his calling to minde those words in the rule of Prayer even as we forgive those who trespasse against us Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers 19. Againe I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth supposing that agreement and consequently forgiving of injuries is necessary to make our Prayers the more effectuall for my part I think it not improbable that whatever the occasion of the Question was vers 21 beginneth a new and distinct purpose Which I take to be the reason why the Arabik here makes an intercision and beginneth the eight and fiftieth Section of Matthew at those words Then came Peter and said Lord how oft c. 4. And if vers 21. have a dependence upon that which went before it may be conceived thus Christ had said If thy Brother trespasse against thee goe tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone which supposeth a continuance of the former Christian fellowship and fraternall familiarity and that we must not cast off a scandalous Brother as lost or as an Enemy but admonish him as a Brother This might give occasion to Peter to aske Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me that is scandalize me by his sinne against God for even in Luk. 17. 3. 4. that of forgiving one that trespasseth against us is added immediately after a Doctrine of scandals and I forgive him that is as Grotius expounds it restore him to the former degree of friendship and intimate familiarity to deale with him thus as with a Brother Which he well distinguisheth from that other forgiving which is a not revenging And so much of Master Prynnes first reason His second reason is because the Mention of two or three witnesses vers 16. relateth onely to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes as murders and the like before the civill Magistrates of the Jewes c. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories of which we find no president Answ. 1. If this hold then the Text must not be expounded indefinitely of civill injuries as he did before but of civill capitall injuries whereas Erastus takes the meaning to be of smaller offences onely and not of Capitall crimes 2. The Law concerning two or three witnesses is neither restricted to Capitall crimes nor to civill Judicatories I appeale to the Ordinance of Parliament dated Octo. 20. 1645. The Elder-ship of every Congregation shall judge the matter of scandall aforesaid being not Capitall upon the Testmiony of two credible Witnesses at the least That Law therefore of witnesses is alike applicable to all causes and Courts Ecclesiasticall and civill Deut. 19. 30. One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sinne in any sin that he sinneth at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established 3. And the same Law is in the new Testament clearly applied to proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Cor. 13. 1. again 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against the Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses which is not spoken to any civill Magistrate but to Timothy and others joyned with him in Church Government His third reason doth onely begge what is in Question that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiasticall but a civill Court of the Jewes He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jewes had civill Courts If he could but cite one place to prove that they had no Ecclesiasticall Courts this were to the purpose Not that I grant that at this time the Jewes had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin in the opinion of many learned men the Jewes had no more any civill Jurisdiction Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministery Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death How ever he cannot prove that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church the Jewes had any civill Court of Justice which did exercise either Criminall or Capitall Judgements I have in the first Book shewed out of Buxtorf L'Empereur Casauhon and I. Coch. who prove what they say from the Talmudicall writers that 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and so before Christ said Tell the Church the Court of civill Justice at Hierusalem did cease If Master Prynne make any thing of this Glosse of his he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes I have before proved that that Councell of the Jewes in Christs time was an Ecclesiasticall Court though he conceives it was meerely civill 2. That a private civill injury might not then nor may not now be brought before a civill Court except after severall previous admonitions despised 3. That Chists Rule Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased when a civill Court of Justice among the Jewes ceased If he say that the same rule continueth for telling the civill Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition then I aske â— how will he reconcile himself for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice among the Jewes 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of Ierusalem and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to goe to then the Pagan Magistracy must passe under the name of the Church for they had no other civill Court of Justice to goe to One thing I must needs take notice of that whereas he would prove here that Tell the Church is nothing but tell the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes commonly called the Councell saith he or Sanhedrin he doth hereby overthrow all that he hath been building for the Jewish Sanhedrin at that time had not power to judge civill nor criminall and least of all Capitall offences but onely causes Ecclesiasticall The Romans having taken from them their civill Government and left them no Government nor Jurisdiction except in matters of Religion I hope Master Prynne will not in this contradict Erastus And if so how shall his Glosse stand that this Text is to be understood of civill injuries yea and of these onely for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ sends his Disciples to the Jewish Sanhedrin How sweetly doe his Tenents agree together His fourth reason is that those words let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican cannot signifie excommunication because Heathen men being never members of the Church could never be excommunicated or cast out of it being uncapable of such a censure As for publicans those of them who were members of the Jewish Church though they were execrable to the Jewes by reason of their Tax-gatherings and oppressions yet we never read in Scripture that they were excommunicated or cast out of their Synagogues but
civill Courts of Justice c. There was a chiefe Scribe who waited upon the King and wrote unto him a coppy of the Book of the Law according to that Deut. 17. 18. Such a Scribe was Sheva 2 Sam. 20. 25. Shaphan 2 Kings 22. 3. 8. Baruch Jer. 36. Such a Scribe had Joash 2 Kings 12. 10. There were divers other Scribes for the house of the Lord and for the people whose office it was to write and to read the Law 1 Chro. 2. 55 Psal. 45. 1. Ier. 8. 8. 13. Object But neither in the old Testament nor in the Talmudists can there be found any Ecclesiasticall Excommunication properly so called Answ. I deny both yea I have disproved both Moreover as touching the Excommunication used in the Jewish Church I shall adde here these following Testimonies of Mâ—…imonides In libro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tract Talmud Torah Cap. 6. sect 10. He that revileth a wiseman though after his death shall be excommunicated by the Sanhedrin by whom also after repentance he shall be absolved Ib. sect 11. He who is excommunicated in his own Town ought also to be esteemed in all other Cities and Towns as a person excommunicated Answerable hereunto were the ancient Canons which did appoint that a person excommunicated in his own Church should not be received to communion in another Church The 24. causes of excommunication above mentioned he there reckoneth forth from sect 13. to the end of that Chapter Again Cap. 7. sect 2. What is the manner of a simple excommunication or Niddui He that doth excommunicate saith Let that person N. be in or under an excommunication or separation If the person excommunicated be present they who doe excommunicate say unto him Let this person N. be separated or excommunicated And when Cherem or the greater excommunication is inflicted what is the manner They say Let N. be devoted and accursed let an execration adjuration and separation be upon him But how doe they loose the person excommunicated and how doe they free him from the separation or the curse they say Be thou loosed be thou pardoned If the guilty party be absent they say Let N. be loosed and let him be pardoned In the same Chapter sect 8. Neither is there any certain space of time predetermined before which the bond of the excommunication inflicted may not be loosed For immediately and at the same time when excommunication is inflicted it may be loosed if the guilty party doe immediately repeâ—…t and come to himselfe Which doth further set forth the great difference between the nature and scope of Excommunication and the nature and scope of corporall or civill punishments For how soon soever an excommunicat person giveth good signes of true repentance he is to be loosed from the bond of excommunication But he that is punished in his body or estate for any crime is not freed from the punishment because he is known to be penitent The repentance of a criminall person is no supersedeas to civill Justice Thereafter Maimonides proceedeth thus Yet if it seem good to the Sanhedrin that any man shall be left in the state of excommunication for how many yeeres shall be be left in excommunication The Sanhedrin will determine the number of yeers and space of time according to the haynousnesse of the trespasse So likewise if the Sanhedrin will it may devote and subject to a curse first the party himself who is guilty of the crime and then also every other person whosoever eateth or drinketh with him or sitteth neere unto him unlesse at foure cubits distance that so by this means the heavier correction may fall upon the sinner and there may be as it were a hedge put about the law which may restrain wicked men from transgressing it Whence observe 1. It was from the Jewish Church that the ancient Councels of the Christian Church took a pattern for determining and fixing a certaine number of yeeres to the separation of some haynous offenders from the Sacrament and sometimes from other Ordinances also Though I doe not approve this thing either in the Jewish or Christian Church for at what time soever a scandalous sinner doth give evident signes of repentance the Church ought to receive him againe into her bosome and fellowship 2. From the Jewish Church also was the patterne taken for that ancient Discipline in the Christian Church that he who keepeth company and communion with an excommunicated person should fall under the same censure of excommunication Which thing must be well explained and qualified before it can be approved 3. Compare also this passage of Maimonides with 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one no not to eate 2 Thes. 3. 14. have no company with him that he may be ashamed Which Texts doe fitly answer to that which the Hebrew writers say of a person excommunicated 4. The excommunication of an offender among the Jewes was intended not onely for the offenders humiliation and amendment but for an ensample to others that they might heare and feare and do no more any such thing it was therefore a publique and exemplary censure And so much of Sect. 8. In the 9. and 10. Sections Maimonides sheweth us that though a wise man was allowed to prosecute unto the sentence of excommunication one that did revile or calumniat him yet it was more praise-worthy and more agreeable to the example of the holy men of God to passe in silence and to endure patiently such injuries Then followeth Sect. 11. These things which have been said are to be understood of such reproaches and contumelies as are clandestine For if railers doe put a publike infamy upon a wise man it is not lawfull to him to use indulgence or to neglect his honour and if he shall pardon as to the punishment him who hath hurt his fame he himselfe is to be punished because that is a contempt of the law He shall therefore avenge the contumely not suffer himselfe to be satisfied before the guilty party hath craved merey Here is the true object or if you will the procuring and meritorious cause of Excommunication viz. not a private personall or civill injury which a man may passe by or pardon if he will but a scandalous sinne the scandall whereof must be removed and healed by some Testimony or Declaration of the sinners repentance otherwise he must fall under the censure and publique shame These Testimonies of Maimonides and the observations made thereupon beside all that hath been said in this preceding Book will make it manifest that the Spirituall censure of excommunication was translated and taken from the Jewish Church into the Christian Church Furthermore beside all the Scriptural proofs already brought I shall desire another Text Nehem. 13. 1 3. to be wel weighed After the reading of the law Deut. 23. 3. that the Ammâ—…nite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever it came to passe saith the Text when they heard
signification and was a Type of Christ and Communion with him It is worthy of observation that by the Chaldee paraphrase Exod. 12. 43. Any Israelite who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an apostate might not eate of the Passeover Againe verse 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis prophanus So the Latine Interpreter of Onkelos And no prophane person shall eate of it The word is used not onely of a Heathen but of any prophane person as Prov. 2. 16. where the Chaldee expresseth the whorish woman though a Jewesse by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be prophaned è sancto prophanum fieri Surely Onkelos had not thus paraphrased upon Exod. 12. if it had not been the Law of the Jewes that notorious prophane persons should be kept backe from the Passeover The second Book OF THE CHRISTIAN Church-Goverment CHAP. I. Of the Rise Growth Decay and Reviving of Erastianisme DIverse Learned men have to very good purpose discovered the origination occasion first authors fomenters rise and growth of Errors both Popish and others I shall after their example make known briefly what I find concerning the rise and growth the planting and watering of the Erastian Error I cannot say of it that it is honest is parentibus natus it is not borne and descended of honest parents The Father of it is the old Serpent who finding his Kingdom very much impaired weakned and resisted by the vigor of the true Ecclesiastical discipline which separateth between the precious and the vile the holy prophane and so contributeth much to the shaming away of the unfruitful works of darknesse thereupon he hath cunningly gone about to draw men first into a jealousie and then into a dislike of the Ecclesiastical discipline by Gods mercy restored in the Reformed Churches The Mother of it is the enmity of nature against the Kingdom of Iesus Christ which he as Mediator doth exercise in the goverment of the Church Which enmity is naturally in all mens hearts but is unmortified and strongly prevalent in some who have said in their hearts We will not have this man to raigne over us Luke 19. Let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their cords from us Psal. 2. 3. The Midwife which brought this unhappy brood into the light of the world was Thomas Erastus Doctor of Medicine at Heidelberg of whom I shall say no more then what is apparant by his owne Preface to the Reader namely that as he was once of opinion that excommunication is commanded in the Word of God so he came off to the contrary opinion not without a male-contented humour and a resentment of some things which he lookt upon as provocations and personal reflections though its like enough they were not really such but in his apprehensions they were One of these was a publick dispute at Heydelberg in the year 1568. upon certain Theses concerning the necessity of Church Government and the power of Presbyteries to excommunicate Which Theses were exhibited by M. George Withers an Englishman who left England because of the Ceremonies and was at that time made Doctor of Divinity at Heydelberg And the learned dispute had thereupon you may find epitomized as it was taken the day following from the mouth of Dr. Vrsinus in the close of the second part of Dr. Pareus his explication of the Heidelberg Catechisme The Erastian error being borne the breasts which gave it suck were prophanesse and self-interest The sons of Belial were very much for it expecting that the eye of the civil Magistrate shall not be so vigilant over them nor his hand so much against them for a scandalous and dissolute conversation as Church-discipline would be Germanorum bibere est vivere in practice as well as in pronunciation What great marvel if many among them for I do not speak of all did comply with the Erastian Tenent And it is as little to be marvelled at if those whether Magistrates Lawyers or others who conceived themselves to be so far losers as Ecclesiastical Courts were interested in Government and to be greater gainers by the abolition of the Ecclesiastical interest in government were by assed that way Both these you may find among the causes mentioned by Aretius 〈◊〉 probl loc 133. for which there was so much un willingnes to admit the discipline of Excomunication Magistratus jugum non admittuxt timent honoribus licentiam amant c. The Magistrates do not admit a yoke are jealous of their honours love licentiousnesse Vulgus quoque plebs dissolutior major pars corruptissima est c. The Communaltic also and people are more dissolute the greater part is most vicious After that this unlucky child had been nursed upon so bad milk it came at last to eat strong food and that was Arbitrary Government under the name of Royall Prerogative Mr. Iohn Wemys sometime Senator of the Colledge of Justice in Scotland as great a Royalist as any of his time in his book de Regis primatu lib. 1. cap. 7. doth utterly dissent from and argue against the distinction of Civil and Ecclesiasticall lawes and against the Synodical power of censures holding that both the power of making Ecclesiastical lawes and the corrective power to censure Transgressors is proper to the Magistrate The Tutor which bred up the Erastian error was Arminianisme for the Arminians finding their plants pluckt up and their poison antidoted by Classes and Synods thereupon they began to cry down Synodical authority and to appeal to the Magistrates power in things Ecclesiastical hoping for more favour and lesse opposition that way They will have Synods onely to examine dispute discusse to impose nothing under pain of Ecclesiastical censure but to leave all men free to do as they list See their exam cens cap. 25. and Vindic. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 131. 133. And for the Magistrate they have endeavoured to make him head of the Church as the Pope was yea so far that they are not ashamed to ascribe unto the Magistrate that Jurisdiction over the Churches Synods and Ecclesiastical proceedings ' which the Pope did formerly usurpe For which see Apollonius in his Ius Majâ—…statis circa sacra But the Erastian Error being thus borne nursed fed and educated did fall into a most deadly decay and consumption the procuring causes whereof were these three First the best and most and in some respect all of the Reformed Churches refused to receive harbour or entertain it and so left it exposed to hunger and cold shame and nakednesse Some harbour it had in Switzerland but that was lookt upon as comming onely through injury of time which could not be helped the Theological and Scriptural principles of the Divines of those Churches being Anti-Erastian and Presbyteriall as I have else-where shewed against Mr. Coleman So that Erastianisme could not get warmth and strength enough no not in Zurick it self Yea Dr. Ursiâ—…us in his Iudicium de
commonly say of the Magistrate that he is Custos utriusque Tabulae He is to take speciall care that all his Subjects be made to observe the Law of God and live not onely in moral honesty but in Godlinesse and that so living they may also enjoy peace and quietnesse More particularly the end of Church censures is that men may be ashamed humbled reduced to repentance that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. The end of civil punishments inflicted by the Magistrate is That justice may be done according to Law and that peace and good order may be maintained in the Common-wealth as hath been said The end of delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan was that they may learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20. Erastus yeelds to Beza pag. 239. that the Apostle doth not say Ut non possint blasphemare that henceforth they may not be able to sin as they did before which yet he acknowledgeth to be the end of civil punishments but that they may learn not to blaspheme Wherefore when he expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to no other sence but this That the Apostle had delivered those two to be killed by Satan Ut non possint that they may not be able to blaspheme so any more just as a Mastgirate delivers a theef from the gallows that he may not be able to steal any more and as he tels us some speak that he may learn to steal no more He is herein confuted not onely out of the Text but out of himself So then the end of Church-censures is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the offenders may learn or be instructed to do so no more which belongeth to the inward man or soul. The end of civil punishments is Ut non possint as Erastus tels us that the offenders may not be able or at least being alive and some way free may not dare to do the like the sword being appointed for a terrour to them who do evil to restrain them from publike and punishable offences not to work upon the spirit of their mindes nor to effect the destroying of the flesh by mortification that the spirit may be safe in the day of the Lord. The fifth difference between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers is in respect of the effects The effects of the Civil power are Civil Laws Civil punishments Civil rewards The effects of the Ecclesiastical power are Determinations of Controversies of Faith Canons concerning Order and Decency in the Church Ordination or Deposition of Church-Officers Suspension from the Sacrament and Excommunication The powers being distinct in their nature and causes the effects must needs be distinct which flow from the actuating and putting in execution of the powers I do not here speak of the effects of the Ecclesiastical power of Order the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments but of the effects of the power of Jurisdiction or Government of which onely the Controversic is Sixthly The Civil power hath for the object of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things of this life matters of Peace War Justice the Kings matters and the Countrey-matters those things that belong to the external man But the Ecclesiastical power hath for the object of it things pertaining to God the Lords matters as they are distinct from Civil matters and things belonging to the inward man distinct from the things belonging to the outward man This difference Protestant Writers do put between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers Fr. Junius Ecclesiast lib. 3. cap. 4. saith thus We have put into our definition humane things to be the subject of Civil administration but the subject of Ecclesiastical administration we have taught to be things Divine and Sacred Things Divine and Sacred we call both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our minde and conscience as things necessary and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary For example Prayers the administration of the Word and Sacraments Ecclsiastical censure are things necessary and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saints but set dayes set hours set places fasts and the like belong to the decency and order of the Church c. But humane things we call such as touch the life the body goods and good name as they are expounded in the second Table of the Decalogue for these are the things in which the whole Civil administration standeth Tilen Synt. part 2. disp 32. tels us to the same purpose That Civil Government or Magistracy versatur circa res terrenas hominem externum Magistratus saith Danaui Pol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 1. instituti sunt à Deo rerum humanarum quae hominum societati necessariae sunt respectu ad earum curam If it be objected How can these things agree with that which hath been before by us acknowledged that the Civil Magistrate ought to take special care of Religion of the conservation and purgation thereof of the abolishing idolatry and superstition and ought to be Custos utriusque Tabulae of the first as well as second Table I answer That Magistrates are appointed not onely for Civil Policy but for the conservation and purgation of Religion as is expressed in the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland before cited we firmly beleeve as a most undoubted truth But when Divines make the object of Magistracy to be onely such things as belong to this life and to humane society they do not mean the object of the Magistrates Care as if he were not to take care of Religion but the object of his Operation The Magistrate himself may not assume the administration of the keys nor the dispensing of Church-censures he can but punish the external man with external punishments Of which more afterwards The seventh difference stands in the Adjuncts For 1. the Ecclesiastical power in Presbyterial or Synodical Assemblies ought not to be exercised without prayer and calling upon the Name of the Lord Matth. 18. 19. There is no such obligation upon the Civil power as that there may be no Civil Court of Justice without prayer 2. In divers cases Civil Jurisdiction hath been and is in the person of one man But no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is committed to one man but to an Assembly in which two at least must agree in the thing as is gathered from the Text last cited 3. No private or secret offence ought to be brought before an Ecclesiastical Court except in the case of contumacy and impenitency after previous admonitions This is the ordinary rule not to dispute now extraordinary exceptions from that rule But the Civil power is not bound up by any such ordinary rule For I suppose our opposites will hardly say at least hardly make it good that no Civil injury or breach of Law and Justice being privately committed may be brought before a Civil Court except first there
be previous admonitions and the party admonished prove obstinate and impenitent The eighth difference stands in their correlations The Correlatum of Magistracy is people embodied in a Common-wealth or a Civil corporation The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a Church or Spiritual corporation The Common-wealth is not in the Church but the Church is in the Common-wealth that is One is not therefore in or of the Church because he is in or of the Common-wealth of which the Church is a part but yet every one that is a Member of the Church is also a Member of the Common-wealth of which that Church is a part The Apostle distinguisheth those that are without and those that are within in reference to the Church who were notwithstanding both sorts within in reference to the Common-wealth 1 Cor. 5. 12 13. The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power may be quite taken away by persecution or by defection when the Correlatum of the civil power may remain And therefore the Ecclesiastical and the civil power do not se mutuò ponere tollere Ninthly There is a great difference in the ultimate termination The Ecclesiastical power can go no further then Excommunication or in case of extraordinary warrants and when one is known to have blasphemed against the holy Ghost to Auathema Maranatha If one be not humbled and reduced by Excommunication the Church can do no more but leave him to the Judgement of God who hath promised to ratifie in Heaven what his Servants in his Name and according to his Will do upon Earth Salmasius spends a whole chapter in confuting the Point of the coactive and Magistratical Jurisdiction of Bishops See Walo Messal cap. 6. He acknowledgeth in that very place pag. 455 456 459 462 that the Elders of the Church have in common the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline to suspend from the Sacrament and to excommunicate and to receive the offender again upon the evidence of his repentance But the Point he asserteth is That Bishops or Elders have no such power as the Magistrate hath and that if he that is excommunicate do not care for it nor submit himself the Elders cannot compel him But the termination or Quo usque of the civil power is most different from this It is unto death or to banishment or to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment Ezra 7. 26. Tenthly They differ in a divided execution That is the Ecclesiastical power ought to censure sometime one whom the Magistrate thinks not fit to punish with temporal or civil punishments And again the Magistrate ought to punish with the temporal Sword one whom the Church ought not to cut off by the Spiritual Sword This difference Pareus gives Explic Catech. quaest 85. art 4. and it cannot be denied For those that plead most for Liberty of conscience and argue against all civil or temporal punishments of Hereticks do notwithstanding acknowledge that the Church whereof they are Members ought to censure and excommunicate them and doth not her duty except she do so The Church may have reason to esteem one as an Heathen and a Publican that is no Church-Member whom yet the Magistrate in prudence and policy doth permit to live in the Common-wealth Again the most notorious and scandalous sinners blasphemers murtherers adulterers incestuous persons robbers c. when God gives them repentance and the signes thereof do appear the Church doth not binde but loose them doth not retain but remit their sins I mean ministerially and declaratively Notwithstanding the Magistrate may and ought to do Justice according to Law even upon those penitent sinners CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdom of Iesus Christ a general Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God the Head of all Principalities and Powers raigning over all creatures and a particular Kingdom as he is Mediator raigning over the Church onely THe Controversie which hath been moved concerning the civil Magistrate his Vicegerentship and the holding of his Office of and under and for Jesus Christ as he is Mediator hath a necessary coherence with and dependance upon another Controversie concerning a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ one as he is the eternal Son of God raigning together with the Father and the holy Ghost over all things and so the Magistrate is his Vicegerent and holds his Office of and under him another as Mediator and Head of the Church and so the Magistrate doth not hold his Office of and under Christ as his Vicegerent Wherefore before I come to that Question concerning the origination and tenure of the Magistrate's Office I have thought good here to premise the enodation of the Question concerning the twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a distinction which Master Hussey cannot endure and no marvel for it overturneth the foundation of his opinion He looks upon it as an absurd assertion pag. 25. Shall he have one Kingdom as Mediator and another as God He quarrelleth all that I said of the twofold Kingdom of Christ and will not admit that Christ as Mediator is King of the Church onely pag. 25 26 27 35 36 37. The Controversie draweth deeper then he is aware of for Socinians and Photinians finding themselves puzzled with those arguments which to prove the eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ were drawn from such Scriptures as call him God Lord the Son of God also from such Scriptures as ascribe Worship and Adoration to him and from the Texts which ascribe to him a Supreme Lordship Dominion and Kingdom over all things For this hath been used as one Argument for the Godhead of Jesus Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father The Father raigns the Son raigns the holy Ghost raigns Vide lib. Isaaci Clari Hispani adversus Varimadum Arianum Thereupon they devised this answer That Jesus Christ in respect of his Kingly Office and as Mediator is called God and Lord and the Son of God of which see Fest. Honnij Specimen Controv. Belgic pag. 24. Ionas Schlichtingius contra Meisnerum pag. 436. and that in the same respect he is worshipped that in the same respect he is King and that the Kingdom which the Scripture ascribeth to Jesus Christ is onely as Mediator and Head of the Church and that he hath no such Universal Dominion over all things as can prove him to be the eternal Son of God This gave occasion to Orthodox-Protestant-Writters more fully and distinctly to assert the great difference between that which the Scripture saith of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God and that which it saith of him as he is Mediator and particularly to assert a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ and to prove from Scripture that besides that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator he hath another Kingdom over all things which belongs to him onely as he is the eternal Son of God This the Socinians to this day do contradict and stisly hold that Christ hath but one Kingdom which he exerciseth as
are for impenitent contumacious offenders but the Magistrate doth and must punish offenders when the course of Justice and law so requireth whether they appear penitent or impenitent Fourthly The Magistrates power of punishing offenders is bounded by the law of the land What then shall become of such scandalls as are not crimes punishable by the law of the land such as obscene rotten talking adulterous and vile behaviour or the most scandalous conversing and companying together though the crime of adultery cannot be proved by witnesses living in known malice and envie refusing to be reconciled and thereupon lying off it may be for a long time from the Sacrament and the like which are not proper to be taken notice of by the civil Judge So that in this case either there must be Church-censures and discipline exercised by Church-officers or the Magistrate must go beyond his limits Or lastly Scandalls shall spread in the Church and no remedy against them Far be it from the thoughts of Christian Magistrates that scandalls of this kind shall be tolerated to the dishonour of God the laying of the stumbling blocks of bad examples before others and to the violation and pollution of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ who hath commanded to keep his ordinances pure A second Argument may be this In the old Testament God did not command the Magistrates but the Priests to put a difference betwixt the prophane and the holy the unclean and the clean Levit. 10. 10. Ezech. 22. 26. Ezech. 44. 23 24. Deut. 21. 5. 2 Chron. 23. 18 19. And in the new Testament the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Ministers of the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. but no where to the civil Magistrate It belongeth to Church-officers to censure false doctrine Revel 2. 2. 14. 15. to decide controversies Acts 16. 4. and to examine and censure scandalls Ezech. 44 23 24. which is a Prophecy concerning the ministery of the New Testament And Elders judge an Elder 1 Tim. 5. 19. or any other Church-member 1 Cor. 5. 12. Thirdly The Scripture holdeth forth the civil and Ecclesiastical power as most distinct insomuch that it condemneth the Spiritualizing of the civil Power aswell as the Secularizing of the Ecclesiastical power State Papacy aswell as Papal-State Church-officers may not take the civil sword nor judg civil causes Luke 12. 13 14 and 22. 25. Matth. 26. 52. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. So Uzzah might not touch the Ark nor Saul offer burnt offerings nor Uzziah burn incense I wish we may not have cause to revive the proverb which was used in Ambrose his time That Emperors did more covet the Priesthood then the Priests did covet the Empire Shall it be a sin to Church-officers to exercise any act of civil government and shal it be no sin to the civil Magistrate to ingrosse the whole and sole power of Church-Government Are not the two powers formally and specifically distinct Of which before Chap. 4. It is to be well noted that Maccovius and Vedelius who ascribe a sort of Papal power to the civil Magistrate to the great scandall of the Reformed Church do notwithstanding acknowledge that Christ hath appointed Church discipline and censures and the same to be dispenced by Church-officers onely And that the Magistrate as he may not preach the Word and administer the Sacraments So he may not exercise Church-discipline nor inslict spiritual censures such as excommunication Though Erastus pag. 175. hath not spared to say that the Magistrate may in the New Testament though he might not in the old exercise the ministeriall function if he can have so much leisure from his other employments Fourthly The power of Church discipline is intrinsecall to the Church that is both they who censure and they who are censured must be of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. 13. They must be of one and the same Corporation the one must not be in the body and the other out of the body But if this power were in the Magistrate it were extrinsecall to the Church For the Magistrate quatenus a Magistrate is not so much as a Church-member far lesse can the magistrate as magistrate have jurisdiction over Church-members as Church members even as the minister as minister is not a member of the Common-wealth or State far lesse can he as minister exercise jurisdiction over the Subjects as Subjects The Christian magistrate in England is not a member of the Church as a magistrate but as a Christian. And the minister of Jesus Christ in England is not subject to the magistrate as he is a minister of Christ but as he is a member of the Common-wealth of England He was both a learned man and a great Royallist in Scotland who held that all Kings Infidel as well as Christian have equal authority and jurisdiction in the Church though all be not alike qualified or able to exercise it Io. Wemius de Reg. primat pag. 123. Let our opposites loose this knot among themselves for they are not of one opinion about it Fifthly Church-officers might and did freely and by themselves dispence Church-censures under Pagan and unbeleeving magistrates as is by all confessed Now the Church ought not to be in a worse condition under the Christian magistrate then under an Infidel for the power of the Christian magistrate is cumulative not privative to the Church He is a Nursing Father Isa. 49. 23. not a Step-Father He is keeper defender and guardian of both Tables but neither Judge nor Interpreter of Scripture Sixthly I shall shut up this Argumentation with a convincing dilemma The Assemblies of Church-officers being to exercise discipline and censure offences which is supposed and must be granted in regard of the Ordinances of Parliament either they have power to do this Iure proprio and virtute officii or onely Iure devoluto and virtute delegationis such authority being derived from the magistrate If the former I have what I would If the latter then it followeth 1. That where Presbyteries and Synods do exercise spirituall Jurisdiction not by any power derived from or dependant upon the civil Magistrate but in the name and authority of Iesus Christ and by the power received from him as in Scotland France the Low-Countries c. there all Ecclesiastical censures such as deposition of Ministers and Excommunication of scandalous and obstinate persons have been are and shall be void null and of no effect Even as when the Prelaticall party did hold that the power of ordination and jurisdiction pertaineth onely to Prelats or such as are delegate with commission and authority from them thereupon they were so put to it by the Arguments of the Anti-Episcopall party that they were forced to say that Presbyters ordained by Presbyters in other Reformed Churches are no Presbyters and their excommunication was no excommunication 2. It will follow that the Magistrate himself may excommunicate for nemo potest aliis
proved he must not doe an unlawfull act in obedience to men but walke by that Apostolicall rule 1 Tim. 5. 22. Be not partaker of other mens sinnes Keep thy selfe pure In doing whereof he doth not make his conscience the rule of inflicting any censure and particularly of suspending from the Sacrament which must be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by many but yet his conscience so sarre as it is informed and illuminate by the word of God is a rule to him of his owne personall acting or not acting notwithstanding of which the offender stands rectus in curia and is not excluded by the sentence of any Ecclesiasticall Court. I confesse a Minister ought to be very cleare in his conscience and be perswaded not upon suspicions surmises or such like sleight motives but upon very certaine grounds that the sentence of an Eldership Classis or Synod is contrary to the Word of God before he refuse to doe the thing But what may be the reason why M r Prynne is so large upon this point from pag. 28. to 35 I take not upon me to judge de intentione operantis But the intentio operis is to yeeld somewhat in lieu of suspension from the Sacrament which yet shall be no Church censure nor act of jurisdiction and so to make the discipline of Suspension yea and Excommunication too to be of no necessary use in the Church For if it be sufficient and a full discharge of duty to admonish unworthy scandalous persons not to come to the Lords Table unlesse they repent and reforme this cuts off the necessity of Censure whether Suspension or Excommunication As for that admonition or warning to be given it is no Church censure nor act of Jurisdiction especially when given by the Minister alone for no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction can be excercised or Censure inflicted by any one man how eminent soever in the Church Yea when it is a Consistoriall or Presbyteriall Admonition it is not properly a Censure but a Degree to Censure 1. Because Admonition doth not exclude a person from any Church priviledge nor from communion in any Ordinance And how can one be said to be under Church censure who still enjoyeth all Church priviledges 2. If Consistoriall admonition be a binding where is the loosing of that bond Every censure consistorially inflicted must be also consistorially taken off upon repentance appearing in the party These things I doe but tâ—uch that I might make it appeare how M r Prynnes doctrine tendeth to strip Elderships out of all jurisdiction or power of Censures Now come we to the particulars wheren I doe not finde any great matter to insist long upon He â—irst premiseth six conclusions Supposed conclusions he may make them but proved Conclusions they are not The first of them is indeed ushered in syllogistically but very weakly as shall appeare The strength of his discourse he contracteth into this argument Those who have a true right to the Sacrament as visible members of the visible Church ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it in case they demand it by any Minister or Presbytery But all unexcommunicate Christians who are able to examine themselves as visible members of the visible Church have a true right to the Sacrament in case they doe demand it when publiquely administred Ergo they ought not in justice or conscience be deprived of it by any Minister or Presbytery when publiquely administred if they shall require it Answ. First this is fallacia plurium interrogationum for these words as visible members of the visible Church both in the Major and Minor clogge and confound the argument and patch up two distinct propositions into one Secondly his Major cannot be admitted without a distinction There is Ius ad rem and Ius in re There is a remote right or a right in actu primo thâ—t is such a right relation or habitude as entitleth a person to such a priviledge or benefit to be enjoyed and possessed by him when he shall be capable and fit to enjoy it Such is the right of a Minor to his inheritance Such was the right of lepers of old to their Tâ—nts Houses and Goods when themselves were put out of the Camp and might not during their leprosie actually enjoy their own habitations Such is the right which a man hath in England to his sequestred Estate Lands and Houses he doth not lose but retaine his Right Title Charters and Deeds as valid in Law and not made voyd or null and may be againe admitted to the actuall possession upon satisfaction given to the State and a huge difference there is between Sequestration and forfeiture or Outlawry There is againe a proxime right or a right in actu secundo which rendereth a person actually and presently capable of that thing which he is entituled unto If M r Prynnes major be understood of the first kind of right I deny it If of the second kind of right I admit it and it doth not help his opinion nor hurt mine Thirdly yea himselfe must needs admit an exception from his major proposition for by his owne principles those that have a true right to the Sacrament as visible members of the visible Church may be excommunicated and so deprived not onely of the Sacrament but of all other publique Ordinances When he tels us here that nothing but an actuall excommunication can suspend them from this their right he doth but begge that which is in question And if his Argument conclude against a lesser Suspension from their right why not also against the greater Fourthly he hath not proved his minor especially being understood of the second kind of right which renders meâ— actually and presently capable of the thing He saith that the Sacraments were bequeathed by Christ to his visible Church on Earth and all visible members of it Which he hath not proved and I deny it except it have this limitation all visible members of the visible Church which are visibly or in externall profession and conversation qualified according to the rule of Christ and against whose admission to the Sacrament there is no just exception Fifthly when he concludeth that no unexcommunicated Christians who are able to examine themselves that is as himselfe hath explained who are not naturally disabled as children and fooles though he shall finde it a very hard taske to prove that all other unexcommunicate Christians besides these are able to examine themselves ought in justice or conscience to be deprived of the Sacrament by any Minister or Presbytery he doth upon the matter conclude that the Ordinances of Parliament Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. authorising Presbyteries to suspend from the Sacrament scandalous persons unexcommunicated are contrary to all justice and conscience N. B. Sixthly as touching that limitation yeelded by himselfe that they must be such as are able to examine themselves I aske 1. Are persons grossely ignorant able to examine themselves 2. Are drunken persons