to leave and forsake the vvorld and journey toward our promised Canaan we are never to live wickedly What can hence be collected but as he that eat unleavened bread was to be killed so should every wicked man be killed He that eat leavened bread in these seven dayes was not commanded to be debarred from the Passeover And the Passeover was the beginning of this feast as faith in Christ was the beginning of our spirituall eating of Christ crucified for us and of our new Christian life Ans I hold that learned Beza hath well expounded the leaven here he compareth the scandals of wicked men to leaven the holinesse of the Saints to unleavened bread and the publick Congregation to the feast of the Passeover and Excommunication or putting away to the removing of the leaven for a scandalous man corrupteth the whole Church so the Jewes and Rabbines as Buxtorfius saith that the Rabbins call naturall concupiscence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Alexander said after his Prayer Lord It is known to thee that it is my will to do thy will But what retardeth me the leaven in the masse or lump and Buxtorfius citeth the same place 1 Cor. 5. 6. and Gal. 5. 9. And least we should think that he meant nothing but naturall concupiscense he saith in the Targum They take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wickednesse and folly he citeth Medraseh Koheleth cap. 7. ver 8. except R. Samuel had been long suffering The Persian that he taught had returned to folly or his old wickednesse Paul saith the same Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump He speaketh to the Church conveened 2. The comparison runneth so that the Corinthians were to purge out the old leaven of wickednesse and cast out the incestuous man that they might be a new lump and this if it must alwayes be done far more when they are to celebrate that feast that came in place of the passeover Nor is the Apostle only Teaching what they could not lawfully do all their life as they were single Christians but what was their duty as Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveened together in a Church way for Paul doth not command one single Christian to cast him out but he commandeth the Church gathered together in the name of the Lord Iesus with Pauls spirit and the power of our Lord Iesus Christ ver 4. 5. To purge out not the leaven of sin in themselves but the man ver 2. That he that hath done this deed may be put out and ver 7. Purge out the old leaven and that the Apostles precept is to cast out the man he saith it in expresse termes ver 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cast out that wicked man from amongst you and ver 12. They were to judge him as one that is within 2. Because without conveening together in their daily conversation they were to purge the leaven of mâ—lice out of their heart it were a ridiculous thing for Paul to command them to convene altogether to lead a godly life 3. There was no need that they should convene with Pauls spirit and in the name and power of our Lord Iesus Christ to lead a godly life and for a personall purging of every man his own soul from this leaven 4. They were to judge this man ver 12. Therefore this cannot be meant of a personall judging every one of themselves but of a Church-judging of an offender 5. If Erastus grant that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven and putting away leaven in the Passeover Let him see how he can apply this to killing of every single man that liveth wickedly We apply it to the casting out of the scandalous out of the Church as leaven was to be put out of the houses of all who were to eat the passeover Erastus I care not much whither the Lord himself immediatly or the Magistrate was to kill him who eat leavened bread at that time But I rather think that God killed him for we finde none killed for this cause 2. Because Paul writ of those who
did unworthily eat 1 Cor. 11. Ans There is no ground that God any way would have them to be killed that did eat unleavened bread and that we finde none for that cause ever killed is much for us for then God did not execute any such Law which as Erastus saith was broken by many It is like God never made any such Law 2. Because it is said he shall be cut off who eateth leavened bread it followeth not that therefore this was done immediately by God for it is said Lev. 18. 29. Whosoever doth any of these abominations even the soul that committeth them shall be cut off from amongst the people if that be killing it is known the Magistrate was to kill such as committed incest did lie with beasts But Vatablus expoundeth it of Excommunication thus Id est Deus non agnoscet illum tanquam Israelitam circumcisum and Vatablus understood the Hebrew Tongue better then Erastus who professeth he understandeth nothing of it 3. That which Erastus saith of Paul That God himself killed these at Corinth who did eat and drink unvvorthily may as well insinuate the Magistrate should kill with the sword all that communicateth unworthily which is absurd as it can prove that those that eat leavened bread were immediatly killed of God Erastus Those that eat leavened bread vvere debarred from the passeover But leavened bread signified scelera vvickednesse Ergo vvicked men should by us be debarred from the Sacraments 1. It is false that those that eat leavened bread vvere debarred from the passeover by Gods command These tvvo differ much he that eateth leavened bread shall be cut off and he that eateth leaven shall be debarred from the feast of the passeover even as these two the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon shall be whipt with rods and the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon shall be excluded from hearing Sermon when the Master forbiddeth to clatter in time of Sermon under a punishment he biddeth them not be absent from the Sermon so when God forbiddeth to eat leaven under a punishment be forbiddeth not to exclude the man from the passeover the Lord commandeth both to be done Ans 1. This is Erastus his Argument not the Argument of Beza for eating of leaven signifieth a scandalous and openly wicked man and if this be the Assumption it is true but the Syllogisme so formed shall conclude against Erastus 2. It is certain that God commandeth the Priests not to violate his holy things Ezech. 22. 26 Hag. 2. 11. 12. Ezech. 44. 8 9 10 11. Else how failed they in keeping the charge of the Lord in not differencing between the clean and the vnclean Now to eat the passeover with leavened bread is an expresse violation of the holy things of God Exod. 12. ver 8. You shall eat the flesh in that night rost with fire and vnleavened bread ver 11. And thus shall ye eat it ver 15. Seven dayes shall ye eat unleavened bread even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses 2. He that is unclean is forbidden to eat the passeover Lev. 9. 13. The clean only is to keep it And he that is clean and not on a journey and keepeth it not that man shall bear his sin Ergo the unclean are excepted and he who is sanctified according to the purification of the sanctuary only by the Law is to eat 2 Chro. 3â— 9. Therefore Hezechiah prayed that God would pardon them that were not so cleansed ver 18. To crave pardon presupposeth a sinne Num. 9. 3 4 5 6. But so it is That he that eateth unleavened bread in any of these seven dayes was unclean and to be cut off for his uncleannesse and transgressed this Ceremoniall Law Exod. 12. 8. 15. Levit. 9 13. Ergo he was not to be admitted to the holy things of God except the Priests and those who had the charge of the Passeover should know him to be purified Ezech. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12. And we know it was the Priests part to pronounce any clean or unclean that the passeover was one of the chief of the holy things of God 3. Erastus his conjecture That he that did eat leavened bread was not to absent himself from the Passeover but to come tali modo according to the Law As the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon is not bidden be absent from the Sermon may prove as well that no unclean no heathen or uncircumcised are forbidden to eat the Passeover for no Law of God forbiddeth either to eat the Passeover except this that only the circumcised and the unclean were forbidden when the Lord in his Law putteth an expresse and a differencing or discriminative character on those that eat to wit that they be circumcised and clean who shall eat Ergo God in that putteth an evident inhibition on those that are uncircumcised heathen and unclean that they are not to eat as when God Commandeth every Male to be circumcised we infer then no Female were to be circumcised And by this means the uncircumcised Moabite the Philistine were not by the Priests and Porters debarred out of the Temple or from the Passeover so they would be circumcised and turn Jews Even as the childe is not excluded by a command of the Master from hearing Sermon only he is forbidden to clatter in time of Sermon But a Iew was both forbidden uncleannesse Ceremoniall by an expresse Law and by another Law he was forbidden to come to the Passeover and a heathen as heathen was both forbidden to eat and the Priests forbidden to admit him Erastus Though we should grant That those that eat leaven were debarred from the Passeover yet it shall not follow that those that live wickedly shall be debarred from the Lords Supper for the Feast of unleavened bread typified not the Supper of the Lord but the whole time of our life Otherwise saith he in his Thesis we may live wickedly all our dayes except when we come to the holy Supper as the Jews might eat unleavened bread at any time except on those dayes when the Lord forbade them Ans 1. We contend not that debarring of men from any one Ordinance was signified by putting away of the Leaven But that by putting of leaven from their houses and Table was typified as Paul here expoundeth it the putting of a wicked person out the midst of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 2. compared with ver 5 6 7. 13. If the Feast of unleavened bread typified all our life that we should be holy yet it had a speciall relation to our Purification when we did partake of the most holy Ordinances of God such as was the Passeover then and to us the Lords Supper Else Erastus might say God hath forbidden single Christians to live at all except they lived holily which is a vain conceit It is not lawfull to Erastus to put significations on types it his will and therefore that
that Feast pointed out holinesse all our life is utterly denyed for eating of leavened bread except in these dayes forbidden was not a sin nor any Ceremoniall type at all no more then our common bread and wine are signes of Christs body and blood 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel because it did Ceremonially infect corrupt and leaven them and so was to be purged so did the inâ—â—stuons man leaven the Visible Church of Corinth and was to be purged out Nor do I contend that the Lords Supper here is meant though I know no solemn Spirituall Feast that the visible Church now hath but the Supper of the Lord But rather I understand Church-Communion in the dainâ—ies of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16 17 18 c. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. Cant. 5. 1. Erastus The leaven of the Passeover does not so signifie impurity of life that Excommunication can be hence gathered therefore the Apostle alludeth to that place that or the like way as the Jews did Celebrate their Passeover without leaven so it becometh us to Celebrate our Passeover without the leaven of malice and wickednesse Leaven simply may either signifie good or evil as Matth. 13. and 16. and Potuit it might signifie our naturall corruption For God not only forbiddeth to eat leaven but to have it in the house and leaven signifieth 〈…〉 sse so to be punished as yeâ— say even by death Ans The Leaven of the Passeover signified so impurity as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church out of the Church as they were to put leaven out of the house and not only simply not to eat it so are we not only not to eat and drink with a scandalous man but he is to be reputed no member of the Church but a leavening and contagious man and therefore Paul doth not here as Erastus dreameth show what way every one in his own personall practise and duty as a single Christian is to do that he may save his own soul and therefore every one was to celebrate a Christian Passeover in his own soul laying aside the leaven of malice Though I grant That Paul ver 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personall purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisie out of every mans heart But Paul doth expresly command the Corinthians as a convened Church to put out from amongst them another man for the saving of that other mans soul And what they should do in a Church society toward the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who hath done this to wit down right they should Iudge him Cast him out purge him out as a leavening peece And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words then that as the Iews were to put all leaven from amongst them when they were to celebrate their Passeover So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work upon this incestuous man and to put him out from amongst them as one delivered to Satan as a lump of sowre leaven and we seek no more for Excommunication 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven But here it is corruption of contagious scandall in this incestuous man and such leaven as is to be cast out and purged away Now I hope we must not purge out and cast away the Kingdom of heaven and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadduces that corrupteth the hearts of men is meant and of this leaven we are to beware But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven which Paul would have us to detest I know not a reason but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians lest he should infect the flock and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ that his soul may be saved and this is the very excommunication that we assert 3. This leaven saith he may signifie naturall corruption Now Erastus putteth us to a may be but a may be will not do it For the Text saith not I hope by Erastus his confession that the poor man must be delivered to Satan that is miraculously killed for naturall concupiscence All the world thus are delivered to Satan as being heirs of wrath for sin Originall at least in demerit 2. The man was not judged purged out and cast out as leaven that sowred the Church for naturall corruption 3. Paul offendeth not with them that they were puffed and mourned not for the mans Originall sin but for his actuall wickednesse because he had gone in to his fathers wife an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name Erastus Then the man must be killed as he that eat leavened bread was killed and though the punishments of Moses Law as such must not be brought in the Christian Church yet if God subject men to the Magistrates Sword men cannot free them from it though there may be degrees of punishment Ans We denyed that those that eat leavened bread with the Passeover were killed but onely excommunicated and cut off from the congregation God never subjected any to the sword for that cause 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lords day those that are stubborn to Father or Mother those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament must be stened to death by the Magistrate or miraculously killed by the Apostles it must be by the same consequence that Erastus reasoneth here But did God kill immediatly any offenders at all for originall sin some one more nor other as Erastus dreameth this man was killed 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devill killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament and any of the children of God whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord proferat tabulas Erastus saith it neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it Erastus said an Anagogicall sense is not concludent Ans Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense it is false saith Beza 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament Erastus Where I pray you doth Paul say that the punishment of eating leavened bread did typifie your Excommunication Ans The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word Sacrament Trinity But the thing is not ours but an ordinance of Iesus Christ 2. Paul saith in this very place as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passeover so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out judge and purge
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
I am with you even unto the end of the world Amen Not to say that if it be peculiar to Apostles to preach and baptise neither Pastors farre lesse Magistrates can do it or then Pastors and Magistrates are Apostles sent to preach to all the world and can work miracles which is absurd 4. Christ ascending to heaven left Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints and work of the Ministery not Kings and Magistrates 5. How shall they preach except they be sent Magistrates as Magistrates bear the sword and have carnall weapons and are not sent the weapons of Ministers are not carnall 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. For Erastus his Argument God has not forbidden Magistrates to preach Ergo it is lawfull for them to preach it followeth not for such positive ordinances as preaching Ministers must be appointed by a positive command for where hath God forbidden women to baptise Ergo they may baptise is not the Lords commanding the Apostles to go teach and baptise all Nations and his not giving any such commandement to others as good as a forbidding of them But I hope this is examined already suffiâ—ientlâ— 2. For Samuel his being both Iudge and Prophet I grant it but as an extraordinary dispensation of God which Christ would not take on him to do Luk. 12. nor is it left to us as a rule 3. That Aarons sons had no tribunall of their owne different from the tribunall of Moses is proved to be false from 2 Chr. 19 8. 4. That the Priests were Magistrates having the power of the sword cannot be proved by any word of God the plâ—â—e Ezâ— 44. is every way for us all the power given in that Cha is Ecclesiasticall none Civill as to kâ—ep the charge of the Lords holy things to exclude the uncircumcised in heart and flesh out of the sanctuary to come near to the table of the Lord and Minister v. 16 to enter into the gates of the inner courts clothed in linnen c. and many the like did no more agree to a Magistrate then to burn incense which to do Erastus granteth was unlawfull in King Vzziah yet he would prove that it is lawfull under the New Testament to exercise both so the Magistrate were able to do both because Samuel exercised both But might not King Vzziah exercise both without impeachment of his businesse and where was he forbidden but in this God made choise of the tribe of Levi and of no others which also he has done under the New Testament as is proved Erastus Nor is that true that whose part it is to preach and dispense the Sacraments it is his part to judge of those that prophaneth the word and seals so as he has power to punish any that desires the Sacraments with the want of the Sacraments and though it were true it should prove that Pastors not a Presbytery of Pastors and Ruling Elders have any power to debarre from the seals Ans 1. Well then Erastus granteth that the Ministers are to preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments But not to judge of those that prophane the holy things of God nor to debarre from the Sacraments any who desire them if Erastus did mean a bodily debarring by the power of the sword if any openly prophane shall violently intrude himself we should yeeld that to the Magistrate as the keeper of both Tables But Erastus is of that minde that as the Magistrate may preach and dispense the Sacraments he may by that power also Ecclesiastically cognosce and judge of the scandals for which the openly prophane are to be debarred and accordingly debarre Now Erastus saith he may preach as a Christian because that all Christians now under the New Testament may preach and prophecy all are Priests and Prophets so saith he page 175. So the Magistrate by this as a Christian and so all Christians women and children may try and examine all that are openly prophane and unworthy of the Seals this can be nothing but popular Anarchy yet that the Magistrate as a Magistrate and not as a Christian is to examine and try who are unworthy communicants I conceive is the minde of Erastus as I have proved before Which though it be a plaine contradiction yet it is the pillar of all the Erastian doctrine that the Magistrate as the Magistrate hath the supream power of all Church governement Therefore saith he page 171. they doe wickedly who take from the Magistrate that part of the visible jurisdiction in governement of the Church which God hath given to him and subject the Magistrate to some other jurisdiction Magistrates are Gods Ans If to preach dispense the Sacraments and to judge who are unworthy of the Seals and debarre them be taken from the Magistrate as he is a Christian this power of visible jurisdiction over the Church is no more taken by us from the Magistrate then it is taken from all Christians as Christians and in regard of any such power Magistrates are no more Gods and Nursefathers in the Church then all Christians are Gods and Nursefathers of the Church for by the reason of Erastus p. 175. that all Christians now are Priests and Prophets and so may examine who are worthy of the seals who not then the Civill Magistrate can be by us spoyled of nothing that God has given him as a Magistrate except Erastus say that he doth all these as a Magistrate virtute officij which when he or any of his Disciples shall assert beside that it is contradictorious to his way we are ready to demonstrate that it is blasphemous contrary to the word of God But that Erastus does take from the Elders of the Church and give to the Magistrate a power to judge in an Ecclesiasticall way who are to be debarred from the seals I argue on the contrary thus those who are to cut the word and distribute it aright are also to distribute the seals a right to the worthy not to dogs and swine not to heathens and publicans for it is evident that the right stewarding and distributing of ordinances doth essentially include the stewarding of them with judgement and discerning to those that are worthy not to those that are unworthy But Elders not Civill Magistrates are to do the former Ergo the latter also 2. Those to whom Christ committed the power of the keys to open and shut to bind and loose to those he hath given the use and exercise of the keys But Christ gave the power of the keys to the Apostle Peter as representing the Rulers of the Church Mat. 16. 19. to the Church Mat. 18. 18. and not to the Magistrate as to the Magistrate Ergo The proposiâ—ion I prove from the Texts Mat. 18. 18. What ye shâ—ll bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. and Cha. 16. 19. the same is repeated now actuall binding is the use and exercise of the keys given to Peter and the
Church But it is presumed the power is given when Christ saith v. 19. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdome of Heaven 2. We read not that God giveth a power a gift a talent or an office but he judgeth it a sinne in those to whom he giveth it not to put forth in acts and in exercise that gift talent and office either by themselves or his deputies which latter I speak for the King who in his own person and in the person of inferiour judges sent by him do put forth in acts of justice the Royall power that God has given him The assumption is Scripture Erastus has no answer to this but the keys were given to Peter as representing all the faithfull not the Elders and that all private Christians do bind and loose Ans Besides this is answered fully above and is a meer anarchicall Democracy it 2. concludeth well that Christ gave not to the Magistrate as the Magistrate the keys but to the Magistrate as he is a Christian making that same Christian confession of faith with Peter Mat. 16. and as he is an offended brother who may bind and loose in earth and heaven so Erastus Thes 54. p. 42. and so by this the Magistrate hath no more power to debarre from the seals then all other Christians have 3. If Christ give the key of knowledge to the Elders then he cannot give the power of studying Sermons and preaching the word to another so if Christ give the power of breaking the bread of life to the children of the house then he cannot give the power of judging who are the children of the house who not to another Ob. But the Magistrate is only to examine the fact to punish adultery incest and the like that deserve to be punished by the sword but not whether it be a scandall that deserve exclusion from the Sacrament or not Ministers are to take the probation of the scandalous fact by witnes from the Magistrate so to exclude from the Lords supper and to deal with the mans conscience to bring him to repentance so do some argue Ans If the Church be to try the penitency or impenitency of the fact and not to cognosce and try whether he hath done the fact upon the same ground the Magistrate is to try and punish the disturbance of the peace of the Common-wealth that adhereth to the fact and not to try the fact 2. It is not possible that the Church can know whether the man be penitent or no except by witnesses they know the fact for they shall run a preposterous way to work the man to a godly sorrow for that sinne which possibly he never committed now that of which the Church is to convince the man and from which they are to gain his soul that they are to find out 2. This is against the way of Erastus who will have the Magistrate to exclude from the Sacraments and none other 3. The word knowes no such thing as that Ministers should be led in the acts of their Ministeriall duties to whom they should dispense the mysteries of the Gospel and to whom they should deny them by the Magistrate by a good warrant the Magistrate is to lay a tye on the consciences of Elders what they should dispence as to whom they should dispense sure if the Magistrate as the Magistrate must prescribe to Ministers to what sort of persons they must dispence word and Sacraments he must upon the same ground as a Magistrate prescribe what Doctrine they should preach to this man not to this whether Law or Gospel and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be a Pastor to cut the word aright 2 Tim. 2. 15. Eze. 3. 18 19 20. Eze. 13. 19. to command to preach life to this man death to this man 4. If the Church must cast him out and judge him who has done this wickednesse 1 Cor. 5. 2 12. and 4. 5 6. 7. then must they judge of his scandall that according to the quality of the scandall they may proportion the measure of the punishment Ergo a pari they must judge whom they debarre from the seals 5. The debarring any from the seals must be proportioned to the end of all spirituall censures that the man be gained and his sinne loosed in heaven Mat. 18. 15. 18. that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 4. That he may be ashamed and so humbled 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 2 Cor. 2. 6 7. that he may learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20. But the Magistrates excluding of any from the Sacraments is no mean congruous to such an end for he can command nothing but the disobedience of which he can and ought to punish with the sword now a carnall weapon cannot be congruous and proportionable to a spirituall end 6. If the Magistrate as a Magistrate must so farre have the keys of Discipline then as a Magistrate he must catechise examine and try the knowledge of the Communicants and so watch for their souls as those that must give an accompt to God 7. The Magistrate must have a Negative voyce in all the acts of the Church and the man must be bound in heaven but not except the Magistrate will and loosed in heaven but not except the Magistrate will for all must depend upon the consent of him to whom Iesus Christ has committed the supream and highest and only power of governing the Church now this is the Magistrate as the Magistrate to Erastus 8. The Magistrate as the Magistrate must forgive sinners and relaxe them from excommunication 2 Cor. 2. 7. and restore those that are overtaken in offences with the spirit of meeknesse Gal. 6. 1. and rebuke publikely those that sin publikely 1 Tim. 5. 20. and so be a spirituall man and a Pastor Neither doth it follow that the Pastors as Pastors only should debarre from the Communion though virtute potestatis ordinis as Pastors they are to keep themselves pure and not to give pearls to swine nor to communicate with other mens sins yet because the Sacraments are Church ordinances they are to be dispensed by the Church that is by the Elders with consent of the people it is one thing to dispense ordinances to those that receive them and another thing to dispense them ceâ—â—o ordine after a Church way the former is from power of order the latter from power of jurisdiction and from the Church only CHAP. XV. Quest 11. Whether Erastus do validly confute a Presbytery Erastus What consequence is this Lev. 10. God commandeth Aaron and his sonnes to put a difference between the holy and prophane the cleane and the unclean this difference they were to teach the people out of the Law Ergo God hath ordained a Colledge of Ecclesiasticall Senators to exercise the power of the Civill Magistrate it is like this God commanded the Pastors to teach the people and dispense the Sacraments Ergo
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 Church of the Iews was tyed to one certaine place but every particular Church hath alike power To be cast out of the Synagogue then with the Iews must be another thing then to be Excommunicated now for he that is cast out of one particular Church is cast out of the whole Catholick Church But it was not so in Iudea for Sacrifices and Sacraments except circumcision and expiation were only at Ierusalem not in Synagogues how then could they deny Sacraments which they wanted themselves they could not deny what was not in their power to give Moses was read in their Synagogues every Sabbath No man could be forbidden to heare the word read this had been against a manifest precept It is like they admitted heathens to the Synagogue Act. 13. 14. c. 12. c. 18. But it was not lawfull for heathen to enter into the Temple And when Moses commanded all the clean to go to Ierusalem no Synagogue could forbid them to go Ans That the Synod might have divers significations I deny not but that to be cast out of the Synagogue had divers significations we deny Yea it signified no other thing but to be cast out of the Church and the Lord Iesus speaketh of it and the Evangelists as of a standing censure in the Jewish Church which the spirit of God condemneth no where except when it was abused Ioh. 9. 22. Ioh. 12. 42. Ioh. 16. 2. Luk. 6. 22. Ioh. 9. 35. so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nadah to Excommunicate as an unclean thing Esay 66. 5. Your Brethren that cast you out Pagnin and Mercer expound it of casting out of the Synagogue and they cite Ioh. 9. and 12. and 16. to make it signifie Excommunication 2. That a circumcised Iew could by no Law be cast out of Iudea seemeth to say that banishment was not a lawfull punishment Surely David against all Law then did banish Absolon 2 Sam. 14. 13. and when the King of Persia Ezra 7. 25 26. commandeth Ezra to restore judicatures as at the beginning It would seem that banishment was an ancient punishment amongst the Iews Therefore Erastus craftily saith that no born Iews were so cast out of Iudea that they were compelled to say they were not Iews Surely we never dreamed of such an Excommunication that the excommunicated should be compelled to lie and say that though they were Iews and Christians yet they should say they were not Iews or Christians 2. When the people was in Egypt 2 Mac. they were killed who denyed themselves to be Iews and deservedly for they denied their Religion and their God What is this against Excommunication We plead not for such an Excommunication as was a locall extrusion of a person out of the land of Iudea nor for such a one wherey they denyed their Nation that was a sinfull lying But such whereby Church priviledges were denyed to some for scandals 3. Nor do we expound casting out of the Synagogue literally as Erastus doth to be a casting out of the Synagogue or from the Ordinances there and from hearing the word or the Law of Moses for the Synagogue is the Church and it was to be debarred from the Temple Passeover and other Holy things though these should be tyed to one certaine place to wit to the Temple and I doubt if the excommunicated be to be debarred from hearing the word 1. Because the excommunicated is to be admonished as a brother 2 Thes 3. 15. and the word preached is a mean simply necessary for the mans gaining 2. Because heathens were not excluded from hearing the word 1 Chron. 14 23. Act. 17. 16. 17 18 19 20. c. Act. 14. v. 15 16 17. But from the Temple and Sacraments they were excluded We have often answered that all the Morally unclean though they were ceremonially clean are not only not commanded to go up to Ierusalem that is to the Temple and holy things that they are rebuked and accused because they stood in the Lords Temple with their bloods and idolatries and other abominations in their skirts Ieremiah 7. verse 9. 10. Ezekiel 23. 38 39. Esay 1. verse 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Erastus They call Christ a Samaritan Ioh. 8. Those of Nazareth not onely cast him out of the Synagogue but out of the town and strove to throw him over the brow of a mountain Who dâ—ubts then but they cast Christ out of the Synagogue when they made a Law that if any should confesse him he should be cast out of the Synagogue Yet never man objected to Christ It is not lawfull to thee to go into the Temple for thou art cast out of the Synagogue Ergo to be cast out of the Synagogue was not to be excommunicated Ans All these are poor conjectures for Erastus granteth there was such a censure as casting out of the Synagogue But he sheweth not what it is But I retort this argument if Christ had been cast out of the Synagogue those that called him a Samaritane and cast out of their Synagogues such as confessed him would have sometime said it is not lawfull to thee to go into the Synagogues and teach for thou art cast out of the Synagogue But by the contrary Christ till the day of his death openly taught in the Synagogues Ioh. 18. 20. I spake openly to the world I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Iews alwayes resort Luke 4. 15. he taught in their Synagogues Luke 4. 16. as his custome was he went into the Synagogues Mat. 4. 23. Mark 1. 39. Mark 3. 1. Luk. 6. 6. Mat. 9. 35. Luke 13. 10. and therefore it is a demonstration to me that they never cast Christ out of the Synagogue what hindred them saith Erastus I answer Let him shew me what hindred them to stone him Ioh. 10. and not to put him to death till his houre came Erastus speaketh not like a divine who scoffeth at the secret Counsell of God For God had the sufferings of his owne sonne Christ in a speciall manner determined and weighed in number weight and measure And therefore though they made a Law that all that confesseth Christ should be cast out of the Synagogue and though those that sinned against the Holy Ghost Matt. 12. called him a Samaritane and out of a sudden passion those that wondred at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth would cast him over the brow of a Mountaine Yet I hold they never made any Law noâ— did execute any Law nor did cast out of their Sgnagogue or excommunicate the Lord Iesus I leave Erastus to his conjectures Erastus Act. 4. and 5. The Apostles were scourged and cast out by the high Synagogue summa Synagoga yet presently they teach in the Temple and use the Sacramenâ—s Act. 21. When Paul Act. 21. was to go to the Temple to sacrifice the Apostles who counselled him so to do do not object that he was excommunicated and so could not
Law of God so the seventy translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieronym intrabunt in Ecclesiam Domini Vatablus in Not. erint de consortio populi Sancti The English Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13. 1 2. the Law is that the Moabite and the Ammonite should not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever It is said v. 3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude so that cleare it is to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church then to be separated from the Congregation must be to be cast out of the Church and deprived of the holy things of God as heathens and strangers were according to that Levit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eate of the holy thing What is this but Excommunication call it with another name we care not it is really to be separated from the Church 7. It is admirable to me to heare Erastus say It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of persons will not receive into his Kingdome a Bastard an Ammonite a Moabite Is not this to reason against the Law of God and the wisedome of God Deut. 23. 1. 2 3. who saith that he will not receive such into his Church which is his Kingdome and a company of Kings and Priests unto God which he hath freely loved Exod. 19. 5 6. Psal 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. as â—oâ— the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdome according to Gods decree of eternall Reprobation I deny Excommunication to be any such rejection of men it being onely a casting them out from the visible Church and the speciall Church priviledges that their Spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord and what can be more contrary to the Word then that Erastus should say God declared not that it was his will that Moabites Ammonites should not be circumcised anâ— admitted to the Sacraments Why then did hee not chuse Moabites and Ammonites for his people and make a covenant with them and give Circumcision a Seale of the Covenant as he dealt with the Iewes if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments so they repent and turne to him but now Erastus fights with his owneshaddow Who denieth but Iewes and Gentiles so they call on him are welcome to all the holy things of God and not to be cast out of either Church or Synagogue 8. To say to cast out of the Synagogue is a meeker word then to Excommunicate is but to beg the question Yea but saith Erastus it is lesse and a milder thing then to destroy and pro deplorato habere to esteeme a person lost we say Excommunication is not to destroy or to give for lost but though it be the most violent yet it is a saving remedy that the man may be ashamed humbled and his Spirit saved 9. We reason not from the fact of Pharisees if they cast any out of the Synagogue for a just cause they ought also by Gods Law to debarre them from Temple and Sacraments and therefore if they did not debarre it was their sinne not our Rule CHAP. XXI Quest 17. Divers other Arguments vindicated as from Communion with the Church subjection of Magistrates and Ministers The Ceremonially unclean from Matth. 18. Tell the Church Erastus Christ hath given a power to his Church to loose Ergo also to binde The Church admitteth Believers into Communion Ergo they cast out the impenitent Erastus Answereth Such a power as they have to Ioose and to admit such and no other have they to binde and to cast out but it follovveth not Ergo it is a povver to debar from the Sacraments and to Excommunicate it is à Genere and Speciem affirmativè Ans Erastus is mistaken and formeth the Argument as he pleaseth The Church pardoneth as a Church and receiveth into her body believers to participate of Church-priviledges and Sacraments in a Church Communion Ergo the Church hath power to binde and cast out from this same Church-Communion those that leaveneth the whole lump as a City may admit a stranger to all the City priviledges Ergo the same City may for offences against the City cast out and deprive of City priviledges offenders is this a Genere ad speciem affirmativè If the Church have a power to cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from amongst them a Member we shall not contend for the name of Excommunication Erastus The Ministers have none by whom in their office they can be corrected But saith Erastus If every soul be subject to the higher powers how are Ministers excepted if Ministers correct Ministers they play to others hands spare thou the nails and I shall spare the teeth Ans The Author doth not except Ministers from civill subjection to Magistrates But only he saith In Ecclesiasticall censures the Magistrate is not to judge the Ministers because a Ministery being an Ecclesiasticall office as such it is not liable to the civill power only the Ministers as they erre and sin in their persons are liable to civill punishment but not to Ecclesiasticall to be inflicted by the Magistrate 2. Through the corruption of mens nature every one may wink at anothers faults It is true But consider if this slow from the nature of Gods Ordinance to wit that the Citizen obey the Laws of the City whereof he is a member This is an Argument against any Senate Parliament Counsell of State or War or Aristocracy on earth if of an hundreth Lords of the States Generall one or ten play the Traytor to the State who shall take order with them Their Collegues and fellow-Senators Partiall judging falls out here through mens corruption spare thou the nails and I le spare the teeth and from Erastus his way if you Argue from mens corruption the same will follow May not the Magistrate say to the Minister Honour me before the people and Preach not against the sins of King and Court and I will oversee and wink at thy Pluralities non-residencies soul-murthers And may not the Minister say to the Magistrate Let me be above all Civill Laws and be Lord Prelat and sit on the necks of my Brethren and defraud oppresse and I shall be silent and preach nothing against the idolatry oppressions Sodomy uncleannesse of Magistrate and court Erastus The Ceremonially unclean were excluded from the Sacraments Ergo far more the Morally unclean But how saith he doth this follow You Excommunicate none but the obstinate for those that were Ceremonially unclean against their will were excluded from the holy things Ergo far more he that is Morally unclean is to be debarred though he be not obstinate How could Paul Excommunicate the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. he was never admonished or Peter Excommunicate Annanias as you say Ans All Types or comparisons hold only in that for which the spirit of God doth bring them Now the Ceremonially unclean were debarred from
Christ spake many things to them that they bothforgot knew not till the holy Ghost came upon them And their not asking Question will not prove they understood all he spake sometimes they were afraid to ask him 2. The Jewish and Christian Church have not such essentiall differences but they knew by the ordinary notion of the word Church a Convention that professed the Doctrine of the Prophets and of the Law and Gospel And what such great difference is there between a brother and a brother Iew and a Brother Gentile as they behoved to understand the one and be utterly ignorant of the other And what necessity to restrict it to Iews only Christ had often spoken to them of the incoming of the Gentiles as Matth. 8. 11. Joh. 10. 16. Matth. 10. 18. Did the Disciples know the Kings Councels Indicatures of the Gentiles that Christ said they should be convented before Matth. 10. 17 18 19 And because Erastus is so confident that the word Church here is the Civill Magistrate Let any Erastian teach me what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Matth. 16. 19. Is it the Civill Magistrate Is the Civill Magistrate built on a Rock Shall the Ports of Hell never prevail against the Civill Magistrate Can no Magistrate make defection from the truth And doth Erastus or his believe in their conscience that the Disciples understood Christ Matth. 16. for he spake of both to the Disciples to speak of the stability and strength and perseverance of the Christian Magistrate And that the Ports of Hell should never prevail against the Iewish Sanedrim and Church which crucified the Lord of glory and persecuted his Apostles and all professing the Name of Iesus to the death 3. Heathen and Publican in generall were names as opposite to Christian Brethren as to Iewish Brethren as I have proved before Erastus The vvord Church to the Hebrevvs signifieth either a multitude or the Senate or Magistrate as Num. 35. Church is four times Josh 20. Tvvâ—ce Psal 82. Once and it signifies the Magistrate So vve say the Empire hath done vvhat the Emperour vvith the States of the Empire hath done So the Church or Convention think so because the chief amongst them think so the Common Wealth hath done this because the Senate hath done this Ans The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Num. 35. 12. But in all that Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now how this signifieth one Magistrate which ever signifieth a collection or multitude of rulers I leave to the learned so Erast faileth yet in his probation 2. Suppose the word Church signifie the heads of the people how shall Erastus prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the senate of Civill Magistrates for in this Congregation were the Priests and Levites especially that judge between blood and blood voluntary or involuntary homicide Deut. 17. â—2 13 14. 2 Chr. 19. 8 9. It is true also that the man that killed another unwittingly was to be protected in the City of refuge while he should stand before the faces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Congregation But let Erastus and all who will have the Bishop or the Pope the representative Church know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Congregation ever and alwayes be a collective word as populus the people signifieth a multitude never by Grammer one single man hoc nomen saith Pagnine certum conventum sive cetum significat certum Collegium it alwayes signifieth a socâ—eâ—ie as the Princes of the Congregation Num. 16. 2. all the Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Congregation Exo. 34. 31. here is a number and a societie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle can be atributed to no fewer then to three at least Speak to all the Congregation of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exodus 12. 3. and the Congregations of peoples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall compasse thee about Psal 7. 8. Nor shall sinners stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Congregation of the just Psal 1. 5. Thou hast made desolate all my Congregation Iob. 16 7. 2. The word is from a root that signifieth to conveene and gather together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore Iud. 14. 8. a swarme or a Congregation of Bees is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation And that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church since the world began never signified one single man either King Magistrate Pope or Prelate But alwayes a multitude either of rulers or people I appeal to Demosthenes Homer Phoâ—illides Hesiod Lucian Pluto Aristotle to Suidâ—â— Stephanus Scapula or for the word Cetus Congâ—egatio to all Latine Authors to the seventy interpreters in the Old Testament to Hyâ—ronimus all the Greek Fathers and to the Evangelists and Apostles in the New Testament to Act. 19. 32. Eph. 5. 23. Act. 8. 13. Rom. 16. 5. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 1 Thes 1. 1. 2 Thess 1. 1. Act. 15. 3 4 22. Act. 16. 5. Act. 14. 23. Rev. 1. 20. Rev. 2. 1. and for Psal 82. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is a Congregation of Gods or Magistrates and v. 6. All of you are Children of the most high he speaketh evidently of a multitude of Iudges 3. Suppose the Empire be said to do what the Senate Parliament or great Councell of the Empire or Kingdome doth This will not prove that the word Church in either of the Originall Tongues Hebrew or Greek doth signifie one man so as Tell the Church must be all one with Tell one single Magistrate or Tell one Prelate or one Pope and he that will not hear the Magistrate that is the King or one single Magistrate alone without any fellow Magistrates he being a Christian is to be dealt with as an heathen and a publican and not as a Christian brother For what the King doth alone without his Senate is never called the deed of the Senate farre lesse the act or deed of the whole Ecclesia of the Kingdome produce any shaddow of Grammer for this Now to Erastus Tell the Church is all one with Tell the single Christian Magistrate alone separated from Fellow-judges or Councell Senate Parliament Ecclesiasticall Assemblies and if he hear not and obey not this one single Christian Magistrate let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican For Erastus will have the Civill Magistrate though the whole Church and Pastors should judge the contrary to have power by vertue of his office to determine against Pastors and Elders Yea by his office he is to command them to preach and synodically to determine this and this and what they determine they do à et sub Magistratu under and from this one single Magistrate as his servants instruments Vicars and deputies and therefore the Magistrate cannot sentence in the name of Pastors Elders when they are but his servants And 2. When he may by his office do
contrary to what they judge in conscience ought to be done So Tell the Church to Erastus is Tell the one individuall single Magistrate who by office may judge without and contrary to the advice of all the Church Pastors Doctors Elders yea people and all Now though we grant that what the Emperour doth as Emperour and the Magistrate as Magistrate hath done that the Empire City and Incorporation doth which yet is never true in the Church which hath no King as a Church save onely the head and King Iesus Christ yet Erastus hath not proved what the Emperour doth without and contrary to the advice of all the Empire that the Empire hath done that Erastus Christ either understandeth by the Church the whole multitude of Ierusalem or then the Magistrates But he understandeth not the multitude 1. Because Christ would not change the Government of heathens farre lesse of that which his Father had appointed in Iudea in which the people did never Governe Yea the Apostles to their death did nothing against Moses his Law and how they take Christ to speak of a Church to be founded of new after his resurrection who beleeved not he should die and rise againe and after his resurrection knew not what a kingdome whether worldly or spirituall he was to â—ave cannot be conceived Ans 1. Many will deny the Major for he understood the rulers of the Christian Church not excluding the consent of the Christian Church of beleevers in the matter of Excommunication 2. I deny that Christ doth here re-establish a Synedry and bid them Tell the Scribes and Pharisees and those that were to crucifie himselfe and to persecute the Apostles to the death Christ knew those to be miserable healers of scandals betweene brother and brother 2. He knew this Sanedrim to be the Disciples of Christs capitall enemies he warned the Disciples to beware of the leaven of their corrupt Doctrine he prophecied this Sanedrim should be destroyed as a degenerated plant that his heavenly father had not planted and was it like Christ would direct them a perishing and degenerate remedie against scandals that he would have removed by his Church even till the end of the world 2. It is most false that the Apostles did keep to death the institutions and ordinances of Moses Act. 15. They abrogated all the ceremoniall Law except that of blood and things strangled and Paul said he that would amongst the Galathians be circumcised was falâ—e from Christ see Col. 2. Gal. 4. Heb. 13. and elsewhere the contrary The Government was now to expire with Christs death and ascension in so farre as it was pedagogicall 3. Christ spake often of his Kingdome to them and they understood nothing but an earthly and temporall Kingdome and that they understood perfectly All this time the Church of Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons beleevers in Christ is denied Let Erastus answer when Christ said Mat. 16. He would build his Church on a rock unpregnable and insuperable to hell If the Apostles understood a Church to be founded after the resurrection and when Christ said Loe I am with you to the end of the world if Christ meant not he would give his presence to the Christian Church not then founded for even after his resurrection they dreamed of an earthly Kingdome Act. 1. and that our divines do rightly expound that place I am with you All the faithfull Pastors Doctors Church-officers and beleevers to the Lords second appearance is clear Erastus Christ bade Tell that Church which hath power to conveene the offender before it examine Witnesses judicially cognosce and give sentence but in Christs time the multitude could not doe this Ans Ergo the Church hath a spirituall judicature This is for uâ— 2. Nor had the Sanedrim the power in all offences as Erastus would make the world beleeve for it was but a shadow at this time void of power and used what power they had against Christ and the Gospel Nor needeth Erastus to prove that by the Church the multitude cannot be understood though he cannot exclude them from their owne part in Church Government both in consenting and in withdrawing from the Excommunicated Erastus But Tell the Church is all one vvith this Appoint some who in the name of the Church may mannage the businesse but how prove they this Then Christ bade Tell the Elders that then were else he did not accommodate himselfe to their understanding to whom he spake when he was to teach hovv our sacrifices pleaseth God be biddeth us first be reconciled to our brother and then sacrifice yet he knevv that sacrifices vvere to be abolished but by Analogie he vvould teach us vvhat he requireth vvhen he saith he vvill have mercy and not sacrifice Ergo by your ovvn confession to tell the Church is to tell the Sanedrim for there vvas then no Church but the multitude Ans 1. Tell the Church cannot in any sense have such a meaning as Appoint Elders and tell them for then Tell the Sanedrim must have this meaning set up a sound Sanedrim according as Moses appointed and tell the Sanedrim The Sanedrim in its right constitution and due power as the Law of Moses required it was not to be had at this time Herod had killed the Sanedrim the Romans made High Priests from yeere to yeere against the institution the power of life and death in the civill Sanedrim was now none at all The Scepter was departed from Iudah those that sate in Moses Chaire corrupted all so the right Sanedrim was no more now to be had then a Christian Church not yet erected Again Tell the Church presupposeth a constituted Church and therefore cannot include a command to erect a new mould 2. Tell the Elders of the Christian Church may as well be meant in these words Tell the Church as the Iewish Church can be understood 3. The word Church and to conveene offenders hear Witnesses give out sentence were all plaine Language to the disciples though they knew not the frame of the Gospell Church as yet Christ being now teaching an ordinance of a Church and the censure of Excommunication that was not to fall under practise while Christ should ascend to heaven and therefore though this Church was not yet it followeth not that the Lord Iesus speaketh of the Sanedrim 4. Say that he meane the Sanedrim Ergo say we he speaketh nothing of the Christian Magistrate 1. Because there was no Magistrate now but Iewish Magistrates as Erastus cannot deny 2. Because this Sanedrim that gained soules of offending brethren was Ecclesiasticall not civill 3. By proportion and Analogie Christ must understand the Church of Christians though the Sanedrim was to be removed shortly Erastus It is a great controversie vvho are to be chosen out of the bodie of the Church to excommunicate judicially Ans The controversie was moved partly by Erastus partly by Morellius not in the reformed Churches Erastus Some say the Magistrate
should chuse the Elders at least at the first even though the Church doe not consent But how can they sit in place of the Church and judge who were against the will and minde of the Church chosen to be Judges for though the Magistrate be a chiefe Member of the Church yet to Tell the Church is not to Tell the Magistrate as you say but to Tell the whole Church and it is no â—xcuse that the Magistrate doth but once chuse the Elders for if hee have no right nor Law from God to doe it he can never doe it and if he have Law from God to doe it he ought alwayes to doe it Ans Here Erastus reasoneth against some Auâ—hor that inclineth to the way of Morellius If there bee no formed Church endued with knowledge and discretion to chuse their owne Elders if there be godly men fit to be chosen they are to convene and chuse from amongst them Elders the godly Magistrate is to joyne his Vote and Power because there is a Church not yet constitute it is now Perturbatus aut corruptus Ecclesiae status and I ever judged it a golden saying of that great Divine Fran. Iunius that when the Magistrate will not concurre the Church in that extraordinary case may doe somewhat which ordinarily they cannot doe and againe when the Church doth not their duty the Magistrate in that case may doe something more then ordinary to cause the Church doe their dutie for its a common Laâ— to ills out of order remedies out of the road way may be applyed So if the Priests and Levites be corrupt Iehoshapaht and Hezekiah and Iosiah may reforme And therefore though the godly Magistrate jure communi by the common Law of Nature imploy his power to appoint Elders all Errors and confusions in the Church are in some measure out of order yet it followeth that jure proprio and ordinarily he should alwayes doe this 2. Elders are not properly Representators of the Church to me while I be better informed for power of feeding and ruling is immediately given by Iesus Christ to the Elders and not by the interveening mediation of the Church but onely by their designation to the office thâ—s power is given by the people 3. The Magistrate as the Magistrate and by vertue of his place is neither a Member farre lesse a chiefe Member of the Church for then all Magistrates should be Members of the Church even Heathen Kings and Rulers which no man can say The Christian Magistrate as a Christian is a Member of the Church But that is nothing to helpe Erastus Erastus Because the multitude can doe nothing in order therefore say they they have power to choose Elders to whom belongeth the power of Excommunication But how prove they this Though a company vvanting a Magistrate have this power shall it follovv that a company to vvhom God hath given a godly Magistrate should have this povver But because confusion vvould follovv therefore Elders are to be chosen Ergo Such Elders as make up your Presbyterie à genere ad speciem affirmativè nulla est consequutio Ans 1. Not only from necessity of eschewing confusion but from the positive Ordinance of God we infer Presbyters we do not own any such consequence Prelaâ—es and Papists argue for a Monarchy in the Church from order we know no creatures of the like frame Erastus is for a Bishop he may so argue not we We finde Christ hath placed such organs in his body as Eph. 4. 11. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 c Act. 6. 1 2 c. and 14. 23. Ergo they ought to be for we think the Church cannot govern it self 2. If the Church wanting a Magistrate as the Apostolick Church did have power to chuse Presbyters and by a Divine Law how dare Erastus say That it followeth not when the Church hath a godly Magistrate she should keep the same power Can the godly Magistrate when he cometh into the Church take any Divine power from the Church Is the Magistrate given to the Church as a Nurse-father to preserve that power that Christ hath given to his Spouse or is he given as a spoiler at noon day to take to himself the power and make the Ambassadors of Christ his Ambassadors and Servants to preach in his Name whereas before when they had no Magistrate Pastors did preach only in the Name of Iesus Christ Erastus Sure the Lord hath concredited to the Magistrate the Command and all power of externall Government so as he hath subjected not only Civill but also Sacred things to his power that he may manage the one according to the Word of God the other according to Iustice and equity which since it is Commanded in the Old Testament and practised by all holy Iudges and Kings and we finde it not changed in the New Testament We justly say that the Church that hath a godly Magistrate cannot by Gods will chuse a new Senate or Presbytery to exercise publikely Iudgement for God hath not armed subjects against their Magistrates Nor hath he Commanded them to take any part of their power from them and give it to others and to subject them to externall Dominion Ans Sure the Lord concredited to the Priest not to King Vzziah to burn incense and to the Priests to rebuke Vzziah and command him to desist and this is no lesse externall Governing of the house of God quoad hoc in this particular then Excommunication for to Excommunication on the Churches part as Excommunication is no more required but that the scandalous and murthering Magistrate should not come to the Table of the Lord or remain in the society and Church-fellowship of the Saints as a Member of the Church Now if the Magistrate obey not the Church as the Church can use no bodily coaction or restraint to hinder the Magistrate to obtrude himself upon the holy things of God though other either fellow-Magistrates or the inferior Magistrates if the party â—xcommunicated be the supream Magistrate or the Parliament may and ought to use their power as Magistrates by the sword to hinder the holy things of God to be prophaned for I think it easie to prove if this were a fit place that inferior Magistrates are essentially Magâ—strates and immediatly subject to the King of Kings for the due use of the sword as the supream Magistrate or King And therefore there is no more externall dominion used in Excommunicating a bloody and scandalous Magistrate then in rebuking and threatning him Now Erastus granteth That Pastors may rebuke and threaten according to the Word of the Lord even Magistrates and Kings 2. If because Iudges in the Old Testament as Eli and Samuel Sacrificed and we finde this not changed in the New and nothing extraordinary in this Ministers in the New Testâ—ment may do the same Then the Iustice of Peace and Mayors of Cities and every constable may by vertue of
their office Preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments which is against the word Heb. 5. 7. Mat. 9. 38. 10. 5. 28. 19 20. Joh. 21. 20 21. Rom. 10. 14 15. 3. Where doth Erastus reade in the New Testament that Kings may not write Canonick Scripture as King David did and build a Typicall Temple to the Lord as Solomon did and give out Laws of Divine institution as Moses did Kings in the Old Testament did these and he can finde the contrary no where written 4. If the Church as the Church cannot chuse a Senate of Elders to Govern themselves without wronging the Magistrate how did the Apostolick Church without so much as asking advice of the Civill Magistrate set up a new Gospel new Sacraments new officers a new Government Did the Lord Iesus and the Gospel teach them to spoil Cesar Christ had said the contrary Give unto Cesar those things that are Cesars 5. To subject Magistrates to Excommunication is no more to subject them to externall dominion then to subject them as Erastus doth to rebukes warnings and threatnings for the former hath no more of coaction of dominion or of coercive power then the latter yea if to subject Kings to the rebukes of the Ministers of Christ be nothing but to subject them to internall and spirituall dominion no more is suspension from the Sacraments and Excommunication any thing but internall and spirituall dominion In this sense that neither of these two are bodily dominions no more then rebuking of Kings 2. Yet both these work upon the conscience in a spirituall way for the humiliation of the King and putting him to shame and fear 2 Thes 3. 14 15. that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord as rebukes do work 1 Tim. 5. 20. Gal. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Iude ver 23. Yea to say to a King He shall be buried with the buriall of an Asse as Ieremiah did cap. 22. And to call the Rulers Princes of Sodome Isa 1. 10. And King Herod a Fox and Rulers and Princes Dogs Psal 22. ver 16. and Bulls and Lyons ver 12. 13. and Wolves ravening for the prey Ezek. 22. 27. putteth no lesse shame upon Magistrates before men and so externall dominion on them and over them then Excommunication and debarring from the Seals of the Covenant doth Now Erastus subjecteth Magistrates to rebukings threatnings and reprehensions no lesse then we do Well Erastus will have one single Minister to exercise externall dominion over the Magistrates because this is manifest out of the Word but because he would flatter Princes as much as he can he denies that a Colledge of Elders may rebuke the Magistrate or convene him before them though he were the most flagitious Prince that lived and yet one man may summon him before the Tribunall of Christ and charge him to come to hear a Sermon and rebuke him in the face of the Congregation and denounce the Iudgements of God against him openly Is not this the Lord arming one single man against the Magistrate to put shame and confusion on him for his sins And if many Pastors convened should do this This were to arm the subjects against the Magistrate and to take the power from him that God hath given to him as Erastus talketh CHAP. XXII Quest 18. Of exclusion from the Sacrament of profession of repententance the judiciall Law bindeth not Christians The sword not a mean of conversion Of Idolaters and Apostates in the judgement of Erastus IN this Chapter Erastus disputeth against a Treatise written in the German Tongue in which he acknowledgeth there is more learning and truth then in the other writtings All the opinions that Erastus ascribeth to this Author justly or unjustly I know not but Erastus his faith may be justly suspected I cannot defend Erastus Touching those to be admitted to the Sacrament we speak alwayes de illis solis c. of those only who rightly understand the Doctrine of the Gospel and do approve and imbrace the same and who desire with others to use the Sacraments aright in regard of the externals of which only the Church can judge for the heart is rightly knowne to God only so the Author and we agree Ans The agreement is but poore by your owne relation But 1. Let Erastus answer what if the Christian Magistrate as Achab be a dog and sell himselfe to do wickedly What if he understand not the Doctrine of the Gospel Magistrates as Magistrates by vertue of the throne or place are not priviledged to be Orthodox and holy Let one Iulian once a Christian yet turning a sow an enemy to the Gospel be witnesse if we descend to the Iustices and to Master Constables it may be we finde even of those dogs and swine in their conversation though their place be a power lawfull and ordained of God We thinke saith Erastus the custome of the Church should be observed What by the custome of the Church onely by no precept or command of Christ should the holy things of God the pearls of the Gospel be denied to dogs and swine contrary to Christs command Mat. 7 2. Erastus must exclude the Magistrate out of the lists of his disputation in six books and say If the Christian Magistrate be ignorant and scandalous and yet desire to use the Sacraments right and professe he will learne to know God and to beleeve soundly and walke holily Yet the Sacraments are not to be denied to him Tell Erastus in sincerity who should debarre the Magistrate For in all your six books you by these words de illis solis c. professe that you plead not that he should be admitted to the Sacraments who shall exclude him not he himselfe for his credites sake he shall desire to come to the Sacraments as many for gaine and loaves follow Christ Ioh. 6. will they not follow him also to be seen of men as the Pharisees prayed in the streets 2. Let Erastus say when our Saviour said Give not holy things to dogs Did he mean to accept the persons of Kings and Iudges and professe though Kings and Iudges be dogs and swine yet deny not holy things to them 3. Hath Christ appointed no way in the New Testament as he did in the Old to debarre unclean men from our Passeover Or shall there be no Government no charge in the Ministers of the New Testament to keep the holy things of God from pollution If Master Iustice be an incestnous man a drunkard a dog shall he not be cast out of the midst of the Church Vzziah though a King yet for bodily leprosie was separated from the people of God and men of high places though doggs and swine shall be admitted to all the holy things of God under the New Testament 2. Erastus will have all admitted who desire to use the Sacraments right As touching all externalls of which onely the Church doth judge But 1. Where did we assert that the
Church judgeth of internalls and that they may debarre men from the Sacraments for only heart-unbeleefe knowne to God only This must lye on Erastus as a calumnie while he make it good from our writings and Doctrine that we thus teach exclude those that are visibly scandalous and prophane and we are satisfied 2. He that brings his offering to the Altar and hath done a knowne offence to his brother for it is a sinfull and visible scandall which scandalizeth one brother He useth not the holy things of God right even as touching externals He that comes to the Lords supper desiring and asking the ordinance of righteousnesse as Isaiah speaketh and promiseth amendment and yet is openly ignorant and not sound in the faith he useth not aright the Sacraments even in externals of which only the Church judgeth rightly as he that in the same day commeth to the temple to worship now the very personall presence of a Iew in the Temple which was a Type of Iesus Christ was a worship and a holy thing of God whereas our presence in the place of meeting for worship is no such thing when he hath killed his sonne to Moloch prophaned the Temple and the name of God even in externals for the Priests of old who were to put differences between the clean and the unclean no more were to judge the inward thoughts and heart-dispositions of men knowne to God only then we can now judge them in the New Testament 1 Chro. 29. 17. 1 King 8. 39. 1 Chro. 28. 9. Prov. 15. 11. Hence that is an ignorant speach of Erastus Quistatuit malus esse non prodibit in ecclesiae faciem ut se poenuere prioris vite testetur ac meliorem promittat That man shall never come before the face of the Church to testifie that he repenteth of his former wicked life and promise amendment who purposeth to be wicked Will not men purpose not to be reconciled to their brethren and suffer many suns to go downe in their wrath and malice who come and bring their offring to the Altar why did then Christ forbid offring at the Altar without being reconciled to an offended brother Mat. 5. might not the offending brother offer his gift and were not the Priests to except his offring He could say all that Erastus requireth I acknowledge I have offended my brother I promise to crave him pardon and I desire to offer according to the Law Then the Priest was obliged to beleeve he dealt sincerely and lay his gift upon the Altar though he should not obey the command of Christ and go and leave his gift at the Altar and not offer while he were first reconciled to his brother and the like I say of one that hath killed his brother and cometh with hot blood to the Table of the Lord and goeth not to the Widdow and Orphanes whose Husband and Father he had killed to be reconciled Surely the man that should thus offer should not come to offer nor to eat at the Lords table rightly even in regard of externals which the Church may judge for he should omit this externall Be first reconciled to the Widdow and then offer and eat as Christ commanded 3. It is against Scripture and experience that a man that hath a purpose to kill his Father and in the highest point of treason to invade King Davids throne as Absolon did to say he will not professe to pay his vows at Hebron And might not Judas by his very eating the Passeover professe he beleeved in the Lambe of God that taketh away the sins of the world and that he would serve Christ and yet purpose in his heart to sell his Master Christ for 30 peeces of silver They seeme to be little acquainted with the mysterie of the hypocrisie naturally in men who put in print such a position The Author against whom Erastus writeth saith We have reason to rejoyce if we finde any such who will not professe faith and repentance though they be Hypocrites and therefore there is need of Excommunication and his meaning is that there is need of Excommunication alwayes and therefore there will be many who professe Repentance in words whose life and conversation belie their Repentance and Erastus cannot deny this if he know what it is â—o have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power which forme many have who are to be debarred from the Sacraments and to be Excommunicated in regard they are lovers of their owne selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankefull without naturall affection truce breakers false accusers incontinent fierce despisers of those that are good traitors headie high minded c. 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 c. and such they are in the eies of men otherwise Paul would not forbid to withdraw from such Erastus The Author I thinke would yeeld that the Sacraments should not be denyed to those who seeke them and desire to use them aright and are not excommunicated for the writeth that the deniall of the Sacraments is onely a Testimony of excommunication So when we give not a Testimony of a thing for example of learning to any to whom the thing it selfe to wit learning doth not agree we cannot deny the Sacraments to those who are not Excommunicated for hee should not be blotted with a Testimony of a banished man who is not declared to be banished Ans 1. The Author I thinke would never yeeld but the Sacraments ought to be denied to those who aske for them and desire to use them aright if they be otherwise Truce-breakers false accusers incontinent traitors for those have and may have a forme of godlines and aske the Sacraments and desire to use them aright I meane they may say they desire to use them aright for of their inward desire God onely can judge who knoweth the heart yet the Author cannot he will not say that such are to be admitted to the Lords Supper all thaâ— Erastus goeth on iâ— That the Church is obliged to beleeve that those doe repent and use the Sacraments aright who say in word of mouth they doe so and therefore are to be admitted to the Sacraments though they come but an houre before out of the Bordell house and have hands and sword hot and smoking with innocent blood Now Dogs and Swine Câ—in Iudas known to be scandalous may give faire words and cry Lord Lord and professe all this as is cleare Isa 58. 2. Mat. 7. 21 22. Rom. 16. 18 Mat. 23. 13 14 23 c. 2. Exclusion from the Sacraments is a Testimony of Excommunication but not testimonium proprium quarto modo for some that are not excommunicated are to be debarred from the Sacraments as the thing it selfe will force us to acknowledge should any come with his sword hot in blood from killing his father and Pastor to the Lords Table I hope the Church knowing this would not admit him to the Sacrament and yet he is not yet excommunicated
and I hope they would not presently in the same moment that they debarred him from the Lords Supper excommunicate him There must be some time required to pray for him to rebuke convince and lay open his sinne before he be excommunicated which moved me to thinke that there was necessity of expresse Scripture to prove Excommunication but that abstention as Divines calleth it or suspension from the Lords Supper may well be sufficiently proved by Analogie by consequent and by the nature of the holy things of God and Pearles that are not to be given to the prophane 3. A visible scandall is a sufficient ground of the lesser excommunication or debarring from the Lords Supper and so we put a Testimony of one banished from the holy things of God on him who hath committed a scandalous offence which is a sufficient ground thereof though the offender be not formally excommunicated This Author saith without the consent of the Church no man though contumacious should be excommunicated What this is against us or for Erastus I see not we say the same He saith The Magistrate may chuse some of the congregation to Excommunicate which if he say I consent not to him and see no warrant for it in Scripture But I rather believe his sense to be That the godly Magistrate may command the Church to Excommunicate and punish them if they be negligent in this But hence it followeth not that the Magistrate may Excommunicate them as Erastus inferreth no more then of old it followeth King Vzziah might command the Priests to burn incense to the Lord and punish them if in this they should neglect their duty Ergo King Vzziah might lawfully in his own person burn incense to the Lord Erastus himself will deny this consequence Erastus saith It is evident this Author meaneth That God commanded not a Presbytery to be but that it is necessary for orders cause But I had rather that he had proved it from the Authors words And so I deny it while Erastus bring his own words to prove it I believe he fancies many things of this worthy Author as that he subjects not the Magistrate to the Presbytery And why Because he saith None ought to be Excommunicated without the consent of the Magistrate Truly it is a weak reason for if the Magistrate be a godly man and a Member of the Church it is necessary that his positive consent be had that he may in light and faith use the sword against him as against other evil doers But I give him no negative voyce nor any authoritative or Ecclesiastically judiciall voyce in Excommunication which can be due to him as a Magistrate So the Author doth not at all disagree from us Erastus is mistasten Erastus God hath Excommunicated Drunkards Hypocrites from the Sacraments except they repent But where hath God commanded such being Circumcised and Baptized to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they professe that they repent of their former wayes for it is one thing to be excluded of God another thing to be cast out of the visible society of the godly Ans God hath Excommunicated Drunkards and Hypocrites who are not known openly to be such to the Church and therefore the Church cannot debar such from the Sacraments and so we grant all That it is one thing to be Excommunicated of the Church and another to be Excommunicated of God 2. He asketh where hath God commanded to debar such from the Sacraments being circumcised and baptized I Answer then If they be uncircumcised and unbaptised God will have the Church to debar them But let Erastus shew any Scripture for their exclusion but such as warranteth us to exclude the openly scandalous though circumcised and baptized 3. What warrant hath the Church or Magistrate if Erastus so will to debar all the uncircumcised and â—nbaptised from the Sacraments Job the Eunuch are not Excommunicated of God Ergo if the Lords non-Excommunication be our rule we cannot Excommunicate all the uncircumcised and baptized as such 4. Erastus addeth They cannot be excluded from the Sacraments Presertim sâ— pâ—nitentiam vitae anteactae prae se â—erant especially if they professe repentance But this presertim especially seemeth to infer though they professe no repentance but be dogs and swine they ought not to be debarred from the Seale Is this piety or rather prophanity But only he would say they are far lesse to be debarred if they professe repentance But we know to professe repentance in Erastus his way is to say by word of mouth they repent Now this saying so may consist with being openly dogs and swine Hence we see the contradicent of Erastus his saying to wit that the most openly scandalous are not to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they say they repent that is especially if they lye and dissemble before the Sun yea though they mock God and repent noâ— I should think their saying they repent when their flagitious and impure conversation doth belye their profession maketh them so much rather worthy to be debarred being both dogs and Hypocrites So far I am from Erastus his presertim especially if they professe that they repent Erastus I grant it â—ighteth with Gods will that pardon should be denied to any by the Word and yet pardon sealed to those same men in the Sacrament But when the Word denyeth remission of sins absolutely to those the Sacraments are not due to them but the Word denieth not remission to them upon condition they repent and so neither should the Sacraments be denied to them Ans But the word denyeth absolutely remission of sins to dogs and swine so long as they repent not and that so much the more that they say they repent and their life belies their words and testifies to their face and before the Sun that they are plaâ—stered Hypocrites Ergo the Sacraments should be denyed to them Erastus But it followeth not that the Sacraments belongeth not to him who is not a member of the invisible Church so he be a member of the visible Church but as he partaketh only of the externall Communion so he receiveth but the externall elements from an externall Minister Ans But if he be visibly no Member of the invisible Church but in the eyes of the Church visibly a dog or a swine neither ought the externall symbols that are even externally the holy things of God to be given to him for otherwise this Argument shall conclude if one be baptised and a member of the Church though a dog yet the pearls of the Gospel are to be cast to such a dog which Erastus himself denieth And so this Argument hurteth Erastus as much as us That this Author saith God commanded those that transgressed his holy Law with an high hand and presumptuously to be killed lest they should live and prophane his holy things I defend not But sure Erastus erreth who will have all such to be killed by
saith he But the Magistrate himselfe is the apostate the heretick the idolater 2. He that may debarre from the seals may admit to the seals he that may do both Ex Officio is the formall dispenser of the seals by office that the Magistrate is not He that may put out or take in into the house by supream power is the Lord of the house He who by office may admit some to the Table and debarre other some is the Steward But the Magistrate is neither the lord of the Church nor the steward of the house by office We do not hold this consequence the Lord commanded ill doers to be killed Ergo He ordained in that same commandement that they be Excommunicated Nor do we say all those who were to be Excommunicated were to be killed as Erastus saith Nor that Excommunication in the New Testament succeedeth in place of killing in the Old Testament we see no light of Scripture going before us in these Erastus It is a wonder that you say that the godly Magistrate doth procure the externall Peace of the Common-wealth but not the salvation of the subjects that the Presbyters do only care for Ans The Sword is no intrinsecall mean of the saving of any mans soul It is true the godly Magistrate may procure a godly life but as a cause removens impedimentum removing idolatry heresie wolves and false teachers from the flock and commanding under the paine of the Sword that Pastors do their duty But Christ ascending on high gave Pastors and Teachers to gather a Church but not Magistrates armed with the Sword Erastus The Magistrates Sword is a most efficacious mean to bring men to the knowledge of God nothing more effectuall then affliction and the crosse when right teaching is joyned therewith examples teach us that in danger of death men have seriously turned to God who before could be moved by no exhortations But you say all die not in the Lord nor repent nor say I do they all die in the Lord who are taken away by diseases or are excommunicated yea Excommunication maketh many hypocrites Ans 1. Erastus here extolleth the Sword of the Magistrate as a more effectuall mean to salvation then exhortations or the Gospel But I read that Pastors are the Ministers by whom we beleeve and that they are workers with God and fellow-builders and Fathers to convert edifie to salvation and beget men over again to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 5 9. 1 Cor. 2. 4 15. Ambassadors of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Friends of the Bridgroome 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ioh. 3. 29. Angels Rev. 2. 1. But I never read any such thing of the Magistrate and that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. The arme of the Lord Esay 53. 1. Sharper then a two edged sword lively and mighty in operation Heb. 4. 12. You never read any such thing of the Sword of the Magistrate the rest are before answered Erastus Some may be changed in a moment as the publican Luke 18. Zâ—cheus The repenting woman Luke 7. If therefore they professe repentance they are not to be debarred from the Lords supper Ans Put it in forme thus Those who may be changed and translated from darknesse to light in a moment and say that they repent are to be admitted to the Lords supper I assume But doggs and swine and doggish and furious persecutors who are to be debarred from the Sacraments As Erastus saith pag. 207. may be changed in a moment and say they repent Ergo those are to be admitted to the Sacraments who are not to be admitted to the Sacraments let Erastus prove the Major proposition 2. We finde no such sudden change in the Publican Zacheus or the repenting woman as Erastus seemeth to insinuate 3. Christ who knoweth the heart and can change men in a moment can at first welcome persons suddenly converted Ergo Must the stewards and dispensers of the mysteries upon a may be or a may not be reach the pearls of the Gospel to doggs and swine whom they see to be such It is a wide consequence He that bringeth his gift to the Alter may in a moment be changed Ergo He should not leave his gift at the Altar and go and first be reconciled to his brother He is presently without more adoe to offer his gift his heart is straighted in a moment if we beleeve Erastus But the rather of this that the man is in a moment changed He is to be debarred least his scandalous approaching to use the holy things of God make the work of conversion suspitious to others 4. This argument presupposeth that unvisible conversion giveth a man right in foro Ecclesiâ— in the Churches court to the seals of the Covenant and so there should be no need of externall profession at all which is absurd Erastus Shall not then idolaters and apostates be debarred as wâ— saith he deny an idolater and an apostate to be a Member of thâ— Church of Christ so we thinke the man that defendeth his wickednesse is not to be reckoned amongst the Members of the Church Anâ— as we think the former are to be banished out of the society of Christians so we think the latter are not to be suffered in that society Ans The Idolater that maketh defection and the apostate were once Members of the Church what hath made them now no Members Who should judge them and cast them out the Magistrate I answer there is no Christian Magistrate If the Church must do it here truly is all granted by Erastus that he hath disputed against in six books even this very Excommunication But if there be a Christian Magistrate what Scripture is there to warrant that he should cast out a Member out of Christs body Here is an Excommunication without precept promise or practise in the word we read that the Church of Corinth congregated together hath a command to judge and cast out a scandalous Member 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 11 12 13. out from amongst the midst of them Let Erastus say as much from the New Testament for his Magistraticall casting ouâ— 2. What reason is there by Erastus his way for casting out an idolater and a man that defendeth his owne wickednesse 1. May not God convert those suddenly as he did the thiefe on the crosse and Saul Ergo They should not be cast out 2. The Magistrate cannot more cut off those from being Members of Christs body then he can remove their faith and internall communion with Christ Now for this cause Erastus saith the Church cannot Excommunicate pag. 1. 2 Thess 3. and 4. 3. Christ and the Apostles did neither cast out Iudas nor Scribes Pharisees or Publicans out of the Church though they were worse then idolaters 4. No helps of salvation are to be denied even to idolaters and to men that defend their owne wickednesse but their remaining in the Church amongst the godly is a helpe of their salvation
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
Magistrate as Erastus and Master Prinne thinketh exclude Iudasses and knowne traitors and knowne Devills and knowne children of the Devil out of the Church this is to Erastus and Master Prinne both absurd 2. Christ did eat and drink with Iudas knowing him to be all these Ergo we may eat and drink with knowne traitors also the contrary is a truth 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 11. 2 Thess 3 14 15 Rom. 16. 17. evident enough 3. Christ preached the Gospel to those that he knew sinned against the Holy Ghost to the Pharisees who persecuted Christ to death and others Math. 12. 31 32 33 34. Ioh. 15. 22 23 24 25. Ioh. 7. 28 29. Ioh. 12. 35 36 37 38. Ioh. 10. 31 32. Ioh. 11. 47 48. and this is by the exposition of Erastus l. 3. c. 3. pag. 307. 308. and Master Prinne his vindication pag. 38 39. To give holy things to dogs so Mr. Prinne saith that by doggs and swine are meant only such infidels and heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel or harbour or entertain the preachers of it of which the text is principally intended as well as the Sacraments or of such open contemners persecutors of the Gospel and Ministers who runne upon and teare the preachers thereof trampling the pearls of the Gospel and the tenderers of them under their feet as the Text resolves in terminis Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 10 14 15. Luk. 9 5. Act. 13. 46. or open Apostates 2. Pet. 1. 2 21 22 c hence by this we may give the pearls of the Gospel to such dogs as the Pharisees for to them Christ tendred the pearle of the Gospel 4. Christ might have hindred being God equall with the Father the Pharisees and Iews to malice him Ergo he being above the Laws that he gives to us doth not in this example warrant us to cast the pearls of the Gospel to such as we know to be Iudasses Pharisees and malicious haters and heart-murtherers of Christ 2. There is not the like reason of preaching the word and dispensing the seals 1. Because the word is a converting ordinance out of question and preached to heathen and to the non-converted though they refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel and refuse to entertaine the preachers of it as is clear Act. 19. 22 23 24 25. Tit. 1. 10 11 12 13. 2 Tim. 3. 25 26 27. The Texts that Master Prinne alledgeth that the Gospel should not be preached to heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel to wit Mat. 10. 14 15. Luk. 9. 5. Act. 13. 46. are to no purpose for Mat. 10. Luk. 9. is but a Temporary Commandement given for a time that the Disciples should depart from those houses of Iudea there is nothing of the heathen But by the contrary the Apostles are forbidden to go to Samaritanes or Gentiles at all Mat. 10. 5 6. who would not receive the peace of God in the Gospel which precept the Apostles in the story of the Acts did not observe but preached the Gospel to many heathen who refused to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel As Act. 16. and 17. and 19. 2. The place Act. 13. 15. is meant of the blaspheming Iews to whom Paul preached long after they persecuted and stoned the Prophets and had killed the Lord of life Act 2. and 4. and 8. and 9. Mat. 23. 37 38. 3. Those places are to better colour of purpose brought by Arminians and Socinians to prove that the Gospel is preached to people for their good entertainment thereof and denied to others for their unworthinesse and because they will not welcome it So the Arminians in the conference at Hague pag. 87 88 89. God sendeth the Gospel not according to his absolute will sed ob alias causas in homine latentâ—s for secret causes in man Arminius against Perkins p. 199. The will of God in sending the Gospell hath causes in the will of man according to that habenti dabitur So Corvinus ad Wallachros p. 44. Socinus Comment in 1. Epist Ioh. c. 4. p. 307. saith the same and Mr. Pryn is pleased in the same sense to cite them I conceive imprudently for I beleeve that Reverend and learned man doth hate those impious Sects the Enemies of the grace of God but truly if this be a rule to Pastors to spread the Gospell that they are to offer and give the pearle of the preached Gospell to those that willingly receive it and harbour the preachers and presently to depart and preach no more the word of the Kingdom to those who refuse it as the places Mat. 10. 14. Luke 9. 5. carry that sense because they are Heathens who refuse to embrace and beleeve the Gospell and harbour the Preachers as the worthy Divine saith conceiving that to be a casting of Pearles to Dogs and Swine I see not how the Preachers spreaders of the Gospel to the Heathen are to beleeve that God out of meer grace the good pleasure of his will without respect to good or bad deserving sendeth the Gospel to some and denieth it to others 3. Though the Sacrament of the Supper be a converting Ordinance in this sense that it corroborateth faith and conversion where it was once and so applyeth the Promises to one who before beleeved yet it is not a converting ordinance that is to be administred to one dead in sins and trespasses as the word is for then at the first Sermon that ever is preached to a Heathen if he should say though for base worldly ends known to the Church that he desired to have the Sacraments we are obliged to beleeve that he sincerely desireth these Seals and instantly at the same sermon to baptise him administer the other Seal of the Lords Supper to him for how can we deny converting Ordinances to those who desire them say our adversaries 4. An ordinance that cannot be dispensed to a Heathen remaining a Heathen and to an unconverted man knowne to be an unconverted man is not an Ordinance that ought to be dispensed as the ordinance of the Word and as the first converting ordinance to so many as we may safely dispense the Word unto and if it be first a converting ordinance as the preaching of the Word is then it is to be dispensed to all those to whom we are to preach the Word But Erastus and Mr. Pryn grant we may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen and if they deny it as they yeeld it the Apostles did preach the Gospel to the Heathen remaining Heathen but they never admitted nor can we admit to the Lords Supper Heathen remaining Heathen nor could the Iewes upon the same ground admit to the Passeover the uncircumcised now then the preaching of the Word to some cannot make the Church and preachers guilty of casting pearles to Swine and of partaking of their siâ— whose hearing is not mixed with faith and yet if the Church and Ministers should admit to
1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo their being Members of the Church is not enough to admit them to the Lords Supper except they be to the Church otherwise qualified and fitted for it And this doth clearly evidence That the word of the Kingdom may ought to be Preached to many within the Church that they may be converted to whom the Supper is not to be dispensed that they may be cōverted which is enough for our point to exclude promiscuous admission of all to the Supper and to prove some other qualification must be requisite in those that come to the Supper before the Ministers without violation of the holy things of God and being guilty of not distributing aright can administer the Supper to them and this is another visible qualification then is requisite in those that hear the word For Erastus and Mr. Prynne require That all that come to the Supper be rightly instructed 2. That they promise amendment of life But they cannot say none are to be admitted to hear the word while they be qualified thus you exclude the ignorant from the Sacrament do you exclude the ignorant from hearing the word Farther I desire to be resolved why Erastus and his require any qualification at all in the one more then in the other according to their way For suppose persons Baptized be only negatively blamelesse and not visibly scandalous yet Erastus and Mr. Prynne cannot deny the Supper to such Suppose they know not whether they be as ignorant of God as Indians and suppose they promise no amendment and do positively professe no repentance at all 1. Ministers can deny no converting Ordinances to persons because ignorant for if the Supper of the Lord be a converting Ordinance it shall convert men from their ignorance and an Indian ignorant of Christ ought to be Baptized to the end that Baptisme may convert him from his ignorance Now I think our Brethren cannot say this and therefore they must yield that Ministers dare not admit all within the Church to the Seals except they would be guilty of their sin in eating to themselves damnation and yet they dare not debar the ignorant within the Church from hearing the word and so are no way compartners with them in the sin of unprofitable hearing 2. Mr. Prynne may here see some ignorants debarred from the Lords Supper yet I hope he would not be so rigid as to Excommunicate all ignorants because ignorant the most rigid Novatians would condemne that and here is sole suspension without Excommunication which Mr. Prynne saith is not to be found in all the word of God I wondred much when I read those words of the learned and reverend Master Prynne That God who bestoweth no Ordinances on men in vaine must intend in instituting the Supper that visible morall unregenerate Christians may be converted thereby as well as reall Saints be confirmed to which I reply 1. Neither word nor Sacraments nor any thing on the part of the Almighty can be intended in vaine though the end of the Ordinance be not obtained I should have expected some such divinity from the pen of Arminians and Socinians who make God to intend the salvation of all and every one in both the promises of the Gospel precepts and Sacraments and yet he falleth from this end so you may read in Arminius Anti-Perkins pag. 60. that God is disappointed in his end in both Law and Gospel and God shooting beside his mark misseth the salvation of many say the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort pag. 216. and in their confession c. 7. sect 3. and because Socinus thought it hard thus to take from God wise intentions he did no lesse then blasphemously deprive him of his omniscience So Socians contra puccium c. 10. and in prelectionib Theolog. c. 11. made all things that are contingently to come uncertaine to God But if you speak of intentio operis non operantis that the Supper in its nature is ordained this may rather be your meaning that morall men like Cicero and Seneca and Iudas and the like for all are alike in regard of the nature of the ordinances and of that which is the genuine intention not of God but of this Sacrament then you speak not of the supper as divided from the word but as the word going before the Sacrament hath converted the man and the Sacrament following doth adde to and confirme in grace So Sir you depart from the question for we grant that the Sermon going before in the same day of the celebration of the Supper may and doth convert and thus if an Indian heare a Sermon to which the celebration of the Supper is annexed if he be converted by that Sermon as you teach the heart in those is only knowne to God the Church is not to judge he may forthwith ere he be baptised come at the same time to the Lords supper which were much precipitation little speed and so the word formally converteth not the Sacrament But if you mean that the Sacrament formally as the Sacrament is of its nature a mean of converting a morall Seneca you mistake the nature of the seal very farre God never intended that food as food should give life to the dead the Supper as the Supper is spirituall food and presupposeth the eater hath life and how gate he life but by the word of God 2. Doth the Sacrament as the Sacrament humble or speak one word of the Law doth the Sacrament say any thing here but Christ died for thee O Seneca and there is a pledge of his love in dying for thee and the like it speaketh to Iudas as Master Prinne thinketh and can this convert a morall man never yet humbled for sinne But I have gone thus out of the way in this purpose I returne and desire pardon for this digression not I hope fruitlesse at this time If the Magistrate be the chiefe Church-officer how is it that the Church was without Christian Magistrates in the Apostles time then is there no exact paterne of a Christian Church what it should be de jure hath Christ in the New Testament not moulded the Church the second temple in all the dimensions of it as Moses David Solomon did by immediate inspiration shew us the measure of the first Tabernacle Sanctuary and Temple finally should Cesar suppose he had been a Christian have received imposition of hands from the Elders a◠his deputies the Ministers do and be over the Church in the Lord as King and receive accusations against Elders ordaine Elders in every Church put out and cast out the unworthy only for the iniquity of the time Ministers were forced to do these Erastus and his have not one word of Scripture for this or were the keys of the Kingdome of heaven given to Cesar and because Cesar was without the Church therefore Peter received them Matth. 16. while Cesar should be converted what Scripture have we for this for to rule the Church
as the Magistrate doth is an act of the Magistrate performed by power of the sword Whether the Magistrate do rule in his owne person or by his deputies and servants Ergo the Apostles governing the Church medled with the sword which Christ forbade Luk. 22. 25 26. Rom. 13. 4. Luk. 12. 13 14. and all the Pastors and teachers now in the exercise of discipline do usurpe the sword Yea if they be the deputies of the Magistrate in dispensing word and Sacraments they must use the Magistrates sword as Ministers of the Gospel for what servants do in the name of the supream swordbearer that the swordbearer must principally do by the servants so Ministers by this use both swords 5. That the Magistrate cannot be the chief officer of the Church is thus proved he who is subject himself to heare the Church and to submit to those that watcheth for his soul and to be put out from amongst the midst of the Church if he be scandalous is not the principall Governour and head of the Church to command all But all Christians and so the Christian Magistrate is such for if God accept not the persons of men those places Matth. 18. If he hear not the Church c. Heb. 13. 17. and 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 4 12 13. must tye the Christian Magistrate except God have excepted him but God hath no where excepted the Magistrate But as David had Gad Nathan and other Seeâ—s so the Magistrates now have some to watch for their souls The proposition is proved because if the Magistrate be supream to command Elders as Elders both in Doctrine and discipline and in all Ecclesiasticall censures then the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot be under the Elders and Ministers as such for that involveth a contradiction that Pastors as Pastors should watch over the souls of Magistrates that they erre not and oppresse not in judgement and that the Magistrate as Magistrate should be over the souls of Pastors to watch for them in the same kind if any object that the Pastors as Pastors have souls and therefore they must have some to watch for their souls and therefore can neither be supream nor excepted in those places Mat. 18. Heb. 13. 1 Cor. 5. It is answered by granting all of this or this single Pastor but not of the whole company for when they erre we know not a whole communitie over them but those of the Catholick visible Church and if they erre the Kings of the earth here may command them to do their duty under paine of bodily censure and punish them But none are above them to watch for their souls that we know but they by office watch both for their owne souls and for the souls of others even as the King governeth himselfe and the people both politically 6. Whatever power in matters of Christs Kingdome or the Government thereof the Magistrate hath that must be given of Christ who only can appoint Elders and officers over his owne house but no where in Scripture find we any such power given to the Magistrate Ergo we are to beleeve he hath not any such power The proposition is true because Christ being a perfect Lawgiver and King doth give Lawes for his owne house as particularly as Moses did for every severall pinne in the Lords Tabernacle and David and Solomon for the Temple the assumption I prove because the Government of Christs house is spirituall as the weapons of their warfare are not carnall 2 Cor. 8. 5. and it is in binding and loosing forgiving and retaining sinnes by the power of the keys of the Kingdome of God given to the Church and to such as are sent as the Father sent his Son Christ Matth. 18. 18. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21 22 c. But Magistrates as Magistrates do punish sinnes with the sword Rom. 13. 4. but not forgive sins nor binde and loose in earth or heaven nor exercise any spirituall power nor deal with the consciences of men no more then they cure the diseases of the body though indirectly and externally they take care that there be Physicians who can cure diseases The power of governing the Church is the supream power under Christ which can say to the Magistrates power We must obey God rather then men But no such supream power agreeth to the Magistrate as Magistrate For Ministers as Ambassadors of Christ can and may preach binde and loose Rebuke Excommunicate against the will of the Magistrate though he command the contrary as Prophets have rebuked Kings Jer. 1. 18. 22. 1 2. 2 Sam. 12. 7 8 9. 1 King 21. 18 19. Mark 6. 17 18. The Magistrate as the Magistrate can do none of these nor hath he power to command the Ministers of Christ by way of privation but only by way of accumulation he may command them to do their dury and to preach the Gospel soundly and forbid and punish the preaching of false Doctrine the same way Whatever power Christ hath given to his Church that the Christian Magistrate when he becomes Christian cannot take from the Church But Christ gave to the Churches of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth to the seven Churches of Asia c. a full power to dispense the word and Sacraments to govern the Churches to censure Wolves and false Teachers who draw Disciples after them in Synods to condemne perverters of Soules and refute their Doctrine to put out incestuous persons to Excommunicate such as will not hear the Church and a power to reject a Heretick after twice admonition and to rule well the Church as they should rule their own house and to rule well and to labour in the Word and Doctrine c. when they had no Magistrates at all to rule and govern them as a Church Now if the Church be a perfect visible body society house city and Kingdom of Jesus Christ in esse operari in being and all Church-operations then the Magistrate when he cometh to be Christian to help and nourish the Church as a father he cannot take away and pull the keys out of the hands of the stewards and throw the rod authority power to rule govern binde loose convene in Christs courts and Assemblies from the Church and inthrall the Church This evidenceth how falsely some say That the Church as the Church is without a Magistrate as an Army without a Commander or Leader a Ship without a Pilot a body without a head When the Church in the Apostles times wanting a Magistrate was a perfect spirituall body gathered edified attaining to the unity of faith Eph. 4. 11 12 c. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 4 5 c. Builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. Feed by their own Pastors Act. 20. 28. Sufficiently secured by Jesus Christ from Wolves 29. 30. Golden Candlesticks perfect and intire Christ walking in the midst of them and praised and commended of Christ Rev. 1. 20. 2.
Ministers of the Gospel in this Government such as it is more then in dispensing the word and Sacraments Surely except the Magistrate put his hand to the Arke without warrant in the one he cannot in the other They answer the Magistrate may limit the Pastors in preaching no lâ—sse then governing because he may command the Pastor to preach this and this and if he preach not sound Doctrine he may punish him but I answer this is no limitting of Pastors in preaching Because this the Pastors may in the name and authority of God exhort the Magistrate to execute righteous judgement Ier. 22. and if he crush the poor and needy and turne a tyrant an heretick and an apostate the Pastors may not only denounce wrath from the Lord against them but also judge them dogs and swine and not dispense to them the pearls of the Gospel yet this is not the Pastor limiting the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth limit the Pastor as his Ambassadour and Deputie though the Magistrate take care that Physitians Painters Shoomakers Professors in Academies and Vniversities doe their dutie in their calling and punish them if they therein doe amisse yet he limiteth not the painter to draw this way not this way nor hath he a negative voyce in acts of Art as he pretendeth a negative voyce in Church-discipline 2. Nor can the Pastor so command the Magistrate in the name of God to execute justice as if he become a tyrant an heretick an apostate he will not only remove him from the Throne and the Bench but he will set himselfe downe in the place of the erring Magistrate and judge righteous judgement for him or in his place for Erastus saith that the Magistrate may dispence word and Sacraments if he had time and leasure as lawfully as the Pastor and I have in another place observed that many so make the King head of the Church and the like must be said of the little heads of inferior Magistrates as of the great head as he is a mixed person partly Civill partly Ecclesiasticall and sacred that is by office Ruler and Pope 3. The Magistrate doth limit the Pastors only in positives and in punishing and inflicting Church censures as they command to censure scandalous persons in such and such scandals but in no other scandals more hainous yet in all the challenges moved by Magistrates against Pastors The Magistrate never made any challenge against Pastors or Synod for their sinfull omissions and want of zeal in not censuring drunkards adulterers hereticks court parasites who injoy many benefices and leave the flock and I give instance in the disputes of the Divines of England making the King the head of the Church court-divines accused never the Pastors that they exceeded their limits in not censuring corrupt Prelates non-residents pluralists idle and unpreaching Pastors or idol-shepherds 4. In the contests of Holland when the Synod of Frizland gave in a declinature to the Senate justifying the deposition of Poppiâ— an unsound and scandalous Minister in all contests with Arminians there the controversie was ever for positives that the Church condemned and censured hereticks never that the Church had been slack in the matter of discipline 5. In Scotland in Master Blackes declinature and when the Ministers condemned to death and then banished such as the godly and zealous servants of Christ Master Iohn Welch Master Iohn Forbes and others appealed to the assemblies of the Church for their standing for the liberties of the Church and Kingdome of Christ King Iames did never quarrell with them Thus you have not done in your Ministery and Assemblies you have not excommunicated the Marquesse of Huntly a bloody man but it was for positives Thus and thus you have done against the mind and Majestie of the King and Authority Now corrupt Pastors need as much to be limited in wicked omissions as is clear You are dumbe dogs and barke not Isai 56. 10. And the diseased ye have not strengthened neither have ye healed that which was sick c. Ezech. 34. 4. as in exorbitances in their positive zeal And this saith that Magistrates intend to intrude upon Christs liberties in this plea rather then indeed to procure that the house of God may be builded and edified or the liberty of the subject vindicated And therefore the godly ought the rather to stand for the freedom of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus which owe not this tribute to earthly Princes since Christ only is King and raigneth in his owne Church CHAP. XXIV Quest 20. Of the reprocation of the subordination of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers to each and their supremacie and independencie each from other FOr the clearing of the question I humbly offer these considerations to the Reader 1. There is subordination of the power and a subordination of the person indued with the power here to be considered 2. So is there a supremacy of power and a supremacy of the person 3. There is a foure fold judgement here considerable 1. The first is apprehensive apprehensivum and common to both Magistrate Christian Pastor and all which must be given to all to whom we can ascribe conscience 2. Discretivum the knowledge of discretion the connaturall guide and principle of every mans beliefe and obedience 3. Definitiâ—um of those that are in Authority and do command in the Lord. 4. Peremptorium et infallibile the supream judgement of the King of the Church who cannot erre The first is common to all Rom. 15. The second proper to Christians and is a judgement of faith 1 Thess 5. 2. 1 Ioh. 4. 1. and it must be builded on the first The third is the Authoritative judgement of the Church Act. 15. 28. Mat. 18. 17. and of judges and it must be swayed by the second both in the commander and the commanded The fourth is Iesus Christs only Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 4. 5. 4. It is one thing that the power of the Ministers be subject to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and another thing that the persons of the Ministers should be subject Not any office at all in their power seems to me to be subordinate to either Magistrate or Minister because all Lawfull power and Lawfull and profitable offices and Arts in abstracto are from God some of them immediately As the the gift of prophesying healing speaking with tongues working of miracles and the offices of Apostle Evangelist Pastor and Teacher Ephe. 4. 11. those be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifâ—s and graces above Nature that God without the interveening of human reason hath devised for a supernaturall end the edifying of his body the Church mens will and reason may interveen in the designation of persons to some of those offices as that Iohn Thomas qualified as 1 Tim. 3. be Pastors or teachers But if we speak of the power of the Ministery in abstracto without connotation of the persons in concerto then the power or the office it selfe is
to himselfe the Ministery in its exercise 1. Because this promise is accumulative and of a temporall reward for the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot promise that which Peter promiseth that 1. 1 Pet. 5. 4. When the chiefe shepheard shall appeare they shall receive a crowne of glory that fadeth not away he may as a Christian promise that but for a temporall reward for men no man for being faithfull in the house of God hath that unseparably annexed to his labours by a literall promise in Scripture and therefore it is onely accumulative 2. Right and sound preaching and governing in Gods house cannot from this be said to bee subjected to the Magistrate as a Magistrate in regard that this is an accidentall hire and an externall and accessorie good which the Church as the Church and the most faithfull Prophets Apostles and Pastors have wanted and yet have attained the end of a Church as a Church visible nor is this a promise made to the Church as the Church or the Ministers thereof as such for the Apostolick church that was most poor had neither thing nor name nor promise but by the contrary the Kings and Rulers did conspire against the Kingdome of the son of God VI. Assertion Though the Magistrate may both threaten to inflict and actually inflict the ill of temporall punishment on Ministers if they be either idle or unsound in their administration yet thence can onely be concluded that the male administration of the ministerie is subjected to the Magistrate as such but not the Ministery it selfe or the exercise thereof 1. The male administration of any office is accidentall to the office 2. This subjecteth the erring person not the teaching Minister to the civill Magistrate Nor doth this make the Ministers in the exercise of their office properly subordinate to the Ministers but onely so farre as the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets VII Assertion There is a twofold subordination of the exercise of Male administration of Ministers one civill another Ecclesiasticall These two differ so as the former must be subordinate to the Magistrate who is to inflict bodily punishment but the latter is onely subject to the Church The Judiciall determination according to the Word of God for the informing of the conscience and gaining to the truth the erring Ministers is proper to the Colledge of Ministers and in this if the colledge of Ministers erre they are also punishable and the Magistrate is to command them to judge and determine de novo over again The Magistrate in a constitute church is to determine civilly and sentence and civilly punish the Ministers that either are dumbe dogs and will not barke or that perverts the souls of people with false doctrine and where the Church is constituted it is presumed that the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge have determined in an Ecclesiasticall way the very same which the Iudge civilly is to determine not because the Church hath so determined but because he judgeth in his conscience it to be according to the Word of God VIII Assertion The Ministers are in no sort the Ambassadors or servants of the Magistrate but of Iesus Christ and immediately in their ministeriall acts subordinate to the King of Kings 1. They declare the truth in the Name of Christ their master and Lord not in the name of the Magistrate as the Arminians make the steps of the subordination 1. The Word of God 2. The Magistrate carrying Gods sword 3. The Preachers of the Gospell for then the Preachers should hear the word of the Magistrate first and have the minde of Christ spoken and revealed to them immediately from the magistrate but mediately onely by the mediation of the Magistrate the minde of Christ 2. There should be in every Christian Kingdome where there is a King a civill Pope having directly both the Swords not with the distinction of Iesuites of dixectly and directly and as they say the Pope hath the temporall sword indirectly and in ordine ad spiritualia in order to spirituall things and and how many inferiour Magistrates so many civill Popes onely they shall not be infallible Arminians say that this collection is from envie Because we say they deny a headship and supremacy of power of Governement to your Pastors and Elders in all your Parishes which maketh the Church a Monster with many heads therefore you put this for envy upon the Magistrate who yet hath the word of God above him which the Pope hath not who setteth himself above the Word of God Ans 1. If we give a supremacy royall and princely to the Ministers which they call Archiâ—ectonica as the adversaries doe to the Magistrate multitudes of Popes behoved to be in the Church but we make them meer Heralds Trumpeters and Messengers to relate the will of God void of all royall power and having neither earthly majesty power nor Sword 2. It is not our Argument that in which they conceive we repose to wit that we thinke the adversaries resolve all ultimatè and last which concerneth the government of the Church in the will of the Magistrate as on an infallible rule we grant they teach that the Word of God is to rule the Magistrate in the matters of the first Table and justice and equity in the things of the second Table but they say this in words onely but the Magistrate as Magistrate may mould out of his high dominion what Church government he will and this by consequent resolveth all in the Magistrates will and that they teach that when the Magistrate doth command against the Word of God then it is better to obey God then men And 2. This we infer as an absurdity that they cannot shun that there is such a new officer a new Church head a creature most like a Pope in every Christian Kingdome brought in the Church who is above Bishops Pastors Doctors who by office must carry the minde of God to Pastor and people who hath the keyes of the House to make and unmake call and send recall and exantorate ministers as his Servants and Heralds 3. Looke what power the Magistrate as a Magistrate hath in civill affaires the same hath he in dispensing Word Sacraments admitting to or rejecting from the Sacraments calling of ministers excommunicating by this way and so by office he is no lesse essentially a Pastor to watch for the soule then he is a civill Judge 4. How doth this confound the two Kingdomes the Kingdome that is of this world and fighteth with the Sword and the Kingdome that is not of this world and fighteth not with the Sword if the magistrate as the magistrate and armed with the sword be the supream Head over both and as he beareth the Sword have a carnall dominion over the Church as the Church 5. If God have made the subordination of ministers as ministers and servants of the magistrate as a magistrate then the visible Church hath no
Spirituall and Christs Kingdom must be of this world and the weapons thereof carnall to fight for Christ and the supream Church-officer as such must bear the Sword be a valiant man of warre by office and Christs Kingdome must be not of this world and the weapons thereof not carnall but spirituall Joh. 18. 36. 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. and the supream Church-officer must be no striker no fighter no man of war no sword-bearer by office which are contradictory 3. We prove the Pope to be no Vicar of Christ because we read not in the Word of any such Vicar nor do we read any thing of a supream Church-officer who is the Vicar of Christ 4. No spirituall Ambassador as such can substitute other Ambassadors with Majority of power that he hath in his Name to dispense Word Sacraments and Discipline nor can one great Ministeriall Church-head create lesser Ministeriall Church-heads such as Justices Majors Sheriffes Bailiffes Constables no more then the High Priest could substitute in his place other little High Priests if he were sick and absent to goe into the Holy of Holiest with blood once a yeere no more then the Apostle Paul immediately called of God can substitute other lesser Apostles immediately called of God to act as lesser Apostles but limited by the higher in the exercise of power nor can these lesser Apostles create other Apostles yet lesser and these in a subalternation yet lesser while you come as low as a Constable as the King doth send lesser Kings indued in part with his Royalty or Iudges under him and those Iudges may appoint other Iudges under them and because the whole visible Catholick Church hath an externall visible policy if Oecumenick councels have any warrant in the word then ought Christ to have instituted one civil Emperour over all the Churches on earth to conveen Oecumenick Synods to preside in them to limit and regulate them to make Lawes to all the world and that this is not it falleth out through mans corruption but it ought to be according to divine institution no lesse then every single Magistrate is by institution the head of every particular Church indued as our adversary say with that supream power under Christ the mediator that they call Potestas Architectonica the headship of the Church Proposi 2. The Magistrate as such is not a Vicar of Christs mediatory Kingdom 1. Because then as the Magistrates are called Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture Exod. 21. 6. Psal 82. 1 Ioh. 10. 34 35. so the Magistrates should be called little Mediators or submediators between God and man little Kings of the Church little Priests little Prophets of the Church for God giveth his name to Magistrates because he communicateth also to them some of his Majesty and power now what mediatory what Princely Priestly o◠Propheticall power hath Christ communicated to Magistrates as Magistrates Erastus saith they may dispense word and Sacraments if they had leasure But if they be by office little mediators and Pastors under Christ they should take leasure for every Magistrate ought to say woe be unto me if I preach not And Master Coleman saith that Christian Magistracy is an Ecclesiasticall administration he must speak of Christian Magistracy formally as Christian Magistracy otherwayes a Christian Tentmaker a believing fisher was an Apostle if he mean that Christian Magistracy is a Church officer formally he might say it is a Mediatory office and a Princely and Kingly office under Christ to give repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of sins instrumentally would Master Coleman teach us how the Magistrates sword openeth the eyes of the blind converteth men from the power of Sathan to God begetteth men through the Gospel to Christ as Pastors do and that formally as Magistrates we should thank him 2. Christian Magistracy if it be a Church or Ecclesiasticall administration then is it formally so either as Magistracy or as Christian not as Magistracy for then all Heathen Magistrates must formally ho◠ipso that they be Magistrates be Ecclesiasticall persons so Nero when Rome makes him Emperour they make him formally a Church-officer and invest him with power to dispence Word and Sacraments and Discipline if he might find leasure for killing of men and such businesse so to do for quod convenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where doth the Old or New Testament hold forth such an office given by Christ as a fruit of his ascension to heaven Where do the Apostles who shew us the duty of Magistrates Fathers Masters Pastors Teachers Rulers Deacons Husbands insinuate any such office If as Christian Christian Magistracy be an Ecclesiasticall office and administration Christianity 1. Is common to the Magistrate with all other professors Painters Merchants Seamen Lawyers Musitians and no more can Christianity make a heathen formally a Church-officer then it can make a Painter formally a Church-officer can faith in Christ and professing thereof make any to be formally Church-officers then must all be Church-officers that are Members of the Church for posita causa formali ponitur effectus formali◠Now Master Coleman saith The heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate is an Ecclesiasticall administration because saith he he should and ought to manage his power for Christ as the heathen and uttermost parts of the earth are given for Christs possession and inheritance and Christ hath given no liberty to a great part of the world to remaine infidels and enemies to him and his Government I suppose Christ hath all Nations given to him and all Nations ought to receive Christ though as yet actually they do not God and Nature hath made Magistrates and these Magistrates thus made God hath given to Christ But 1. The title of Christian added to Magistracy by this is superfluous and put in only ad faciendum populum for Christianity maketh no man formally a Magistrate by M. Colemans way yet saith he pag. 17. a Christian Magistrate as a Christian Magistrate is a Governour in the Church he should say by his way a Magistrate Christian as a Magistrate is a Governour not only in the Church but a Governour of the Church Arg. 2. If the Magistrate as the Magistrate be the Vicar and deputy of Christs mediatory kingdom then all and every Magistrate as Magistrate by his office is obliged under the pain of Gods wrath to command that the Gospel be preached and that men believe and obey Christ as mediator in all his dominions that so he may manage his office for Christ But the latter is utterly false and contrary to the Gospel Ergo so is the former The Major is undeniable all service that Magistrates by office do they sin before God if they do it not and so must be obliged under the pain of sin and Gods wrath to do it And therefore are obliged to command that the Gospel be preached and that men believe and obey Christ if by office they be
Christ mediator for he denieth expresly Ioh. 18. 36. that he hath such a Kingdom as Mediator or that he was instructed with the sword as Mediator Luk. 12. 13. Now as God and Creator of the world Christ could not deny but he had a Kingdom worldly and that he hath a regnum potentiae an universall Kingdom of power as Lord of Hoasts to dispose of all the Kingdoms of the world and to rule amongst the children of men and to rule over the children of men and to give them to whomsoever he will Dan. 4. 25. 8. 18. â—er 27. v. 6 7 8 9. Psal 24. 1. Psal 50. v. 12. Nor is this Kingdom and Power given to Christ nor is he made Prince and a King as God but as Mediator to give repentance to the House of Israel and forgivenesse of sins Act. 5. 31. I grant it is said Phil. 2. 9. God hath highly exalted Christ and given him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and of things in earth and things under the earth What doth not this say the adversaries comprehend a royall power given to Christ and hath not Christ from this power to substitute Magistrates in his place as his vicars under him and as little mediators I answer it doth in no sort follow for that is a spirituall power as is clear Rom. 14. v. 9. For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived that he might be Lord both of dead and living v. 11. For it is written as I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confesse God So it is clearly expounded of Christs exalting at the right hand of God Act. 5. 31. for spirituall and supernaturall ends I grant as Mediator and King he breaketh his enemies Devils and men Psal 2. 9. With a rod of yron and dasheth them in pieces like a potters vessel and maketh his enemies his footstool Psal 110. 1. But that is no carnall power such as earthly Kings useth it is a spirituall power for the reason is given ver 2. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Sion By which v. 5. as a great Anti-royalist He strikes through Kings in the day of his wrath Now Christ as Mediator sendeth not out Kings and Princes to conquer souls to him with their sword Renowned Salmasius saith When Christ sent his Apostles first to preach the Gospel and to lay the foundation of the Christian Church did he send out with them lictors pursevants men of war with a bundell of rods and with axes to compell men to come in to his Kingdome Commanded he to smite them with swords and axes who would not receive the Gospel No yea he would not have them to take with them a staffe a scrip or shoes But though Christ subdue all his enemies Devils and wicked men it shall never follow that Christ is for that King and head of Devils and wicked men For Christ is as Mediator King and Head or mediatory King and Head of those that are the subjects and redeemed conquest of this King and of those who are members of the body of which he is Head now this body is his Church only Col. 1. 18. He is the Head of the Body the Church Eph. 1. 22 23. And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Which is his Body the fulnesse of him that filleth all The Body of Christ to be edified Ephesi 4 12. Till we all all that body of the Saints to be perfected v. 11. come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ v. 16. from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the edifying of it selfe in love Now never Divine can say that Devils and wicked men who shall bow to Iesus are the subjects of this Kingdom of Christ who have right to the fruits of the Kingdom Righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. far lesse that they are of the Body that is Christs Body Christs fulnesse Christs Body to be perfected edified to Come in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect man c. Arg. 6. These Megistrates that are the mediatory vicars deputies and heads of the Head Iesus Christ and his Kingdom these are of his Body and subjects under the King and Mediator Christ the chiefe Head and King For it is not to be presumed that Christ will appoint these to be heads and vicars of his Body and little Kings over his Kingdom as he is Mediator who are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom But Magistrates as Magistrates are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom no more then Husbands as Husbands Fathers as Fathers are members and their should have been Husbands and Fathers though the Lord Iesus never had been Mediator advocate and Priest of a redeemed Church Obj. But are Pastors and teachers and Elders as such members of the Christian Church Ans If eyes and ears be members of the body and watchmen members of the city then are they ex officio by their office members of the Church But if the Magistrate as a Magistrate be a member of the Church then all Magistrates Heathen and Turkish are members of the Christian Church ex officio by vertue of their office Arg. 7. That opinion is not to be holden which layeth ground that Christ Mediator is a temporary King hath under him Magistrates even heathenish who have nothing to do with a Mediator to bear a temporall sword for a supernaturall and spirituall end as Christâ— under heires he himselfe being the first heir of all such and so maketh heathens within the verge of the mediatory Kingdom as if Christ were as Mediator a King to Heathen and all and every one of mankind who must have Magistrates and so maketh the Kingdome of men as men and the Kingdom of Grace commensurable and of alike latitude and extension and maketh nature and grace of equall comprehension But such is the former opinion the proposition cannot be denied except by Arminians Socinians Papists who do maintain an universall redemption a grace universall a Catholick Kingdom of Grace comprehensive of all and every man of Pharoah Evil merodach Belshazer all the Kings of Romans Persians Assyrians Chaldeans and of Turk India and such as worship the Sunne and Moon the Devil and the work of mens hands The assumption is granted by Master Coleman who saith Christ is the rightfull King of the whole earth he meaneth Christ as Mediator to whom the Father hath given a Kingdom Obj. Doth not Christ as King make all
to the power civil that is of God If the Magistracy be an Ecclesiastical ordinance and a vicegerent power of the mediator as they say it is then to be subject to the Magistrate is to be subject to this Church power and to be subject to the Church 2. The punishing power of the Magistrate as such doth not bind and loose on Earth and open and shut Heaven for then hoc ipso because the Magistrate doth judge and punish evil doers the mans sin should be bound in Heaven now so the judging and punishing power should take hold of the conscience But it is certain the Magistrate as judge may take away the life of a Capital Delinquent when he knoweth the man repenteth and believeth and findeth mercy with God Ergo this magistratical power is not Ecclesiastical for if the man to the knowledge of all repent the Church hath no power to bind his sin on Earth nor will God bind his sin in Heaven but yet the Magistrate as a Magistrate is to punish Ergo this punishing power is no Ecelesiastical power nor any part of Church-government 3. The punitive power of the Magistrate hath influence on men as ill-doers whether they be within the Church or without the Church and worketh on men as Members of the Common wealth whether Christians or Heathens Indians or Americans But no punitive power of the Church is or can be extended to those that are without the Church but Pastors and the Church leaveth them to be judged of God 1 Cor. 5. 12. nor can they be cast out of the visible Church who were never within it 4. The punitive power of the Church as such floweth from Christ as Mediator Head and King of the Church because Christ as Head and Mediator hath appointed a shepheards staffe discipline or rebukes Church-censures and Excommunication for his sheep his redeemed ones family and people for whom he is Mediator his Scepter and Rod must be congruously and sutably proportioned to his Crown and spiritual Royal power But the punitive power of Magistrates floweth from God the Creator as the whole world is the family of God so for the preservation of humane society the Lord hath been pleased to appoint Magistrates and the punitive power of them by the sword to correct ill-doers for the peace good and safety of humane societies 5. All punitive Church-power is for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. That the mans spirit may be savdd in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. that the party may be gained by private and publike Church rebukes Mat. 18. 15. If he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother v. 18. If he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen c. Ergo if he hear the Church his soul is gained 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 1 Tim. 1. 19. but the intrinsecal end of punishing an evil doer is not the gaining of his soul but a political civil satisfaction of justice for a wrong done to humane society that others may fear and do so no more the Magistrate in using his sword as a Magistrate looketh not to this as the intrinsecall end of the sword to convert a soul to augment the number of the subjects of Christs mediatory Kingdom nor doth he as a Magistrate proportion the measure of the stroke of the sword according to the repentance aud godly sorrow of the man who hath sinned but in justice his eye is not to pity or spare the blasphemer though as dear to him as a father and friend Deut. 13. 6 8 9. 10. Deut. 33. 9. whether he repent or not repent but the Church censure respecting intrinsecally the gaining of the soul is proportioned to the offenders sorrow for his sin that he be not swallowed with over much sorrow 2 Cor. 2. 7 8 9 10. 6. This punitive part of Church Government is neither in name nor in thing in Scripture Triglandius denieth that there is any Ecclesiastical co-active or compulsive power properly so called in the Church there is no violence used by Christ as King of his Church this shepheard carrieth the Lambs in his bosome Isai 40. 11. Hyeronimus said well The King or Magistrate ruleth over men that are unwilling he meaneth in punishing them but the Pastor doth it to men that are willing And renowned Salmasius citing this addeth that of the Apostle Peter to the Elders Feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not pena a proper punishment that the Church doth inflict nor doth the Scripture speak so nor is the thing it self punishment or any punitive power here indeed all co-active power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate and all punishment issuing from it is against the will of the punished and is inflicted with the dominion of the sword we know how the Adversarie side here with Papists who make all Church censures to be pennances inflicted upon penitents against their will Therefore saith Salmasius Of old censures were so voluntary that to deny them was a punishment and they were desired and sought as a Benefit as the ancient Canons of Councels and Canonick Epistles and writings of Fathers bear witnesse and this doth prove if Iesus Christ have a willing people Psal 110. and if rebukes and censures be to the Saints as medicine that will not break the head Psal 141. 5. no medicine is received unwillingly by wise men and no medicine is a punishment then the punitive power of the Magistrate hath no place in the Church as the Church 7. The Magistrate dispenseth no Ecclesiasticall censures as a Magistrate For 1. He rebuketh not as a Magistrate for rebukes as rebukes intrinsecally tend to the gaining of the soul so as to receive rebukes willingly is a Character of a child of God and to hate it a signe of a wicked man Ecclesi 7. 5. Prov. 28. 23. and 6. 23. and 1. 23. c. 13. 18. c. 15. 5. 10. 31. 32. Prov. 5. 12. and 10. 17. and 15. 10. and 9. 8. and 13. 1. so the sword cannot inflict this censure nor can the Magistrate cast out of the Synagogue or Church he can banish which is a locall casting out but not excommunicate if he be said to be an Ecclesiasticall person exercising punitive power in the Church because he judgeth and punisheth sins against the Church 1. This is nothing except he inflict spirituall punishment of rebuking and excommunication which he cannot do because he hath not to do with the conscience or the converting of a sinner 2. If he be a Church-governour because he punisheth sins against the Church but in so far as they disturb the Peace of the State then Pastors may be civil Governours and use the sword which Christ forbiddeth Luk. 22. 26 27. and 12. 13 14. because they inflict spirituall punishment such as publike rebukes on murtherers parricides but in a spirituall way to gain souls to Iesus Christ and they rebuke murthers thefts thought not as committed against the State and Peace of
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
not from the Magistaate their internal and external power of governing the Churches Josias Simlerus professor Tigurinus comment in Exod. 20. in Mand. 5. Magistratuum officium est tollere idola vi et armis concionaâ—orum vero ut errorâ—m ostendant Idololatriam damnent verbi gladiâ— jugulent et Magistratum sui officij admoneant in rebus exteruis tollendis ut Can. 15 Concil Carthagi 5. Lavater in Ezech. c. 44. Dominus dicit repellendâ—s a ministerio incircumcisos carne hoc est indulgentes libidinibus et incircumcisos corde hoc est imbutos pravis opinionibus collige quanta cura et diligentia requiratur a sacerdotibus conformiter enim custodibus Lavater in Ezech. 22. 26. reprehendit in sacerdotibus quod sancta sua violarint non enim tractarint quemadmodum ipse instituerat Nam in templo prostabant Idola sacrificia non legitime offerebantur an non hodie Sacramenta ab adulteris ebriosis et aleatoribus admistrantur Idem in Ezech. 23. 38. et quum immolassent filios idolis Si adultera de adulteri stratis surgens rectâ ad maritum suum veniat et amorem coniugalem simulet judicium est magnae impudentiae redeuntes a valle Hinnon et cultu daemonum tanquam re bene gesta cruentis manibus templum ingrediebantur citra conscientiam oraturi Ioan. Wolphius in Nehemiam ait c. 2. v. 20. aedificatores Ecclesiae nihil agere debere quam quod in mandatis divinitus datum sit Idem in Ezram c. 10. hoc enim exemplo V. T. discimus quae facto opus sit in N. T. nempe ut crebris synodis in vitam in doctrinam et mores in vocationem Ecclesiastorum inspiciatur Hence it is clear that Simler Lavater and Wolphius do clearly 1. Difference between the two powers of the Sword and Church 2. That the Priests in the Old and Ministers in the New Testament are not to prophane holy things 3. That by Assemblies and Synods Church-censures are to be dispensed Yea even Robert Burhillus de primatu Regio contra Becanum Iesuitam c. 10. sed neque in exteriore jurisdictione aut excommunicationis aut ordinationis potestatem regi facimus aut cultus divini novas formulas procudendi aut dispensandi adde quod nec â—â—s â—itribuimus leges suâ solius authoritate ferendi quae canonum Ecclesiasticorum vim obtinâ—ant The mind of D. Pareus and P. Martyr may be known by what is said and is cleared in that learned dissertation of Iac. Trig. Nor shall I need to burden the Reader with citations of Fathers Greek and Latine Doctors Councels with all our Protestant Divines Luther Calvin Beza Farel Marlorat Piscator Sibrandas Iunius Gomaras Trelcatius Bucanus c. which were easie to do if not needlesse and acknowledged by the Adversary I have also in answering Erastus I hope answered all that Mr. Prinne hath said either in his questions or vindication because most of all he hath I speak it not to diminish or detract from the learning of that reverend man â—â—r â—â—sse to irritate is fully to be seen in Erastus so that in answering Erastus I hope that ingenuous zealous and learned Divine will Acquiesce The Lord establish Ierusalem and make her a peaceable habitation FINIS AN INTRODVCTION To the Doctrine of Scandal Whether or no things indifferent can be commanded because indifferent WHat ever things are commanded under the tenor of things indifferent and yet are not indifferent are not lawful nor can be in reason commanded for so should they be of their nature both indifferent and not indifferent But humane Ceremonies are sush Ergo they are not lawful Indifferent things Basilius calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Laertius and Gellius saith the same of them Things indifferent cannot be good but essentially neither good nor ill and if they be not good they cannot be apt to edifie and so fall not within the compasse of things which can be commanded by Rulers There is a twofold matter of a Church constitution the one remote the other nearer The remote matter of Church constitutions are things indifferent to wit mens actions and the circumstances thereof and so they are the matter of Gods Laws for all our actions Physically considered to know believe will love joy fear speak walk laugh c are indifferent in themselves but God in the Law of Natuâ—â— and his positivâ— Divâ—â—â— Law â—â—th 〈…〉 dâ—â—â—â—m â—â—â—d 〈…〉 i◠〈…〉 put â—is d 〈…〉 â—â—gal upon thâ—◠〈…〉 aâ— it is such can be the nearest matter of any Church-constitution No wise man would say that the Church might make a Law that all should cast stones in the water yet God might make a Law thereof For what actions hath no good nor lawfulnesse nor aptitude to edisie in themselves these thâ— will of man can never make good lawful and apt to edifie because onely God whose will is the prime rule of all goodnesse can create moral goodnes in actions not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge is only good because God hath so appointed in his Law and to eat of the fruit of that tree had been as lawful and just as not to â—aâ—â— if God had commanded eating thereof under â—râ—mises and threatnings 6. Hence â—â— followeth that all actions and circumstances of their nature indifferent must lose that indifferency and receive from God some goodnesse and aptnesse to edifie before they can be the reasonable and nearest matter of any Civil or Ecclesiastical constitution because what rulers can in Law and reason command that they must will as good and apt to edifie before they can bind others to will it But neither the will of a ruler nor the will of any other can lawfully will a thing indifferent as it is such for a thing indifferent as it is such is neither good nor evil and the object of the will is alwayes good 3. Rulers commandeth as Gods Ministers for our good Rom. 13. 4. Ergo the means and actions injoyned for the compassing of this end must be good for if the end be good the means as the means must be good Ergo they cannot be indifferent Things indifferent cannot be enacted as a Lâ—w except they were indifferent to all to both weak and wilful for remaining evil to some they are scandalous and cannot be commanded except rulers would command sinful actions The Apostles would make no Laws at all of things indifferent except in the case of scandal neither can our Ceremonies be indifferent 1. Because they are sacred mystical signes teaching us some duties to God 2. They are worship and means tending to the honour of God and being used for the honour of an Idol as they are used by us they should be the religious honour of an Idol 3. They are pretended to be means apt to edifie Ergo They are not in their use indifferent 4. The use of Ceremonies are Moral actions of man not warranted
is not now an ordinance of God necessarie if any burne Incense to it these who are by authoritie obliedged to remove it and doth not remove it they doe morally and culpably scandalize Hence we see it is foolish and vaine that some say such as Hooker D. Forbes D. Sanderson and Lyndesay pretended Bishop of Edinburge and Mr. Paybodie That as Rome and Corinth the Church had not past her determination upon eating and not eating nor made any Church lawes upon these things indifferent and therefore to eat or not to eat were matters of every private mans choise But it is not the like case with our Ceremonies for they remaine no longer indifferent but are necessarie to us after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them and so the scandall that ariseth from our dutie of obedience to lawfull authoritie is taken and not given I answer it is most false that eating and not eating in case of scandall was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co rinth For these most indifferent acts in their use and cloathed with their Circumstances when where and before what persons were under the unalterable law of nature as destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died a law which as the course of conformitie saith well cannot be dispenced with by no power but Gods And Paul proveth by stronger arguments to eat in the case of Scandall was not indifferent but simply evill Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments as we have seen that it fighteth against Charitie v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died and so murther 3. Contrary to Christs love who died for that weake brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Libertie to be evill spoken of v. 6. c. It is a sham then to say that eating or not eating was indifferent because free from any ty of a Church Canon seeing eating before a weake brother is under the ty of unanswerable Arguments taken from the law of nature and Gods Canons written in the heart forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathema and curse heavier then the Church anathema that we should for meat destroy him for whom Christ died and so are the Canon-makers and Lords of Ceremonies under a curse if they for crossing kneeling surplice destroy him for whom Christ died or command him to be destroyed by the practice of Ceremonies 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these Notwithstanding the eating of meates which some suppose to be forbidden by Gods law be a killing of him for whom Christ died and against Charity and a reproaching of our Christian liberâ—ie yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us the Prelates of Rome and Corinth to command eating of such meats before weake ones for whom Christ died But certainly Paul would never have commandâ—d in a Canon that which he writeth in Canonicall Scripture to be a murthering of him for whom Christ died and that which he would not practise himself to the worlds end so long as it standeth in the case of indifferencie as he saith of eating of fleshes conceived by some weake ones to be against Gods law 1 Cor. 8. v. last The Pope himselfe would nor dare in conscience to practise any of his owne Canons even though they were yet not Canonically commanded or forbidden Paul would not dare to put a law upon the Romans or Corinthians to eat or not to eat meats before the weake but commandeth not eating in the case of scandall 4. Idolatrie is ever idolatrie saith the course of conformitie and so scandall being sinne it cannot cease to be sinne because superiours commandeth it 5. Though Apostolick authoritie being meerly divine should command that which is in it self murther and was â—urther before it be Canonically commanded which I think also is a false hypothesis yet it shall never follow that humane authoritie or Ecclesiastick authoritie can command scandall which is spirituall murther For if Ecclesiastick authoritie may command murther they may command idolatrie for active scandalizing is as essentially murthering of one for whom Christ died as to worship an idoll is essentially idolatrie Therefore Master Sydserfe pretended Bishop of Gallâ—way being straited with this argument sayd Though humane authoritie cannot invert the nature of things or make spirituall murther to be no murther yet they can by a Church Canon put the mindes of people in such a change as now they are not in the hazard to be justly scandalized for a scandall sayd the Prelate is ens rationis no reall thing but a fiction of reason the nature of it being in the apprehension of the ignorant and blind who are scandalized and a law may remove this ignorance when it giveth light and sheweth the expediencie of things indifferent To which I answered you may call idolatrie if you please and all sinnes fictions of reason but not only doth scandall given proceed from ignorance and blindnesse of the apprehension of the partie scandalized but also from the unseasonable practising of a thing which is no wayes necessarie in the worship of God The course of confirmitie saith well He that denieth that there is any scandall is like one who could not see the wood for the trees the walking of Diogenes is meetest for a Zeno who against all reason denyeth that there is any motion We may hence judge what to say of D. Forbes his Answer to the place 1 Cor. 9. Who saith that Paul was under no Ecclesiasticall law not to take wages and therefore in not taking wages he was not a contemner of Ecclesiasticall authoritie but we are under a Church law to practise the Ceremonies and yet we refuse them I answer If then the Church of Corinth had commanded Paul in their Canons to take stipend for preaching he was obliedged to take stipend yet he proveth that it was not lawfull for him as the case of scandall then stood to take wages v. 18. he should abuse his power in the Gospell and v. 19. 20 21. he should not have becommed all things to all men to save some and these things had been sinfully scandalous if as the case was then Paul for a penny of wages which he might have wanted having no familie to provide for should have layd a stumling block before many And the Doctor â—aith No humane power can compell a man to doe that which he cannot doe except inevitably he give scandall The Doctor addeth The Apostle teacheth not that to take stipend was unlawfull or of it selfe scandalous yea he taught it was lawfull and that they should not be scandalized thereat because Christ hath ordained that he who serveth at the altar should live upon the Altar but you teach that the Ceremonies are unlawfull I Answer 1. In this argument of Scandall we
for it is against the petitions that we are taught to pray Hallowed be thy name Thy kingdome come Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven They love not the comming and enlargement of Christs kingdome who doe not what they can to hinder sinne farre lesse is Gods honour their care who doe that unnecessarily by which any may fall in sin 7. It is against the gentlenesse required in Preachers and by proportion required in all who are with patience to wait upon these who oppose the truth if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25. 8. It is contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles who as the learned Parker saith eschewed the active scandalizing of the malitious Christ payed tribute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest we should scandalize the malitious Pharisees for it could not but of malice be taken by Pharisees who sought nothing more then to bring Christ within the compasse of dislâ—yaltie to Caesar Quest VI. A further consideration of things not necessary and how they be scandalous objects 1. Dist SOme things are necessarie physically as to eat flesh and some things are necessarie morally either because of a law of nature or a positive or divine command 2. Dist The same way Some things are not necessarie physically and that either simply as wee may live simply without some rare meats that our Land and soyle doth not afford or in some respect only as without such and such flesh forbidden by the law of God Or things are not necessary Morally or Theologically as to eat forbidden-meats befor a weake Jew 3. Dist Some things Physically necessarie as to eat fleshes being apt to nourish my body may be Morally or Theologically not necessarie being stambling blocks to my weak brother 4. Dist Some things may be necessarie in specie and that morally as to heare the Word to Pray But in individuo clothed with such and such circumstances may be not necessarie as to goe to heare the Word when my brothers house is on fire that hearing is not necessarie but may be scandalous and the like we may say of praying in the streets 5. Dist Some things may be necessarie Physically in private as to eat for health some fleshes which publickly before weake Jews as the case was Rom. 14. is Morally not necessarie but scandalous 6. Distinct Some things are not necessarie because of the mere positive will of God As the temple of Baal and therefore was to be â—estroyed not for the abuse of it for a house has alwayes some necessary use to man now in the state of sin And of this kind were the cattell of the Amalakites which were as necessarie of themselves for food and sacrifice as other cattell and the Babylonish garment and wedge of Gold to which Achan's slimie hands did cleave and therefore ehey were not necessarie but to be abstained from by Saul and the Israelites because of the sole positive command of God Other things are not necessarie both because God forbiddeth them and because of the scandal and sinfull consequences that are possible to fall out as for Gods people to marry with â—he idolaâ—rouâ— Canaanites was not necessarie both because Gods forbidden will made it not necessarie morally and also because they might draw away Gods people to serve their Gods which was a feaâ—able and a very possible snare thought some idolatresses being married to the Jews might have been drawne from their idolatrie and gained to the faith of the God of Israel 1. Concl. Monuments or instruments of idolatrie are of two sorts either such things as have no other use at all but to contribute sorne subservient influence in or unto idolatrous worship and because these have all their warrant from a meere commandement of man they are simply not necessarie as the graven image the idols themselves all positive observances in Gods worship destitute of any command of God and the use of these in any case must be scandalous and so unlawfull because if the Brazen Serpent now losing its primitive divine effect which was to cure the stinged people if it be but the passive object of robbing God of his glorie in that Incense is burnt to it have no use at all but to be as it were a robbers Den to receive the stolne-away glory of God it must be abolished It is true things necessary abused in regard of our corruption are to be purged and restored to their own use but if they be uselesse and of themselves have no fruite but only that they are fit to be abused as useless pittes by the way side and the Brazen Serpent and a Razor put in the hand of a childe and images they are to be removed both subject and accident for that they be uncapable of purgation therefore they are capable only of abolition It is not enough to say that wee may devise a good use for them as we may use Images to put us in remembrance of God for we may never devise the use of a thing not necessarie in Religion when as we cannot devise the thing it selfe But here we cannot devise the thing it selfe Yea if the thing it selfe be good and lawfully usefull As the eating of flesh yet if it be lesse necessary for the life then the edification of my brother The Apostles excellent rule Rom. 14. v. 15. must stand as a law discharging my eating No man for this or this mâ—at which is lesse necessarie ought to hinder the salvation of his brother which is more necessarie by destroying his brother for meat For cleare it is this or that meat without which I may live is of faâ—re lesse necessitie comparatively then the salvation of one for whom Christ died True it is also if my brother be scandalized and so his soule in hazard if I eat any at all in that case the scandall is meerly passive for though my brothers salvation be of greater consequent and necessitie then my temporal life yet my totall abstinence from meat is a killing of my selfe and heynous murther and so forbidden in the sixt Commandement and so a destroying of my own soule And eating for conscience sake is necessarie though eating of this or this meat be not necessary But there be other things that are instruments of idolatrie and subservient thereunto in a Common and Physicall influence as a Temple builded to the honour of a Saint and for the adoring of Images and for the reading and opening the word of God in the New and old Testament though in a corrupt way these are not properly monuments of Idolatrie Now the house or Church as such is no monument nor uselesse instrument in worship such as is a Surplice a humane holy day for it hath as such being a thing of walls and timber no other then that very same physicall influence in worshipping either the true God or a Saint that it hath in
171 172 106. 19 20 152 153 115 8 159 160 119. 105 9 Proverbs Ch. Ver. Page 2. 9 9 104 4. 11 ibid. 12 6 23 ibid. Isaiah Ch. Ver. Page 22. 2â— 14 15 61â— 31. 3 156 158 â—â— 18 129 130 157 158 164 165 153 15â— 6. â—â— â— 155 49. 23 547 572 573 52. 11 136 Jeremiah Ch. Ver. Page 2. 27 158 159 173 5. 31 387 7. 8 9 246 272 10. 8 129 158 159 26. 7 9 10 387 424 425 22. 2 3 388 389 Ezekiel Ch. Ver. Page 3. 13 19 252 14. 15 24â— 22. 25 26 247 347 34â— 23. 39 452 453 496 34. 1 533 40. 41 42 28 44. 8 c. 244 245 194 Daniel Ch. Ver. Page 3. 18 147 148 17â— Hosea 6. 6 449 450 451 8. 6 103 104 13. 2 ibid. Habbakuk Ch. Ver. Page 2. 18 19 129 154 Haggai 2. 11 12 272 347 348 387 Zechariah Ch. Ver. Page 3. 7 4â—9 Malachi Ch. Ver. Page â— 2 7 572 583 Matthew Ch. Ver. Page 5. 23 448 450 458 459 â— 6 254 255 476 638 477 478 15. 14 15 103 104 137 138 139 16. 17 18 19 4â—â— 14 15 16. 19 308 309 310 311 235 236 295 10. 5 6 10 518 519 12. 5 6 51 18. 15 16 17 18 19 20 290 291 292 293 294 c 476 477 478 479 480 222 223 224 225 226 127 128 129 465 466 467 396 397 611 612 635 636 637 638 23. 3 19 28. 18 19 393 396 397 Mark Ch. Ver. Page 7. 6 7 8 9 137 138 139 Luke Ch. Ver. Page â— 1 2 3 361 12. 13 14 428 602 603 392 393 17. 3 223 224 297 298 22. 21 197 198 ib. 24 428 602 603 ib. 26 617 John Ch. Ver. Page 9. 22 464 465 466 467 15. 22 606 607 18. 31 36 â—25 426 421 422 510 511 603 20. 23 235 236 293 â—â—â—s Ch. Ver. Page 4. 1 20 558 5. 31 612 6. 6 12 7. 1 2 51 52 426 427 10. 15 67 68 14. 11 12 13 146 147 148 15. 22 23 24 25 8 45 251 25â— 581 586 92 2â—2 17. 29 30 162 155 158 159 162 168 170 20. 28 29 431 533. 534 569 25. 6 7 8 9 10 587 588 589 26. 10 427 428 Roâ—ans Ch. Ver. Page 12. 8 433 13. 4 â—06 407 b. 4 5 541 â—16 217 534 547 549 630 631 14. 14 20 8 1 b. 14 23 110 111 112 113 14 Introduction to Scandal 16. 17 249 269 356 336 337 â— Corinth Ch. Ver. Page 5. 1 2 3 â— 5 6 7 â— 9 10 11 12 238 239 240 250 255 256 268 269 317 318 319 320 c. 337 338 339 340 341 34â— 344 345 5. 1 2 3 c. 346 347 356 366 367 374 375 376 380 381 382 431 43â— 436 636 637 638 6. 1 2 3 â— 299 210 9. 15 16 17 18 19 â—râ—â—â—ise of 〈…〉 39 40 41 〈…〉 45. 10. 27 28 Of Scand 3. 11. 29 30 346 347 10. 1 2 3 4 5 276 277 278 11. 27 28 278 279 280 458 459 14. 31 385 386 16. 22 372 373 2 Corinth Ch. Ver. Page 2. 6 221 7. 17 281 282 10. 4 5 393 406 603 604 12. 20 21 333 334 Galath Ch. Ver. Page 1. 8 57 58 4. 6 430 5. 12 336 337 5. 11 12 353 373 374 416 Ephesians Ch. Ver. Page 4. 11 12 13 24 44 393 431 508 609 610 619 620 5. 21 22 24 Philip. Ch. Ver. Page 1. 15 c. 460 462 2. 9 612 613 Colâ—ssians Ch. Ver. Page 1. 17 18 14 â—b 18 586 587 613 2 Thessal Ch. Ver. Page 3. 14 15 250 256 258 259 360 36â— 378 56â— 1 Tim. Ch. Ver. Page 1. 19 20 354 355 2. 2 543 552 573 4. 4 65 66 5. 17 432 434 534 5. 19 20 222 223 6. 3 4 5 378 379 2 Tim. Ch. Ver. Page 2. 15 253 547 5. 21 11 Titus Ch. Ver. Page 1. 10 533 3. 10 378 379 Hebrews Ch. Ver. Page 3 1 2 3 26 5. 4 253 391 39â— 61â— 8. 2 3 48 49 8. 5 26 27 9. 8 129 13. 7 13 628 ib. 17. 533 560 57 571 5â—3 1 Pet. Ch. Ver. Page 2. 13 c 609 610 ib. 2â— 202 5. 1 2 3 534 5. 4 552 1 Johnâ— Ch. Ver. Page 4. 1 587 2 John Ch. Ver. Page 2 Ioh. 10 358 Revelat. Ch. Ver. Page 2. 14 c. 9 ib. 14 20 250 251 ib. 22 245 246 19. 10 167 168 ERRATA PAge â—â— Lâ—â—â—â—4 for puring read â—â—rim p. 37. read â—ullis in Marg. p. 46. l. â—8 for Nor â— But p. 50 l. 10. â— patrons p. 51. l. 1â— 1. Answered p. 96. r a Dâ—o in marg p. 1â—7 l. 5. for rellgiously r. religious p. 121. l. 1. for antecedent r. assumption p. 139. l. â—0 delenor p. â—â—6 l 24 for 37. r. â—â— p. 210 l. â— dele then they are bouâ—â— to beleeve and obey me p. â—13 l 22. for arâ— r. â—â— p 227. l 10. for oâ—â— are p. 267. l. 2 for 5 â—0 â— 108. p 274. l. â—â— dele is p. 289. l. 34. for 99 r. 8 â— p. â—86 l. 8. adde be p 399. l. 6. r. 19 p. 521. l. 1. for 5. r. 7 p. 53â— l. 2. for â— â—â— r. 13. â— p. 533. l. 14. for haâ—â— dominion r. hath no dominion p. 537. l. 23. â— reciprocation p. 548. l. 8. dele not l. 3â— dele â— Tim. 5 17. Matth. 10. 10. p. 571. l. 26. for Walens p. 588. l. 34. for of life and death r. in a matter of religion p 63â— l. 2â— r. rebuke In Treatist of Scandal p. 15. l. â—9 for â—â—andalously r. causelesly p. 2â— l 3. â— also p. 78. l. 24. for to eat r. not to eat The Introduction SECTION I. Certain Introductory Conclusions tending to clear the perfection of the Scriptures in all things as well Ceremoniall as Non-Ceremoniall 1. Conclusion CHrist Jesus hath so far forth set down and stablished a perfect Plat-forme of Church-Government in all Morals not only both for the inward but also for the outward and externall Government of his House that he hath left no Liberty or Latitude to Magistrates or Churches whatsoever to choose and settle such an orderly Forme of Church-Government or Discipline as is most suitable to their particular Civill-Government Laws Manners and Customes so this Forme be not repugnant to the Word of God I shall first explaine the Tearmes of the Conclusion 2. Confirme it 3. Vindicate it from the objections of Adversaries 1. The Church-Government of which I here speak is a Church-Government in its Morals To exclude those things that are meerly Physicall and Humane in this Government as a Pulpit of this or that matter Stone or Timber or of this Timber or of any other kinde a Communion-Table of this or that forme a Cup of wood or of metall as Silver Tin c. It is a Morall thing either Morally good or evil that there be an Officer in the Church that Christ hath not appointed or that there be none but such as Christ hath
appointed yet is it not Morall that a Pastor be such or such a Country man so he be apt to teach and holy Crossing signifying the dedication of the Baptized Childe to the service of Christ must be Morall but what sort of River the â—â—ter of Baptisme be is meerly Physicall not Morall So there be two sort of things in Gods Worship things either meerly Morall or meerly Naturall And here also we consider things Circumstantiall as Time Place c. And circumstances are either meerly Physicall or 2. meerly Morall or 3. mixt partly Morall partly Physicall Circumstances meerly Physicall are such adjuncts of divine worship as are common and unseparable concomitants of both civil naturall and Religious or Sacred actions performed by men and as they are such contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the action or Agent in the performance thereof such as I take to be the seven individuall proprieties of every man Forma figura locus tempus strips patria nomen under Forme and figure The first two I comprehend such a proportion of body a man of a high stature or low a man beautifull or not beautifull to which I crave leave to reduce all externall Formes of habites as cloathes the head covered or not covered the situation of the body as as they are in themselves meer Physicall acts kneeling sitting standing the eyes cast down to the earth or lifted up the hands lifted up or not lifted up the knocking on the breast or not knocking motions of the soul that are naturall Time Place Family Country Name as such a person Thomas not Iohn the son of such a man not of such a man 1. All these are common concomitants of Civill Naturall and Religious actions for all actions performed by man of what kinde soever as naturall to eat sleep or civill to declaime an oration before the people or religious to preach or pray must be done by some persons Iohn or Thomas men of some Family in some time in some place for they are not actions eternall and so must be done in time and place so the Agents must have some habite some gesture in the doing of all these actions and they are unseparable Adjuncts of all these actions because neither actions naturall civill nor Religious can be performed but by some persons in some habite and gesture in some time in some place and lastly they are meere circumstantials and contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the actions as they are but common and unseparable circumstances for because he preacheth in time or in place simply the preaching is neither Morally good nor ill better or worse because Thomas prayeth in Gown or Cloak in this place rather then that place so it be not Locus ut sic of intention such a Religious place before the Image of Christ or the Father or the Virgin Mary the praying is neither the more or the lesse acceptable to God because of these common and unseparable adjuncts Hence there can be no such force in these circumstances as to make the actions indifferent Such as contend for the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies say our circumstances of time place and the like is nothing but a meerblinde for we cannot say they enumerate all these circumstances for habite gesture person are not meer circumstances and they mustcome in under the lap of this general c. or the like To which I answer that to my knowledge all these that are meer Physical circumstances are particularly enumerated such as are 1. Time 2. Place 3. Person or Agent 4 Name 5. Family 6. Condition as Country Family House 7. Habits or Garments 8. Gestures as sitting standing lifting of the eyes or hands knocking on the breast kneeling and there is no blinde in this enumeration for there be no other particulars that can be enumerated except this time of the day eight or ten of clock this place not any other this person not another and these are only considered here as circumstances not as such and such circumstances but the truth is the enumeration of Symbolicall Rites as Crosse Surplice and the like is really a blinde and is an enumeration with a wide belly and includeth species and not individuals only as Symbolicall Ceremonies such as are Crossing Bells Oyle Salt Spettle Milk turning to the East toward the people from the people toward the Altar with a high voice with a low voice and a thousand the like yea all the old Ceremonies of Moses with a new face all the toyes of the Masse of the Dedication of Churches which would fill a Volumne like the Rationale of Durandus 2. Some Circumstances are meerely Morall for as Divines distinguish Time and Place in Time as Time and as such a Religious Time the Lords Sabbath Tempus tempus ut sic and Place as Place or such a Religious place Locus locus ut sic So we may distinguish here between circumstances in common or in grosse and such and such circumstances As time is a common adjunct of Divine Worship But such a time to wit the Lords-day is both the time of Worship and Worship it self So there is place of Worship and there is such a Religious place The holy of holiest the Temple A habit is a meer accident of Worship the person John or Thomas is also an accident but if God command such an Ephod as Aaron and the Priests were to wear this is not a meer circumstance that the person who administreth the Lords-Supper be John or Thomas is a meer circumstance but that this person be a called Pastor not a private man is more then a circumstance And therefore these circumstances taken in common and their Universall nature are meerly Physicall circumstances but taken in their particular and determinate restrictions as such circumstances they may be meerly Morall circumstances such as are the common adjunct of the time of Worship the place and the Sabbath time and the Temple for Iewish Worship The former are circumstances meerly Physicall the latter meerly Morall I mean as they are restricted other wayes The Temple of Jerusalem served as our meeting places do to sence off the injuries of Heaven and Sun but that is as a place not as such a place 3. There be some mixt circumstances as these same Physicall circumstances clothed with their own seasonable conveniences so time for Worship and due and convenient time is required there may be some Scandalous and Superstitious time for Worship A habit in the Preacher is required and that a grave one a place is required for private Worship and a fit place such as is not the Market-street for private Praying the inconveniency of the circumstance may vitiate the Worship I did say that Christ Iesus hath set down in the Word a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in all Morals I say in all Morals because the Word doth not teach us any thing of circumstances Physicall as Physicall Scriptura talia non ponit sed
most at this time Ergo If the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferre that a disobedient brother is most like these Heathen they must be greatest enemies to the Iewes and so remotest from Circumcision and all right to the holy things of God being the worst of the Heathen and so Erastus hath gained nothing but lost much by his poore Grammattication Yea if the offended brother should repute the offender as the worst of the Heathen he is to esteeme him who was once a Member of the Church in that he was obliged to heare the Church now as a Heathen and so no brother no Member of the Church and here Erastus must grant that one brother may un-church and Excommunicate any other for disobedience to the Church but the Church may not Erastus They are as absurd who say by Publicans here are understood wicked men for then by Heathen must be understood also the wickedest of the Heathen and not all the Heathen dwelling in Judea Ans I deny the consequence for by Publicans are meant men wicked and unpure by conversation and by Heathen men unclean by condition because without the Church and strangers to the Israel of God and without Christ and God in the world 2. We have proved what is meant by a Publican by evident Scriptures but that by a Publican is understood one who acknowledged no Magistrate but a Roman no Scripture no Greeke Author warranteth us to thinke it never man dreamed it but Erastus Erastus The Pharises hindred not Christ and his Apostles to come to the Temple Ans Christ was a born Jew and circumcised yea and what can the Practise of the Murtherers of Christ prove It is no Law But the Romans never sacrificed in the Temple but gave Liberty to the Iews to serve God according to his word and to hear Christ preach and that Christ kept the Ceremoniall Law and taught others even the cleansed Leapers so to do Matth. 8. is clear Erastus Private men do forgive sins Matth. 18. Luk. 17. Ergo to binde and loose is not a proper judiciall act of a Court Matth. 16. Christ speaketh not to Peter only but to all the faithfull who by teaching one another may bring one another to acknowledge their sin and if they do it they are pardoned if not their sins are bound in Heaven Ans To these the keys are given who retain and remit sins as Erastus saith But these be such as are sent of Christ as the Father sent his son Ioh. 20. 2. Either in this place there is given power to binde and loose by publick preaching the word or by some other place but this power to binde and loose by publick preaching is only given to Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 29. Eph. 4. 11. 12. And Erastus granteth elsewhere that every private man by his office cannot preach nor administer the Sacraments and by no other place is this given to Pastors for I could elude all places with the like answer and say there is a publick Baptizing and Administration of the Supper by Ministers and sent Pastors only and a private also performed by private Christians yea by a woman and both are valid in Heaven and the binding and loosing of both ratified in Heaven 3. Christ spake this to the Disciples who before were sent to Preach and cast out Devils Matth. 10. and saith not Whom thou bindes on earth but in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What things you binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith all this upon the fancy that binding and loosing of the Church and Peters private forgiving of his brother seven times a day must be all one which I do prove in another place to be different and amongst other reasons this is one because the Church pardoning hath a threefold order 1. between brother and brother 2. before two or three 3. Before the Church and the end of all is the gaining of the offending brother Matth. 18 15 16 17 18 19 20. But the private forgiving of a brother of which Peter speaketh Mat. 18. 21 22 23. and Luke 17 4 5. is of an inferiour nature for I know not if you can gain a brothers soule seven times a day if he but say It repenteth me Luke 17. 4. or seventy seven times Mat. 18. 22. These words It repenteth me said seventy times a day to the Church cannot satisfie to the gaining of a soule whereas to the private remitting of revenge it were enough We have the Text to warrant us that Christ spaâ—e to Stewards to whom the keyes are committed Erastus doth but wickedly assert he spoke to those who were as Christians in that act but the Text is cleare he speaketh of binding and loosing spiriâ—ually which is nothing to the holding off of a civill injurie which Erastus saith is the scope of our Saviour here and how hungry must that sense be That you deal with him as with an Heathen who acknowledgeth no Iudge but a Roman judge is a matter ratified in heaven 4. A private man is to forgive an injury even though the offender repent not Mat. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Col. 3. 13. but that pardon cannot be ratified in heaven 5. See what we have said of binding and loosing before Erastus Though Christ should speake this onely to Ministers yet it followeth not that he speaketh this to other Presbyters Ans That dependeth on the proving that there be ruling Elders in the Church which I conceived have proved else where from Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. I conceive when Christ spake this there was neither a formed Presbytery nor a formed Church Erastus Christ saith not if two or three Presbyters or two or three Ministers agree in one I will heare them but where two or three Christians agree Ans Nor doe we say that two or three can make an Excommunicating Church but Christ argueth a minore if the Lord heare two or three on earth farre more will he heare a Church and ratifie in heaven what they doe in binding and loosing offenders in Earth But how shall these words agree to the interpretation of Erastus for he expoundeth two or three and the whole Church to be but one Christian Magistrate can he be said to agree to himselfe Or can one or two or three meet together in Christs Name And what coherence is here Two or three conveeneth to pray that he that will not hear the Christian Magistrate may be dealt with as a Heathen man before the Roman judge how violent and farre off is this glosse and how unsuitable to the Text Erastus What other thing is it to a private brother to gain another to himselfe and to God then binding and loosing in Heaven Ans To bring him before the civill Magistrate either Christian or Heathen whose intrinsecall end by vertue of their office is not to gaine soules but to draw the blood of ill doers is farre
to Satan though I be absent in body what then would he have done he would all the Church being gathered together not some Presbyters only by his own spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus granted to him deliver the man to Satan that he might strike fear and terror on others and that the man might bear the just punishment of his wickednesse Ans Paul chideth them that they were puffed up and mourned not that the man might be put out of the midst of them Then whereas it might be said we want the presence of the Apostle Paul and his privity to the businesse To this Paul saith ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For me saith he I have as if I were present in body when you are Convened together c. Iudged to deliver such a one to Satan Now that this Decree was the judiciall Decree and sentence of Paul as a miraculous Magistrate giving sentence judicially when Paul himself was absent and had not convinced the man nor spoken with him I do not believe 1. Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie such a sentence of a man when the guilty is before him yet the word doth not necessitate us to this Exposition Luk. 19. 22. Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee for it doth as often signifie a simple act of the minde and the opinion of any not sitting in judgement as Act. 13. 46. Ye judge your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unworthy of life Eternall 1 Cor. 2. 2. I determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know nothing but Christ Luk. 7. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to Simon the Pharisee who was not on the bench Thou hast judged rightly Tit. 3. 12. I have determined there to winter 1 Cor. 10. 15. Iudge ye what I say Act. 27. 1. When it was determined to sail into Italy 2. We do not read that Apostle Prophet or Iudge gave out a sentence of death against any the person condemned not being present nor heard the Lord himself did it not to Adam nor to Sodom he came down to see he examined Adam Moses did not so condemn the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day Joshua convinced Achan the Prophet convinced Gehazi ere he smote him with Leprosie Peter convinced Aâ—anias and Saphira to their faces ere he killed them so did Paul convince Elimas the sorcerer in his face so did Christ in his miraculous purging of the Temple convince them that His Fathers house should be a house of Prayer Now Paul here giveth a judiciall sentence of death on a man he never spake of being at Philippi whence he wrote and the delinquent at Corinth if we beleeve Erastus 3. Erastus judgeth that Paul knew this man to be penitent and how knew Paul this It must be a miraculous knowledge by which Paul at Philippi looked upon the mans heart at Corinth one of the greatest miracles that ever Paul wrought for Paul had the knowledge of the mans sinne only by report v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported between Pauls writing the first verse of that Chapter and his writing the third verse there must interveene a miraculous discovery of the incestuous mans heart Paul being at Philippi and the man at Corinth and Paul knowing the man to be penitent and because of his penitency as Erastus saith Paul did not kill him Yet Paul so farre absent must have given out a miraculous sentence as a miraculous Magistrate I saith he by revelation as having the sword of God now in my hand have judged and given out sentence that this man shall be miraculously killed by Satan before your eyes that all may feare and do so no more and yet I know him to be penitent and that he shall not be killed by Satan a monstrous and irrationall sentence if it be said that by report Paul had knowledge of his sinne and by report also he had knowledge of his repentence and that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord and that this knowledge came not to Paul by any immediate revelation I answer Yet the sentence must stand by Erastus his mind touching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged and condemned him as a miraculous Magistrate to dye upon a report though I never heard him and I know he shall not dye for this sault for can it be said that Paul retracted a sentence which he gave out as the deputy of God and he even then when he wrote the sentence knâ—w there was so much repentance in the man as he would for it be moved not to kill him 4. There is no ground in the Text why Paul should be said to seek the naked presence of the whole people to do such a miracle before them he being himselfe absent for there is more then a naked presence of the Corinthians as only witnesses that they might be affraid do so no more for they were present as instructed with the spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to Satan as the words bear v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be conveened in the name of Christ being spoken Mat. 18. v. 20. of a Church meeting or in reference thereunto in the same phrase and to be conveened with the power and spirit of Paul and of the Lord Iesus cannot agree to Paul nor can it be said I Paul absent in body and present in spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan For 1. the Grammer of the words cannot beare that for being conveened in the name of the Lord with my spirit are constructed together in the Text. 2. It is no sence nor any Scripture phrase I present in spirit and with my spirit have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan 3. It is evident that Paul would as it were absent recompence his bodily absence with the presence of the spirit and road of Church censure which the Lord had communicated to them 5. Erastus needeth not object that there was a conveening of the Church not of some Elders for as there is no word of the word Elders in the Text so is there no word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text and so the debate will be what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether Elders or people or both but though every one in their owne place were understood yet the words beare a juridicall convention being conveened in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus Erastus The questions why Paul did not command to excommunicate the false Apostles in Galathia Or why he did not miraculousty kill them are both urgent But the latter is most urgent for the power of miraculous afflicting men was given to few men and to Apostles But it is a wonder if excommunication was ever
himselfe also in and through Pastors as his servants as Erastus teacheth then he must consent that they threaten and rebuke himselfe 2. The proposition is false it is presumed all the subjects do consent to lawfull penall Lawes against sorcery murther incest in the generall and virtually that they shall be put in execution against themselves yet the Sorcerer will never formally consent that he himselfe be put to death though he once as a subject consented to the Law that all Sorcerers be put to death For when the penall Law against sorcery was enacted he consented to this 3. He whose consent accumulative is requisite that scandalous offenders in generall be Excommunicated but not that this or this man possibly the Magistrate himselfe he is not to be Excommunicated is most false he whose consent negative is requisite for Excommunication he is not to be Excommunicated himself the proposition is true But I assume the Magistrates consent negative is requisite to Excommunication there is nothing more false For shall that which the Church bindeth on earth not be bound in heaven except the King the Iustice or Master Constable say Amen to it on earth We say not that the Magistrates consent as a Magistrate is requisite for the Excommunicating of himselfe For though as a Magistrate he ought to give his consent to Excommucate all offenders and adde his civill sanction as one of the seven wise men of Greece said Patere legem quam ipse tuleris Yet he is not Excommunicated as a Magistrate except with Kata-baptists you condemne the Office of Magistracie as an unlawfull Ordinance but as a scandalous man 3. The old penances as they do us that service to make good that Excommunication was in the ancient Church and that Erastus wanteth the authority of the Fathers and upon his ingenuity should have been ashamed to cite them for his way so we condemne them as introductory to Popery but let Erastus forme an Argument from this and logick shall hisâ—e at it That which bringeth in old satisfactions and penance is not to be holden But Excommunication or the Excommunicating of Magistrates doth this Ergo The assumption must be proved Erastus It hath no more truth which you say that the Magistrate while he punisheth cureth not the conscience for God calleth many by tribulations to himselfe and farre more then by your Excommunication Ans I would Erastus had drawen up an Argument which seldome he doth for this it must be That which is a saving mean to gaine scandalous offenders to Iesus Christ and better then Excommunication is an Ordinance of God and the other no Ordinance But the Magistrates punishing with the sword the scandalous offenders is a saving meane to gaine scandalous offenders and better then Excommunication Ergo Ans Neither Major nor Minor proposition hath any truth at all 1. Though the Magistrates sword were a better meane to gain souls it followeth not that Excommunication is no mean The Law is lesse powerfull for gaining souls The Gospel more powerfull But the Law is not for that no Ordinance of God 2. Erastus his reason to prove that the Magistrates punishing cureth the conscience as a saving Ordinance no lesse then Excommunication must be this That by which God calleth and draweth many to himselfe is a saving mean to cure the conscience but by the Magistrates punishing of scandalous men God doth this as by other tribulations The proposition must be a propositio per se That by the Magistrates heading and hanging scourging and imprisoning of themselves as kindly and intrinsecally saving means such as rebukes promises commands excommunication are the Lord calleth men and converteth them that is false God no more useth the Sword of the Magistrate as a kindly mean of gaining souls then the sword of an oppressing Tyrant so Nebuchadnezzars oppressing of the Church of God and the Assyrians unjust wasting of the people of Israel shall be kindly means of gaining of souls because God blessed the rod to many to humble their uncircumcised heart but this is accidentall to and beside the nature of the rod but it is not accidentall to rebuking threatning promises to the preaching of the Gospel nor to Excommunication to save souls and gaine them to Christ The Gospel and all the parts of it are kindly and of themselves the power of God to salvation The Magistrates sword to Erastus must be the power of God to salvation and Christ Matth. 18. in his order of gaining an offending brothers soul by this reason must descend not ascend contrary to the order of Christ for Christ maketh the rebuking between brother and brother to be the first step of gaining an offender to Christ 2. The rebuking before two or three 3. Before the Church 4. Excommunication Now all these are spirituall means and more efficacious the second then the first the third then the second the fourth then any of them But Erastus maketh Christ in the fourth step to descend from three spirituall steps of gaining the mans soul to a fourth which is carnall to wit let him be as a heathen c. this is Caesars sword which certainly is a carnall weapon proper to the Kingdomes of this world Ioh. 18. 36. whereas rebuking exhorting promises and Excommunication are the spirituall weapons of the warfare of the Ministers of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 4 8 9. Rev. 1. 16. Esai 11. 4. Psal 45. 4. Rom. 1. 16. The exercise of the sword is a mean of edifying consequenter by removing false teachers that hindreth edification but no man can say it is a mean of it self and kindly in regard of the man against whom the sword is used Farther that which is a common mean of conserving peace in all societies and corporations even without the Church where the Gospel was never heard cannot be a kindly mean of gaining mens souls that are within the visible Church Erastus Ambrose following the example of Azariah cannot be defended in debarring Theodosius from the Sacraments Yea it was tyranicall and damnable to debarre a man desirous to hear the word who otherwayes repented and acknowledged his fault from the means of salvation It was like the Popes proud fact in trampling â—on the Emperours neck he had no cause of wrath against Theodosius but as Nicephorus saith the Emperour hated Ambrose Ans 1. If Erastus had come to Logick he refuteth here but a Law by a fact of Ambrose 2. What if Ambrose debarred Theodosius from hearing the word Ergo there is no Excommunication it followeth not 3. That he debarred Theodosius from the Sacrament after he gave evidences of his repentance to the Church is an untruth 4. That after such a cruell fact of murthering so many innocent persons of Thessalonica Theodosius should have been admitted to the Sacrament or remained a Member of the Church to eat and drink his owne damnation and not be cast out as 1 Cor. 5. no man but Erastus could say so it is cleare that
Ambrose did no more then a faithfull Pastor and Amariah and the 80. valiant Priests did in not suffering the holy things of God to be polluted Lipsius no religious man saith l. 2. c. 24. de Constantia quo facto nihil magis impium omnis veâ—us impietas habuit Beza Bucer P. Martyr Melancton Calvin Anto. Waleus Gomaras commend Ambrose And truly to kill seven thousand Citizens of Thessalonica of which the most part were innocent deserved more then Excommunication if more could be inflicted by the Church See Ambrose Epist 5. 28 29. Erastus had no reason to compare so laudable a fact to the proud fact of an abominable Pope trampling on the Emperours neck and abusing the word of God Psal 91. to defend his devilish pride CHAP. XX. Quest 16. A vindication of other Arguments for Excommunication as from sacrificing offering of gifts c. with bloody hands Erastus Esay 1. c. 52. c. 66. Ier. 6. 7. Ezech. 23. and 33. Psa 50. are alledged for Excommunication to which I answer 1. The Lord doth not condemne sacrificing for he commanded it but the abuse thereof as he that commendeth modesty to one that eateth undecently doeth condemne unmannerly eating but commandeth not abstinence from eating so Christ Mat. 6. removeth not fasting and praying but the abuse of them When the Hebrews propound two just and right things of which they approve the one and deny the other there is only a comparison understood as Hos 6. I will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy then sacrifice Prov. 8. Receive my instruction and not silver that is receive rather my instruction then silver so this is no good consequence God hateth the sacrifice of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder wicked men to sacrifice it followeth not for then this should be as good a consequence God hateth the prayers of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder men to call upon God to praise God to rest on the Sabbath to give almes except these Presbyters judge them worthy Ans In the following books Erastus refuteth some Treatises of Authors without names the books I cannot have and if he doe them right in repeating their minde faithfully I know not but I know in many things and in this very argument Erastus fancied arguments on Beza which he would reject as none of his 1. Sacrificing seemeth to be a confirming ordinance as eating the Passeover and the Communion of the Lords bodie and blood and as there was some examination of the persons for whom sacrifices were offered required in the Priests as I said before from Mat. 8. 4. Levit. 14. 3 4. 9 10 11 12. So there is Morall cleannesse required in all that are to partake of the Sacraments that presupposeth conversion and I grant the first and native consequence of these is that it was the sin and hypocrisie of the persons themselves who sacrificed first and principally But that it was not the sins of the Priests who admitted those that were no better then Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. and had hands full of blood ver 15. is now the question I conceive that it is a taxing of the Priests and Church Rulers that is Esa 1. 10. no lesse then of civill judges and the people yea that he rather taxeth the Priests called Rulers v. 10. and that that is not as Socinians say a new commandement of Christ but an old Mat. 5. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift unto the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee What if the Priest should know that he had killed an innocent man and beside the guilt of innocent blood that the sad hearted widow and the weeping Orphanes had any blood to charge him withall was the Priest either to offer or sacrifice for him while he were reconciled to the widdow and fatherlesse Christ addeth v. 24. Leave there thy gift before the Altar and goe thy way first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be reconciled to thy Brother and then come and offer thy gift I offer it to the consideration of the Reader if as the offerer of the gift was to leave his offering knowing himself to be under blood and to have offended his brother he was to leave his offering at the Altar so if the Priest who offered the same should also know that the same day he had offered his childe to Molech or the Devill if the Priest in this case should offer for him and if the Priest should not eat this mans sin and communicate with the bloody impenitent man in offering with him and for him the sacrifice of fools if he should not leave offering for him till he went and was reconciled with his brother for the Priest by office was to forbid such a bloodie man to offer Ergo he could not by office also offer for him Here an order prescribed that is morall perpetuall and common both to the ordinances of the Old and New Testament for Christ doth here expound the Law which was corrupted by the Pharisees 2. He doth not set down a rule concerning the Ceremoniall Law which was shortly to be abrogated but sure he hath an eye to the worship of the New Testament What if he that is come to the Table to eat and drinke with Christ and both his owne conscience and the Elders remember the widdow orphane have a just accusation against this man of late yesterday he killed their husband and father should either this man eat and drinke at this time with Iesus Christ or should the Elders give these holy things to him I thinke noâ— And to come to the argument it is true Isa 1. sacrificing is not condemned but sacrificing by such Princes of Sodom and tali modo by men of bloodie hands Ergo they were not to abstaine from sacrificing but at that time and in that condition nor doe we forbid either coming to or debarring from the Lords Table by the Elders but onely haec vice and onely while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to his brethren and testifie that he repenteth we never heighten Excommunication to such an extremity as it doth totally unchurch the man and exclude him from the Seals simpliciter and absolutely but according to Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his order and therefore the Elders are to exclude for a time just as this God will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy first mercy and first faith and repentance then sacrifice that is then afterward externall worship afterward receiving of the Passeover the Lords Supper and offering of gifts at the Altar And secondarily even in the second place in regard of time he will have all these externalls whence the man is to debarre himselfe and by the same reason the Elders as the 80. Priests did to a King 2 Chron. 26. are to debarre the man while he repent And 2. This also I will have mercy
the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are â—què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should â—ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we
office in either Church or state for so a Christian Magistrate as a Christian Magistrate should be Ens per aggregationem a thing composed of Magistracy and Christianity as a Christian Physician a Christian Painter and then the question should be whether judgeth he as a Magistrate or as a Christian as we may aske whether a Christian painter painteth as a painter or as a Christian not as a Christian for then all Christians should be Painters and a result of both should neither be a Magistrate nor a Christian but middle between both which fighteth with reason and sense Some say The power of the Magistrate in a Christian Magistrate who knoweth the doctrine of the Gospell and hath help of the counsell and light of godly Pastors and Teachers is perfecter then in Heathen Magistrates and therefore this power as not Christian or heathenish governs men as men but as Christian it governeth them as Christian mâ—n But the learned and worthy professor Jac. Triglandius saith this is said without probation for saith he men as Christians are members of the Church and so are not governed but in an Ecclesiasticall way and where hath the Lord commanded the Christian Magistrate to governe the sheep of Christ as the sheep of Christ Then say I 1. The magistrate must governe the Church as the Church and so rule over the conscience of men in relation to eternall happinesse by promising to them temporall rewards and by compelling them by the sword to be carried toward eternall beatitude for to rule the Church as the Church is to direct and lead them by spirituall means Word Sacraments and Discipline to heaven which the magistrate as a magistrate cannot do by the sword and what he doth as a Christian that he must do in a spirituall way not with a secular arm and power as magistrate and the two powers of a magistrate and of a Christian cannot coalescere grow together in one office which is made up of both as of two parts being in nature and spece different no more then of a Horse and a Lyon you can make a third living creature It is true by Grace and Christianity the power of the magistrate is perfected and an excellent lustre added to it but not one degree of Magistraticall power is added to it by which the magistrate doth rule men as Christians and as a Church For as the office of a magistrate doth not promote the man one step nearer to saving Grace so Christianity maketh not the Heathen magistrate more a magistrate nor giveth him a new sword over the Church as the Church which he had not before nor doth it take any magistraticall power from him no more then a heathen Husband Master Physician being converted to Christ is more a husband more a master or Physician then he was before The former power is only spiritualized and graciously facilitated in its acts but not one whit augmented in its entitative degrees of power over the wife the souldiers the servants the sick Triglandius excellently The Christian magistrate converted is sanctified but he acqâ—ireth no new right over the Church So meat is sanctified by the Word and Prayer but it is not more meat nor doth more nourish because sanctified 7. Distinct The exercise of the Ministeriall power in dispensing Word Sacraments Discipline falleth under a fourfold consideration which because it cleareth a necessary point I desire may be carefully observed by the Reader 1. The simple exercise of that power is considered sine modo without any qualification good or evil Orthodox or Heterodox as the Christian Magistrate procureth by his care that there should be a Ministery to dispense Word Sacraments and Disciplinâ— 2. The second Consideration of this exercise is The exercise of power soundly and painfully in the fear of the Lord the Magistrate exhorting them thereunto for conscience 3. The third Consideration is the exercise of the same in a corrupt and wicked way and manner either negligently or wickedly or for evil ends 4. The fourth Consideration is the free and peaceable exercise of this power without bodily violence Hence I intreat the Reader to carry along in his â—ye 1. The simple exercise of the Ministeriall power 2. The just and godly sound and laudable exercise 3. The wicked and corrupt exercise or the abuse thereof 4. The peaceable exercise Hence our 1. Assertion The Magistrate as the Magistrate is to procure that there be Preachers and Church-officers to dispense Word Sacraments and Discipline For 1. his end is That people under him may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in godlinesse and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. And the Magistrate attaineth his end as a Magistrate if there be simple exercise of Religion in the quiet and peaceable way that may consist with the subjects indempnity and immunity from rapine injuries and violence 2. The difference between the Magistrates and other callings is that the Magistrate was to take care of old That there were Levites who bare the Ark and Priests who should burn incense before the Lord and Sacrifice and yet it was unlawfull for the Magistrate to bear the Ark on his own shoulders or in his own person to burn incense or sacrifice so the Physicians hinder that diseases rage amongst the subjects and the Magistrates do also hinder that they should rage But the Physians hinder them by curing diseases and the Magistrate hinders them not by curing diseases for then he should as a Magistrate also be a Physician but by procuring that there should be Physicians in the Common-wealth The Magistrate hindreth ignorance and losing Ships by Tempests not by professing and teaching Sciences and Arts in Academies in his own person nor by steering Ships and guiding them himself to their Ports for so a magistrate as a magistrate should be a Schoolmâ—ster a professor of Arts and Sciences in the Universities and a Pilot or Shipmaster which were a confounding of all callings but by procuring that there should be Universities and Professors of Arts and Sciences and by providing honorable stipends and wages for them and procuring that in the Common-wealth there should be Sailers who are skilled in Shipping and so doth the magistrate by his office take care that the Word Sacraments and Discipline be dispensed 3. But the magistrate as the magistrate doth noâ— command sincere hearty zealous and affectionate dispensing of Word Sacraments aâ—d Discipline But only the dispensing of those without the qualification of the spirituall or sincere exercise of the power Because 1. The Magistrate cannot command that as a magistrate which he cannot judge of whether the thing commanded be consonant to his command or not But the magistrate as the magistrate cannot judge of the spirituallity sincerity zealousnesse affectionatenesse of that obedience which the Church yieldeth to his command for if the Pastors dispense word and Sacraments and binde and loose by the keys following the rules of the word the magistrate
cannot judge the heart or intention whether they do those with conscience to God and reverence and subjection of spirit to his holy Law nor can the manner of doing be proved by witnesses to the magistrate 2. The Magistrate as Magistrate doth not command what he doth not praise or reward for well doing is the object of the Magistrates praising and rewarding power Rom. 13. 3. But as a Magistrate he doth not praise and reward the qualification or spirituality or sincerity of Pastors dispensing of word and seals if they feed the flock the Magistrate is to take care they be rewarded with wages noâ— can the Magistrate as the magistrate withhold praise or wages from labourers in the vineyard because they preach Christ out of envy as some did Phil. 1. 15. or because they feed not the lambs out of a love to Christ as they ought to do Ioh. 21. 15 16 17. it is true magistrates as godly men may love and commend sincerity in faithfull labourers and hate the contrary but this they do as Christian men not as magistrates not by their office and authoritatively 3. Magistrates command that as magistrates the not doing of which they can aâ— magistrates punish with the sword for the object of their vindicative and revenging power is ill doing Rom. 13. 4. But if Pastors feed the flock and rule them the magistrate cannot use the sword against the feeders for that they want sincerity love cheerfulnesse in the manner of doing these things for the sword of the magistrate doth only reach men for their externall facts not for opinions in the mind not for crooked intentions not for hollow-heartednesse hypocrisie infidelity in the manner or inward principles of the actions II. Asser when magistrates command Churchmen to do their duty and to feed the flock sincerely and in the fear of the Lord they do it not as magistrates but as touching the manner they may exhort them to do their duty sincerely cordially and zealously as godly men hence that charge that King Iehoshaphat gave to the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 19. 9. This shall ye do in the fear of the Lord faithfully and with a perfect heart is a mixt command as touching the judging of the people in all causes and controversies that should come before them the King as King commanded them to do this But for the manner of the doing of it that they should do it faithfully in the feare of the Lord and with a perfect heart this he commanded them not as a King but exhorted them to it as a godly religious man for 1. any godly man might have said this and the King might have punished the Levites and Priests if they had not judged the causes according to the Law But though they had not judged in the fear of the Lord and with a perfect heart yet could not the King as King have punished them therefore nor can any say that the spirituall exhortation of Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. to the Priests and Levites came from him as King but as from a graced and religious man as King he might command them to Sanctifie themselves legally for so they were to do by office and he might use the sword against them if they failed in that and as King he may command all externall duties not only to Church-men but to all others only he cannot punish them for failings in the spirituall manner of doing externall duties 2 A spirituall and Christian exhortation ex conditione operis and intrinsecally hath influence on the conscience to turne the soul to God But nothing that the magistrate can do as a magistrate hath such an influence on the conscience all that he doth as a magistrate and directly is toward the outward man by rewards and punishments if the magistrate remove false teachers and wolves which would devour the flock and if that work upon the conscience it is indirectly and by accident for quoad actus imperatos he can command that the Gospel which hath a kindly and intrinsecall power to work upon the conscience be preached if the magistrate convince the conscience of a murtherer that he hath failed against the Law of God he doth not that as a magistrate but as a godly and religious man he may convince him as a magistrate that he hath failed against the Lawes of the State and bands of humane society and externall peace and scarce that for ignorantia juris nemimeâ—â— excusat Obj. 1. It may be objected against this If the Elders not only omit to do their duty but also if they erre in the nature and quality of what they do the Magistrate is to punish Ergo the Magistrate not only commandeth the Church to do the externall facts but also commands the facts with such and such qualities the Antecedent is proved because the Magistrate not only punisheth the omission of a Church duty as if Pastors preach not but also if they preach not â—alâ— modo Orthodox and sound Doctrine Ans We never denied but the Magistrate commandeth both the exercise of Church power simply and the manâ—er and such qualifications as are externall and obvious to the knowledge of the Magistrate such as blasphemous and false Doctrine is But we deny that as a Magistrate he doth command those things that arâ— internall and invisible that is the spirituallity of the actions he can exhort and stirre men up to the spirituallity and sincerity of doing as a godly and Christian man Obj. 2. The Pastors and guides of the Church as such do only command externall obedience for they can onely in â—oro Ecclesiae in the Court of the Church censure externall disobedience before men the heart and sincerity thereof is no more obvious to the eye of Elders then of Magistrates Ans 1. I deny the connexion of the Antecedent for Elders may command as Elders more then the not doing of which they can censure which the Magistrate cannot do for Elders have committed to them the word of reconciliation as the Ambassadors of Christ Now the word hath an immediate influence on the conscience on the thoughts and intents of the heart 2 Cor. 5. 18 19 20. 1 Cor. 3. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 15. Ps 19. 7. Heb. 4. 12 13. And therefore their Ministery hath action on the thoughts yet can they not in the externall court of the Church censure the thoughts as not being able to see them but the Gospel which they preach can arraigne the conscience and thoughts 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. But the Magistrate carrieth not such a message and therefore his Magistraticall command can reach no farther then his temporall praise and reward and his sword and that is commensurable and of equall latitude with those Obj. 3. The Object of the Magistrates power is well doing and ill doing both civill and also supernaturall both for the first table or as well for the spirituall acts of worship and Religion in the first table as for acts of Iustice and mercy
fail in their judging the Magistrate is to command the Church to judge it over againe but the Magistrate cannot judge it himself as there is a complaint made to the Magistrate that the Pâ—inter hath not drawn the image exactly according to the samplar the Magistrate judgeth not of the Art of the Painter nor can the Magistrate as the Magistrate draw the image himselfe But the Magistrate may judge of the Painters breach of promise who did â—action to draw it exactly according to the samplar and hath not kept faith to the man who payeth him wages and therefore the Magistrate may either punish his morall error his breach of promise not his error of Art the faculty or company of Painters must judge of of that or then command the Painter to paint the same image again according as the Painter convenanted But it may be objected You then make the Magistrate to meddle no more with matters of faith and preaching truth or falsehood and giving out Ecclesiasticall rules in Church government as Act. 15. then he meddleth with painting according to the principles of Art now painting according to Art belongeth not at all to the conscience of the Magistrate but sound preaching right ruling in Gods house belongeth in a far nearer relation to the conscience of the godly Magistrate I Answer As touching the formall judging Ecclesiastâ—cally and as concerning this that the Magistrate should say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me or his dispensing of Word and Sacraments or his burning incense before the Lord it no more belongeth to him as a Magistrate to do these in his owne person formally because God hath not called him to act these then it belongeth to him to paint an Image to sew shooes to siâ— at the helme of a Ship and stir and guide her to such a Port as is clearer Heb. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 7. 17. 21. Rom. 10. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and 3. 1 2 3. Act. 13. 23. and 20. 28 29 30. Heb. 13. 17. 2 Chro. 26. 18 19 20 21. But in another consideration as sound or unsound dispensing of Word and Sacraments as right or unjust ruling in the house of God may more or lesse hurt or benefit the souls of men which he is to care for indirectly in ordine ad penas vel premia civilia et corporalia it belongeth more to the Magistrate to take care of the Church of Religion of preaching and governing Gods house then any painting or Arts in the earth Again the Church proceeding in these things that are against common iustice in all judicatures no lesse then in the Church as to condemn the party never heard or not convinced either by confession or under two sufficient witnesses or to do manifest unjustice in the manner of proceeding leaveth a clear place to the wronged party by the Law of nature if not to appeal yet to flee and have re-course to the Christian Magistrate who is Parâ—ns Patrie the father of the Common wealth 6. The question may either be of any really wronged by the Church whether he may appeal to the Magistrate or whether he who either beleeveth or thinketh or falsly lyeth and saith that he was wronged may appeal to the Magistrate 7. An Appeal is different from a Declinature a Declinature is properly a refusing to be judged because the judge is incompetent and the businesse belongeth not to him those who follow Erastus and deny all power of censures to the Church doe decline but not appeal from the Church thinking the Church hath no power at all to judge or censure the scandalous An Appeal is properly from the same inferiour judicature to a superiour judge in eadem serie in the same kind and it is either proper or unproper Proper it is when a particular Church doth appeal to a Synod of many Churches in the same place Unproper when either a wronged person hath recourse to one or many Pastors of Authority as Chrysostome Flavianus Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome that he would request the Church to proceed orderly Or 2. The godly Magistrate would command that the Church would unpartially proceed to right an oppressed man as Cabeljavius saith Or 3. When there is no Synods to be had then as Triglandius saith well from Beza the Christian Magistrate may provide â—it meanes of releeving the oppressed 8. This would ever be remembred that in case of the Churches erring in judgement which must be thought of as a sort of extraordinary case the godly Magistrate may do more then what ordinarily he can doe and so may the Church when the Magistrate oppresseth in judgement as great Iunius saith 9. We grant when any complaineth to the Magistrate that they are oppressed in judgement by the Church that the Church is obliged to give an account of their doings but that from common charitie to remove the scandall and that they owe to all Christians as may be evidently collected from 1 Pet. 4. 15. but this will not prove a subordination to common Christians as to Iudges nor yet to the Magistrate 2. The Magistrate when his judging is deemed scandalous is to give an account to the preachers of the Gospel who watch for his soul as King Saul gave an account to Samuel with a false Apologie I grant that he had obeyed the Commandement of the Lord but if Saul had been faultlesse in sparing â—gag and the cattell yet was he obliged to give an account to Samuel But that will not prove that King Saul was subordinate to Samuel to be judged of him because Prophets are but servants and Ministers to declare Gods will yet is it all the subordination that we require in this according to that And the people beleeved the Lord and Moses Now all the Arguments before alledged to prove that Pastors as Pastors are not subordinate in their pastorall acts to the civill Magistrate do also prove that there is no appeal from the Church in an Ecclesiasticall businesse to the civill Magistrate For 1. If two Painters contend touching any controversie in the mysterie of their Art they cannot appeal to the King as Iudge the King then should formally be a painter and which is absurd not by accident but as a King and so here if the King were the judge to whose determination we might appeale from the Church in a Church controversie sure the King as King should be a Church Officer if the Priests in controversie touching burning incense or offering strange fire to God should appeal to the decision of the King as the King sure the King in that as King should be an eminent High Priest and right of burning incense to the Lord should belong to him in as farre as the Kings lips in that controversie should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law from his mouth which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ezek. 22 26. and 44. 23 24. Deut. 17. 11. 2. The Church of Antioch should have
appealed to Cesar if he had been a Christian in the controversie touching circumcision he should have determined who were perverters of souls who not and should have said by his office as Emperour It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me 3. We have not any practise or precept or promise in the Old or New Testament for any such appeal except they say all hard questions belonging to the Priests office were to come before Moses as a civill Magistrate and not as the great Prophet to whom God revealed his minde 4. If so then all Church controversies in doctrine and discipline should be ultimately resolved into the will of the Magistrate speaking according to the word and faith in most points should come by hearing a Magistrate determining against Arrius that Christ is God consubstantiall with the Father and all binding and loosing in Earth as in heaven should be from the Magistrate as the Magistrate he should forgive and retaine sins and Christ should have given the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to the Magistrate as the Magistrate certainly we should have the doctrine of the Church of Christ and the building and edifying thereof most obscure in the New Testament in which there is not one word of such a supream and chiefe officer as the Magistrate 5. The Parliament colledge of civill judges as they are civill Magistrates should be the Church assemblies and determine all doctrines debarre the ignorant and Hereticks and Apostates from the Sacraments and totally cast them out of the Church and excommunicate them I see not but then the Parliament as the Parliament is the Church and the two Kingdomes Ioh. 18. 36. must be confounded and no difference at all made between the civill state and the Church because the Magistrate as the Magistrate is made by the adversaries the chiefe officer over the Church the Ecclesiasticall head the mixt Governour halfe civill whole Ecclesiasticall in whose power all Pastors Elders preach dispense Sacraments make Church-canons as his Ministers and Servants Christ when any brother trespasseth against a Christian brother saith Tell the Church never Tell the christian Magistrate But truly it is a great mistake in the learned Mr. Pryn to call them Anti-Monarchicall Anti-Parliamentary and Novators who deny that the Parliament hath any Nomothetick power in Church-canons Nor hath hee in any measure answered the Arguments of those Learned and godly Divines Mr. Iohn Goodwin and Mr. Hen Burton he is pleased to cite the practise of many Parliaments of England who laudably impatient of the Popes yoke have made Church-canons when the man of sin sate upon the neck of the Christian church but these numerous citations of Parliaments and Councels in time of Popery conclude nothing against us who grant when the Church is not her selfe the christian Magistrate may extraordinarily reform and take from the man of sin his usurped power but in a constituted Church the case must be otherwise and 1. Whereas he proveth Emperors and Kings to have a power to convocate Councels It hath not strength against us all our Divines teach so But how 1. an accumulative civill power so Iewel Alley Bilson Whitaker Willet White Roger he might have cited more but no privative no Ecclesiasticall power so as Synods may not lawfully conveen without the command of the civill Magistrate our Divines say many Synods and Church meetings were in the Apostolique Church without the consent and against the will of the civill Magistrate our Divines oppose the Pope who claimeth the only accumulative civill privative and Ecclesiastick power to convocate Synods and that no Synods are lawfull without the consent and mandate of the holinesse of such a Beast 2. Master Prinne saith The Magistrate hath power to direct for time and place and to limit for matter and manner the proceedings liberty and freedome of all Church Assemblies But 1. he asserteth this in the most from corrupt practises 2. He proveth Laymen should have hand as well in Synods as Clergymen the one having interest in the faith as well as the other Ans Then must all the people be members of Synods for all have alike interest of Faith but this proveth not interest of defining which is the question in dispensing Word and Sacraments they have interest of trying all things as well as Pastors but it followeth not Ergo they may dispense Word and Sacraments no lesse yea more principally then Pastors as Erastus saith the Magistrate more principally determineth Synodicall constitutions Hence this is easily answered we may appeal in Church businesse to him as to the supream judge who may punish the erring Church and Pastors but the Magistrate may in Church businesse do this For answer 1. I retort it the Magistrate in making civill Lawes that must in their moralitie be determined by the Word of God may appeal to Pastors whose lips by office should preserve knowledge Ergo the Magistrate in making civill Lawes may appeal to the Pastor which is absurd 2. If men in Church-constitutions may appeal to the Magistrate as to one who may in his person determine Synodically in Assemblies above all the Pastors 1. Because Magistrates may punish the Pastors erring and oppressing in Synods 2. Because the Magistrate and all laymen have interest in the faith as well as Pastors then may people in hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments and in all Pastorall rebukings and threatnings in believing of all Gospel promises and threatnings and fundamentall truths appeal from Pastors to Magistrates as Magistrates and Magistrates as such may determine all fundamentall truths all conscionall promises and rebukes and that is formally they may preach for he that can distinguish these hath a good engine Because Magistrates may punish hereticall preaching and superstitions and idolatrous abusing of the Sacraments by preachers and Magistrates and all Laymen have interest of Faith in Word Doctrine and Sacraments as in Discipline yea the Magistrate may punish the Priest that offered strange fire to the Lord offered bastard incense and the people had their interest of saith in sacrifices offered for their own sins but can it follow therefore the Magistrate might sacrifice and burne incense in his own person as Mr. Pryn will have him to make Church-laws in his own person Other Arguments of Mr. Pryns are light as that there were brethren and Lay-men that had hand in the Councell at Hierusalem Acts 15. Ans This is nothing for Magistrates as Magistrates but all Christians as Christians so must have hand in Synods which I grant in so far as concerneth their faith and practise that they try all things and try the Spirits whether they be of God or not but will it follow Ergo Magistrates as Magistrates are those only who govern the Church and make all Ecclesiasticall constitutions as having in them all power of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and deriving it to Bishops and Pastors at the second hand as Mr. Pryn saith in the same booke Obj.