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-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
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
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
you never read that the Priests yea or the High Priest said fall upon such an ill doer and kill him nor was this any Law of God that the Ecclesiastick Sanedrim should put to death and politically condemne any man to die or command any mans blood to be shed they but declared and resolved a case of conscience to the judges and a plea and said This is a matter of blood and deserveth death by the Law of God and he that hath done such a fact in point of Law ought to die But there were two things left to the civilâ— Iudges 1. Whether this man hath done such a fact 2. A sitting in the Tribunall and saying I or we command and decree such a man who hath shed such blood hath inflicted such a stroake on this woman who is with childe of living birth to be stoned to death to be hanged Erastus hath not proved nor never shall prove that the High Priests Priests or Levites by Gods Law did thus judge any That Ananias commanded Paul to be beaten and the lictors of the High Priest smote Christ on the face at the command of the Priests was against Law they had no power so to doe by Law yea and our Presbyteries that judge of sorceries witchcrafts incests adulteries and other capitall crimes and of bloods in point of Gods Law what is witchcraft what is incest that the husband that striketh his wife being with quick child and killeth the birth is a Murtherer but that they judicially say such a woman is a Witch and so ordain her to be hanged and burnt and such a husband is a Murtherer and decerne him to die is utterly unlawfull therefore this is an ignorant speech of Erastus This synedrie of Priests and Levites whether in point of Law or in point of â—act did give out sentences of death therefore they were politick judges it followeth not and that the Priests said this man deserveth to die and therefore they gave out as civill judges sentences of death for the civill judge draweth not the sword with his owne hand is a foul consequence for lawyers do say such a man is worthy to die but it followeth not that Lawyers are civill judges to condemne a man to die for the Priests said this man deserveth to die in point of Law not absolutely as this man but upon supposition that he hath committed the fact deserveth to die and their meaning is any man whosoever he be though they never hear nor see the man who hath committed such a fact ought to die Now Gods Law never appointed any judge to condemn a man to die whom the judge never did accuse heare or see this were extreame unjustice Now this supposition is and was to be proved and judged by the civill Iudge and whereas Erastus saith the judge draweth the sword with his owne hand against no man 1. It is not to purpose for the hangman is in Law the hand and instrument of the judge but he is neither hand nor instrument of the Lawyer of the Priests and Levites who in matters criminall of life and death judge of the Maior proposition and of the Law except Erastus would have a Major proposition to prove an Assumption which were to shame all Logick For the Priest never commanded this or this man because he had done this fault to be stoned by such such executioners 2. It is doubtful whether the judge did never with his owne hand cast a stone at any stoned to death Lastly there was no provocation from the great Sanedrim at Ierusalem true in matter of Law what then Ergo they were politick judges it followeth as the like consequences of Erastus doth follow Yea for the fact and the judiciall condemning of the man they were neither the highest judicature nor any judicature at all the civill Iudges of the high Sanedrim did that onely It is true he was to die who would not stand to the sentence of the judge or Priest in the matter of Law the man being judged to be guilty of the fact by the civill judge but this shall never prove that the Priests were civill judges Erastus The late Iewes referre to this Sanedrim at Ierusalem questions of making warre or consecrating the Priest of tributes of charges of the Temple of judging of Tribes of the censuring of false Prophets and of Soothsayers c. How then is it not a politick judicature in which all causes belonging to worship Ceremonies civill policy bloods and capitall punishments were handled for when Moses had spoken of the punishing of Idolaters he presently addeth Deut. 17. If any thing be hard for thee c Ans It is like enough the Iewes referred such as these to the Sanedrim but we contend for two Sanedrims one civill and another of Priests Levites and Elders who judged of matters onely of Ecclesiasticall cognizance and of bloods and punishing Idolaters and false Prophets with death onely in a spirituall way in point of Law and I judge the holy Ghost Deut. 17. hath so framed the words that it is evident as I have proved that capitall crimes belonged to them in point of Law for he saith not he that refuseth to die when the Priests and Levites condemne him to die hee shall surely die and have the benefit of appeal to no higher judicature Now this he should have said by Erastus his way but he that will not stand to the sentence of the Priest or judge shall die Hence it is clear he speaketh of things in matters of Law in which the guilty might dis-assent and alledge the Priests had not judged according to Law But how was it the minde of the holy Ghost that any could refuse the Sentence of death given out by the Priests for the meaning must be by Erastus his way he that refuseth to die when the Priest condemneth him to die he shall surely die 2. He saith not that the Priests and Levites shall give out sentences of death and blood against any man but they shall shew and teach thee when thou shalt inquire the sentences of judgement even of Idolaters blasphemers of Murthers and blood according to the Law of God the knowledge of which the Priests lips should preserve Erastus Moses instituted no other publike judicatures for punishing of wickednes but those he maketh mention of Exod. 18. Numb 11. Deut. 1. 16 17. But all thâ—se were onely civill not Ecclesiasticall Iudges The seventy that were indued with the spirit of prophecy were given to helpe Moses and â—ase him not to be assistants to helpe Aaron and it cannot be doubted but Moses his government was civill Ans Both the Major the Minor is false the Major is from some particular places negativè he should argue from all the Old Testament and he argueth from some places onely he leaveth out Levit. 10. and all the places where the Priests were onely to judge the Leper the uncleane which are spirituall judicatures not civill 2.
Synedry was the Civill Magistrate Erastus When the Priest accused Jeremiah Chap. 26. of blasphemy he sate not amongst the Judges but stood as an accuser before the Magistrate So Beza Erastus replieth Your Synedry had no Civill jurisdiction because it is a dream 2. Should Pashut the Priest be both accuser and judge 3. In Ieremiahs time there was a Monarch in whose hand was all power in Christs time there was an Aristocracy the Government being in the hands of some chosen men Ans Certainly Ier. 26. 10. the Princes sate down in judgement but that the Priests sate with them we have not one word only the Priests accused him as worthy to die in the question of Law and so the people ver 8. Now the people undeniably cannot have been Iudges 2. Nor do we say the Priests were both judges Civill to condemn Ieremiah to die and accusers that doth not hinder but they in an Ecclesiasticall way were Iudges touching the question of Law whether he had spoken blasphemy or not and also Accusers before the Civill Iudges 3. It is to beg the question to say that all power even of Church-censuring was in the hand of the King 1. The King might exclude none of the Lepers out of the Camp the Priests only could by the Law of God do this and excluded Vzziah the King as a Leper out of the Congregation The King could not judge who were clean who unclean 2. That all power was in the hand of the Kings as if the Kings of Iâ—dah were by Gods Law absolute can never be proved but the contrary is evident Deut. 17. And that inferiour Iudges were essentially Iudges and the Lords immediate Deputies is clear by Scripture Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 5 6 7. Exod. 18. 21 c. Numb 11. â—6 17 18. Psal 82. 6 7. Rom. 13. 1 2. Erastus You ask how Caiaphas and the Priâ—sts had power against Iesus I ansvver 1. From God 2. From the Kings of Persia 3. From the permission of the Romans They apprehended him and bound him which was a part of Civill power nor was this some of the confusion under the Maccabees Hovv can this be proved Christ never rebuked it nor his Apostles the contrary is clear in Iosephus Ans A permissive power from God can prove no Law-power 2. Persians and Romans could not give to Priests and Levites the power of the sword to do what the Law of God had exempted them from doing they were not so much as numbred for the war but set apart for the service of Gods house Num. 1. 3. 45 c. they might in some extraordinary cases judge in civill businesse with the Civill Iudges in the same Iudicature but this was no standing Law 2. Erastus seeketh we would prove that the practise of bloody Pharisees was not against Law He knoweth it is his own Argument Affirmanti incumbit Probatio 3. Christ and the Apostles rebuked not particularly many other sins Pilate might have accused them for binding one of Cesars Subjects of whom he had said he found no fault in him 4. That Ioseph was a Priest or a Levite I reade not he was an Honourable Councellor some think of Pilates Councell 5. That they had any Law of God to apprehend Iesus or that Ioseph had any hand in either condemning or doing any thing in the Sanedrim but shewing his judgement as a Iudge in the question of Law what was blasphemy we must deny let Erastus prove it if so be Erastus make him either Priest or Levite Ioh. 18. 31. The Iews expresly deny the power that Erastus giveth them Pilate therefore said unto them take him and judge him according to your Law which was a salt mocking of them I knovv if you had povver you should not have brought him to me therefore if ye have povver use it The Ievvs therefore said unto him It is not lavvfull for us to put any man to death and the Evangelist addeth ver 32. That the saying of Iesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die that is God had taken power of life and death from the Iews in his admirable providence that Iesus might die a Roman death due for treason that is that he might be crucified Ergo the Iews had no power to put him to death It is weak and empty that Erastus saith They had not povver to put him to death for saying he vvas King because that was a civill crime But they had power to put him to death and to stone him for blasphemy for the Iews say universally without distinction of causes with two negations which in the Greek Language is a strong and universall negation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have not power to kill any man Ergo the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him because the Iews might kill no man you will say Hovv had they povver vvith svvords and staves to take the Kings free subject and binde him which yet they did I answer it was an usurped power for by Erastus his doctrine they had no more power to take him and binde him for Treason which was a civill crime then they had to kill him for Treason both was alike unlawfull by the Roman Lavv and Pilate being a man willing to please the people as the event of the businesse sheweth did not in a legall way challenge them for binding him but he durst not be answerable to his Prince Cesar if he had past by such a high point as their putting Christ to death But we desire any Law of God for practises especially of wicked men are no binding rule that Priests or Levites in the Old-Testament might either binde a Iew or put him to death and when Pilate did stand so much to put Christ to death they would have used their own power malice so necessitating them if they had had any and might well have said to Pilate It is lavvfull for us to put him to death for blasphemy but vve vvill not use our povver vve so love to be loyall to Caesar but they say the contrary We have no povver to put any man to death They say indeed that by their law he ought to die But that they had no power to put him to death for the Common people said that as may appear if we compare Ioh. 19. ver 5. with ver 12. with Matth. 27. 25. and with Act. 2. 36. Act. 3. 12. c. and yet Erastus will not say that the common people were Members of the Sanedrim or had power of life and death as the Civill Magistrate had Erastus Steven was stoned by the Sanedrim not by tumult for there vvere vvitnesses as the lavv required Act. 7. The vvitnesses vvho by the lavv vvere to cast the first stone at the man condemned vvere here therefore there vvas law-Lavv-povver to stone him though they did it unjustly Ans Beza meant that Steven was stoned by tumult that is without
any Law-power except usurped when the Iews were now riper for destruction and had taken on them the blood of the Lord of glory and so growing more daring and insolent against the Roman povver to their own just desolation that came on them under Vespasian That they used witnesses will not prove they had Law to stone Steven for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders one brother hath no power of life and death over another as Erastus will grant yet with both there is use of witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly any lawfull civill power so all this is from a naked practise of those that alvvayes resisted the holy Ghost And the like I say of Paul who saith Act. 26. 10. of himself Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison having received authority from the high Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Priests to imprison the Saints and to murther the Saints no high Priest can make over a law-Law-power to another which he hath not himself now certain this Law-power of the Pharisees and High Priests by Gods Law is the question Let us see Law or institution where the High Priests for of these only the Text speaketh did imprison and put to death either blasphemer or false Prophet or if by Moses his Law which must be a rule to all the High Priests in the time of persecuting Saul it was either Law or practise that the High Priest had power to imprison or scourge or put to death any man and this was most proper to the King and the Civill judge and the Elders and Iudges in every City 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. 2. 6 7. Isa 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1 c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. 7. 5. 19. 12. 13. ver 18 19 20 21. 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hos 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King the Civill Iudge had power of all bodily punishments as of scourging death stoning strangling crucifying hanging But shew meany Vestigium or the least consequence where the Priests or High Priests had such power or did execute such power in any one man it is true Deut. 17. the Priests might determine in Law what was blasphemy and so what deserved the punishment of blasphemy which is death But so the written Law of God the very letter of it could in many cases clearly resolve the Civill judge even though there had been no controversie about the fact whether it was condemned in the Law of God or not we know Samuel not being judge but Saul being King supream Magistrate not executing judgement on the Amalekites he killed Agag certainly all Divines even Popish not excepted say Saul the Civil Magistrate ought to have killed Agag that Samuel not by vertue of his place as a prophet or as a Priest or a Member of the Sanedrim as Erastus would say but excited by an extraordinary motion of Gods spirit killed him as Phineas the son of Aaron slew Num. 25. Zimri and Cosbi 7 8. And Elijah slew Baals Priests 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office and Elias by office killed those ill doers as Erastus would dream The Prophets and Priests by their office were Civill Iudges and had power to put to death evil doers Now Erastus denyeth and with good reason that the Lords disciples should bear civill dominion over men as the Lords of the Gentiles Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and that Christ though both a Prophet and a Priest could not take on him to be a Iudge and a Ruler Luk. 12. yet here Erastus will have the High Priest by a Law-power to imprison and put to death 2. Erastus may with as good reason say that the high Priests had a Law-power by Gods institution to punish and to compell Christians to blaspheme God and to persecute them to strange Cities and to murther the Saints that believed in the Lord Iesus for he went to Damascus for this effect Act. 26. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with povver and Commission from the chief Priests This was not a Law-power in generall to punish such as the Law of Moses discerned to be blasphemers but a limited particular Commission to murther the Saints who should hear and obey the Prophet like unto Moses whom the Lord should raise up Deut. 18. What Law had the High Priests for this Had they not a Law on the contrary Deut. 18. Erastus Paul confesseth ingenuously before the Roman Judges that he persecuted the Saints and that he had authority and power from the Priests and Elders so to do Act. 22. 26. and we read not that the Priests or Paul were censured for these things as having done any thing against the Laws or will of the Romans Act. 5. They send their Officer the Captain of the Temple they imprison the Apostles they convene a Councell give out a sentence and agitate the killing of the Apostles amongst them while Gamaliel impede them Ans It is true the Romans heard that the Sanedrim exercised Civill jurisdiction and inflicted bodily punishment But for false Doctrine the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of Gods matters and whether the Sanedrim kept the rule of the Lords first institution Deut. 17. yea they looked not much whether the Priests might put to death false Prophets or if the Civill judges only might do it and Erastus said before that the Romans gave the Iews liberty of all their own laws and customes in matters of Religion 2. What care would the Romans take whether the Iews killed and oppressed Iews for questions of their owne Religion so they remained loyall and true to Cesar 3. We know Herod Felix Festus Agrippa being willing to pleasure the Iews did oversee many breaches of Law in them especially in matters of the Gospel Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36 37 38 39 40. Ioh. 19. 15 16 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Lawes Because they accuse not the Sanedrim for this surely it followeth not We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifest breach of Law when they scourged and cast in prison Paul and Silas who were Romans and had not condemned them Act. 16. 38 39. 5. We deny not a lawfull judicature of the Sanedrim Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God to scourge and imprison and put to death the Apostles is the question we say they neither had Gods law nor durst be answerable to the Romans Laws for that fact and so this is a fact brought to prove a Law Erastus If this was insolencie in the Jevvs which rose from the confusion of the two jurisdictions hovv say some of yours none can be
them but in publick places and at all occasions and dayly in the Temple and in every house they câ—â—sed not to teach and preach Iesus Christ Act. 6. 2 4. 4. 1. 20. 5. 20 21. The Magistrate being Antichristian forbiddeth not preaching of saving truths because of the place be it private or publick but he forbiddeth them because they are saving and if Iesus Christ have called a man to preach in publick in the house tops the Magistrate hath no power from God to silence him in publick more then in private the Magistrate forbiddeth that any teach false Doctrine not for the place but because it is injurious and hurtfull to humane societies that men should be principled in a false Religion and cannot but disturbe the publick peace IX Asser The Christian magistrate must here come under a threefold consideration 1. As the Object of that high office is meerly and purely civill and positive relating only to a civill end of Peace as in importing or exporting of goods of wooll waxe moneys for the good of the common-wealth the crying up or crying downe of the value of coyned Gold or Silver the making of Lawes meerly civill as not to carry Armor in the night in such a City So in Warre Commanders Captains and Colonels are Magistrates to order the Battle lay stratagems the way of besieging Townes of fortifying Castles of issuing out mandates for the Navy The Parliaments power in disposing of Fouling Fishing Hunting Eating of Flesh or not eating at such a time all these as the Word of God doth not particularly warrant the one side more then the other are meerly civill and positive It is sure the Magistrate hath a supremacy and an independency above the Church or Ministers of the Gospel in all these and as these prescinde from all Morality of the first and second Table I hold that neither the power nor person of the Magistrate is subordinate to the Church and Church-assemblies and Ministers of the Gospel should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and exceed the limits and bounds of their calling if they should meddle with these as the Church should exceed their bounds if they should make Canons touching the way of sayling painting tilling the earth according to such and such principles of Art for these are without the sphere of the Churches activity in this consideration that learned and grave Divine Doctor Andrew Rivetus in Decalo in c. 5. saith well pag. 204. That as we beleeve a man well skilled in his owne Art so that his judgement is a supream rule so the supream authority of the Magistrate to us in things positive is a rule for indeed it cannot be denied but there be Arcana Imperiâ— secrets of State that are not to be communicated to Pastors or to any in which the Rulers have a supremacy The Magistrate falleth under a second consideration as he giveth out Lawes just or unjust and executeth judgement in the morning or suffereth the eyes of the poore the widdow and Orphane to faile for went of justice and in these he is not subject to the Church and Pastors so but only as if he sinne in making Lawes the Pastors may humbly supplicate that he would recall those unjust Lawes and judge over againe righteous judgement and this exhorting of the Pastors is a subjecting of the Magistrate to the Pastors quoad actus imperatos so have Generall assemblies in the Church of Scotland humbly supplicated the King and Parliament to retreat Laws made against the liberties of the Church in savour of Antichristian Prelates and Ceremonies but quoad actus elicitos The Church and Pastors themselves cannot usurpe the throne and give out civill Lawes that are righteous and judge righteously for the poor in the place of King Parliament and Iudges for in this also the judges are supream and independent and subject only to God the Creator as his Vicars and Deputies in Gods universall Kingdome of power called universale regnum potentiae by Divines they are Gods and the shields of the world and here only as they erre not as they iudge are they subject to rebukes and threatnings and admonitions of the Church and Ministers of the Gospel Even as the Magistrate may command the Pastors to preach and dispense the Sacraments aright but the Magistrate himselfe can neither preach nor dispense the Sacraments so the Schoolmen say that the actions of the understanding depend on the will quoad excercitium the will may set the mind to think on this or that truth but not quoad specificationem The will it selfe can neither assent nor dissent from a truth nor can the will command the mind to assent to a known untruth or dissent from a known truth the mind or understanding naturally doth both and this distinction holdeth in acts of the civill power and in acts meerly Ecclesiasticall The third consideration of the Christian Magistrate is as he is a man and a member of a Christian Church who hath a soul to be saved and in this he is to submit to Pastors as those that watch for his soul Heb. 13. 17. as others who have souls to be saved X. Ass Hence I am not affraid to assert a reciprocation of subordinations between the Church and the Magistrate and a sort of collaterality and independent supremacy in their own kind common to both for every soul Pastors and others are subject to the Magistrate as the higher power in all civill things Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. Tit. 3 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Mat. 22. 21. and all members of the common-wealth being members of the Church in soul-matters are subject to the Church and Pastors in their authoritative dispensing of Word Sacraments and Church censures Nor are any Magistrates or other who have souls excepted Heb. 13. 17. Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. â—8 Joh. 20. 21. Act. 15. 20 21 22 23. Mat. 10. 4â— 41 42. So Protestant writers who have written on this subject Teach As the learned Walens judicious Trig. that most learned Divine And. Rivetus the grave and learned professors of Leyden Zipperus Calv. Petr. Cabel Javiâ—â— reverend and pious M. Iohn Cotton judicious P. Mar. D. Pareus all the Protestant confessions The Augustine confession distinctly of Helvetia The confession of Sweden the Saxon. The English confession and that of Scotland all our Divines while Erastus Vtenbogard Hu. Grotius Vedelius Bullinger Gualthâ—rus going before them yet not every way theirs did teach the contrary The Arminians in Holland did thus flatter the Magistrate for their owne politick ends and some Court Divines made the King of England Head of the Church in the place of the Pope which P. Mar. excused and expounded benignly some say it is against reason that there should be two supream collaterall powers and especially in a mutuall subordination But can we deny this reciprocation of subordinations it is evident in many things if the King be in an extream feaver one of his own subjects a
intention signifieth divine adoration p. 147 148 Objections of Swarez contending that intention of adoration is essential to adoration removed p. 148 149 Of the Idolatrous worship of the Iews and Papists p. 150 The relative expressioÌ„ of God in the creature is no ground of adoring the creature p. 151 The Iews beleeved not the Golden ca lt to be really God p. 151 152 The adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremonial law but by the Moral law p 154 The evasions of Bellarmine and Swarez answered p. 155 Papists did of old adore before or at the presence of the Image as a memorative signe and yet were Idolators p. 158 Two sort of signes ibid. Divers evasions of Papists touching the adoring of Images p. 161 162 scq Swarez is not content at the hungry expressions of Durandus Mirandula Hulcot in the worshipping of Images p. 165 166 The place worship at his footstool discussed Psal 99 ibid. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the creature as Adoration p. 169 170 Divers Fables touching Images p. 179 180 The original of Images p. 181 Images not in the ancient Church neither worshippeâ— therein p. 182 â—83 184 c. Vasquez will have all things to be adored p. 190 Joan. dâ— Lugo proveth the same by four Reasons p. 191 Whether sitting or kneeling be the most convenient and lawful gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 192 Sitting the onely convenient and lawful gesture p. 193 What is occasional in the first Supper ibid. Christ sate at the first Supper p. 194 195 Sitting a sign of our coheirship p. 197 198 199 A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ p. 198 Ceremonies fail against the Authority of Rulers p. 201 Whether humane Laws binde the conscience or not p. 201 202 seq How civil positive Laws binde not the conscience p. 202 203 A twofold goodnesse p. 207 The will of created Authority cannot create goodnesse in things p. 204 205 Humane Laws obliâ—ge onely in so far as they agree with the Law of God p. 206 A twofold consideration of Humane Laws p. 208 How Rulers are subordinate to God in commanding p. 209 Humane authority is not the nearest nor the instrumental cause of Laws p. 208 209 A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective p. 210 Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equals p 210 211 False Rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by D. Jackson refuted p. 212. The goodnesse of supposed obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the sinful manner of doing with a doubting conscience p. 214 Other arguments for the obligation of humane Laws answered p. 216 What it is to resist to Ruler p. 217 Why men cannot make Laws that layeth a tie on the conscience p. 219 That Christ hath a spiritual Kingdom not onely in the power of Preaching but also in the power of the Keys by censures p. 220 That there is such a divine Ordinance as Excommunication p. 223 Objections against Excommunication removed p. 224 How we are to rebuke our Brother p. 225 The Church Matth. 18. is not the civil Sanedrim p. 226 227 229 How Heathen and Publicans were excluded from the Church p. 230 Binding and loosing acts judicial p. 235 236 Excommunication is a divine Ordinance proved by 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 seq fuse To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing p. 238 239 The essentials of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 c. Whether the Word doth warrant censures and exclusion from the Seals ibid. Cutting off not alwayes killing p. 241 Moral scandals excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews p. 243 The prophecy Ezek 44. 11 12 c. to be fulfilled under the New Testament p. 244 245 Ceremonial exclusion from holy things under the old did typiâ—ie exclusion for moral uncleannesse under the N. Test p. 247 248 The Churches exclusion from the Seals declarative non coactive by violence ibid. Censures applyed to some by name ibid. Eschuing the society of scandalous Church-members must be a Church-censure p. 249 The hindering of Jezabel by preaching not sufficient p. 251 Debarring of the scandalous from the Seals proved p. 252. seq It belongeth not to the Magistrate to debar from the Seals p. 253 Erastus against exclusion from the Sacraments refuted p. 253 seq fuse By Erastus his way we cannot deny the Seals to a Turk p. 258 259 To exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication p. 260 Excommunication is no real separation of one from Christs invisible body p. 261 262 264 Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it s not empty p. 266 Putting out 1 Cor. 5. p. 269 Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iews for moral uncleannesse from the holy things of God p. 271 A twofold forgivenesse p. 273 All are invited to come to the Sacraments but not that they come any way p. 274 The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus p. 275 Two sort of signes amongst the Iews some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life the latter clean and unclean might eat but not the former p. 277 All are commanded to hear but not to â—ome to the Supper p. 280 Whether Erastus doth justly deny Excommucation to be typified of Old p. 281 Ceremonial uncleannesse typified exclusion out of the visible Church for scandals not out of the Kingdom of Heaven p 287 288 Legal uncleannesse was sin p. 289 The scope and sense of Matth. 18. perverted by Erastus p. 290 Our Saviour speaketh of all not of private or lesser scandals onely p. 291 By the word Brother is not meaned a Iew onely ib. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandal p. 294 A twofold forgiving p. 295 Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth p. 297 Christs scope spiritual Erastus his way carnal p. 298 A Publican most odious to the Iews p. 305 It s not private forgivenesse which is holden forth Matth. 18. 17. p. 308 Binding and loosing proper to Stewarts p. 309 To excommunicate is not formally to debar from the Seals p. 311 Christ might well give directions touching a Church not yet erected p. 314 c. The place 1 Cor. 5. vindicated from Erastus his glosse p. 316 317 c. The prayers of the Church intervene not for this particular miracle p. 318 319 Faith of miracles not in all the faithful at Corinth p. 320 Delivering to Satan not miraculous p. 321 The Church not Paul alone had hand in delivering the man to Satan p. 326 What delivering to Satan is p. 327 The destruction of the flesh what it is p. 328 Hymeneus and Alexander not killed by Satan p. 332 Delivering to Satan not miraclous p 336 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away not alwayes to kill p. 337 To eschew the
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-Law-power by Gods Law or from Caesar to put Christ to death p. 426 427 The Sanedrim had no law-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
not a first converting ordinance yet a confirming one ibid. The Lords Supper presupposeth Faith and Conversion in the vvorthy Receiver in a Church-profession p. 523 c. The Magistrate subject to the Church p. 528 The Church a perfit society without the Magistrate p. 529 530 God efficacious by Preachers not by Magistrates p. 532 Differences between the Preachers and the Magistrate p. 532 c. The Magistrate cannot limit the Pastors in the exercise of their calling p 535 That Magistrates are more hot against the Churches punishing of sin then against sinful omissions argueth that they are unpatient of Christs yoke rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the Subject p. 536 c. Of the Reciprocation of the Subordinations of Magistrates and Church-Officers to each other ibid. Not any power or office subject to any but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons p. 538 A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate different p. 539 Two things in a Christian Magistrate jus authority aptitudo hability p. 539 c. Christianity maketh no new power of Magistracy p. 542 A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary upon which and the former distinction followeth ten very considerable assertions page 542 c. The Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth the exercise of the Ministerial power but not the spiritual and sincere manner of the exercise p. 544 Magistrates as godly men not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of Ministerial power p. 545 c. A twofold goodnesse in a Christian Magistrate essential accidential p. 548 The Magistrate as such commandeth onely in order to temporary rewards and punishments nor holdeth he forth commands to the conscience p. 549 c. Magistrates as Magistrates forbid not sin as sin under the pain of eternal wrath p. 550 Two sorts of Subordinations Civil Ecclesiastick p 553 Subordination of Magistrate and Church to each others p. 554 c. Church Offices as such not subordinate to the Magistrate ibid. What power Erastians give to Magistrates in Church matters p. 557 The minde of Arminians touching the power of the Magistrate in Church matters ibid. A threefold consideration of the Magistrate in relation to the Church p. 558 Reciprocation of subordinations between Church and Magistrate p. 560 The Ministers as Ministers neither Magistrates nor Subjects p. 564 c. The Magistrate as such neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator nor under Satan but under God as Creator ibid. The Prince as a gifted Christian may Preach and spred the Gospel to a Land where the Gospel hath not been heard before page 570 c. The King and the Priest kept the Law but in a far different way p. 572 c. The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another p. 574 c. God hath not given power to the Magistrate and Church to Iudge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause p. 577 Whether Appeals may ly from Church-assembles to the Civil Magistrate p. 578 Of Pauls appeal to Caesar ibid. Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in Causes Ecclesiastical p. 579 c. It is one thing to complain another thing to appeal p. 580 What an appeal is ibid. Refuge to the Magistrate is not an Appeal p. 581 A twofold appeal p. 582 The Magistrates power of punishing or his interest of faith proveth him not to be a Iudge in Synods p. 585 c. Pauls appeal proveth nothing against appeals for appeals from the Church to the Christian Magistrate p. 587 Paul appealed from an inferiour Civil Iudge to a superior Civil Heathen Iudge in a matter of his head and life not in a controversie of Religion p. 588 What power a conqueror hath to set up a Religion in a conquered Nation p 590 There were no appeals made to the godly Emperours of old p. 594 To lay bands on the conscience of the Magistrate to ty him to blinde obedience the Papists not our Doctrine p 595 Subjection of Magistrates to the Church no Papal tyranny p. 600 c. The Magistrate as a Magistrate cannot forbid sin as sin ibid. The Magistrate pomoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom ibid. The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediator Christ p. 601 The Adversaries in the Doctrine of the Magistrate Popish not we at all ibid. Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates in their whole Ministery by the Adversaries p. 603 c. Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiastical Administration p. 604 The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediatory Kingdom ibid. Heathen Magistrates as such are not oblieged to promote Christs mediatory Kingdom p. 606 Magistracy from the Law of Nations p. 608 The Adversaries must teach universal Redemption p 610 Magistrates as such not members of the Church p. 613 Christ mediator not a temporary King p 614 The Magistrat not the servant of the Church p. 616 The adequate and complete cause why the Magistrate is subject to the Church p. 617 That the Magistrate is subject to the Rebukes and censures of the Church is proved from the Word p. 618 c. The supreme and principal power of Church-affairs not in either Magistrate or Church p 620 Though the Magistrate punish Ecclesiastical scandals yet his power to Iudge and punish is not Ecclesiastical and spiritual as the Church censureth breaches of the second Table and yet the Churches power is not Civil for that p. 622 People as people may give power to a Magistrate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church to judge and punish offenders therein p. 625 A Governour of or over the Church a Governour in the Church a Governour for the Church different p. 628 The distinction of a Doctrinal or Declarative and of a Punitive part of Church-Government of which the former is given to Pastors the latter to the Magistrate a heedlessâ— and senselesse notion p. 629 c. That the Magistrates punishing with the sword scandalous persons should be a part of Church-government a reasonlesse conceit p. 631 There is neither coaction nor punishment properly so called in the Church p. 632 Bullinger not of the minde of Erastus p. 634 The Iudgement of Wolfâ—ag Musculus Aretius and Gualther p. 634 c. The Errour of Gualther to please the usurping Magistrate p. 638 Their minde different from Erastus p. 639 The Christian Magistrates sword cannot supply the place of Excommunication in the Church p. 640 The confessions of the Protestant Church for this way p. 642 c. The testimony of Salmasius p. 644 Of Simlerus p. 645 Lavater Ioan. Wolphius ibid. Of Râ—b Burhillus 646 The Contents of the Tractate or Dispute touching Scandal WHether things indifferent can be commanded Introduction p. 1 Indifferent things as such not the Matter of a Church-constitution Introd Actions are not indifferent because their circumstances are indifferent Introd Marrying not indifferent Introd Indifferency Metaphysical and Theological Introd Necessity of obeying the Church
spake nothing from his Father either in his own person or his Apostles in the New-Testament or in the old by Moses and the Prophets of invocation of Saints Purgatory Worshipping of Images and Reliques and the rest of their unwritten Traditions these being positives of worship and more then unseparable and connaturall attendants such as are common Time Place Person Name Country Habite Gesture are therefore unlawfull because Christ neither heard them of the Father nor spake them to the Apostles and just the like say we of Surplice Crosse c. That they are no part of the will of God which the Father revealed to Christ and these same Texts Papists use to prove that the Scriptures are not perfect because they speak nothing of the Traditions of the Church so Bellarmine Because the Counsell of Trent Andradius Stapleton and all the rest and they prove as well if Crosse and Surplice and humane Offices as Prelates stand good and lawfull that yet the Scriptures are unperfect 3. We say that the whole will of God revealed by the Father to Christ and by Christ to the Prophets and Apostles requireth the immutability of all Laws of Church-Policy in this sence that men should not dare to make and unmake erect command alter and injoyne positive Laws of doctrine or policy at their pleasure Hooker ibid. p. 113. There is more reason to say that God hath a lesse care of the Church under the New-Testament then under the Old then a Philosopher had to say because God hath provided better for beasts that are born with hornes skins hair and garments by nature then man who is born without these that therefore nature is a carefull mother to beasts and a hard-hearted Step-dame to man for Gods affection consisteth not in these for even herein shineth his wisdom that though the wayes of his providence be many yet the end which he bringeth all at the length unto is one and the self same yea it should follow that because God hath not prescribed Rites and Laws of civill Policy to us as to the Iews that he hath lesse love to us and lesse care of our Temporall estate in the world then of theirs Ans 1. It s true indeed God should have lesse care of man who is born naked then of beasts born with hair in lieu of garments if God had not given reason to man according to which by nature he may provide garments for himself and the comparison should go aptly on four feet God should have lesse love and should declare lesse love to some of mankinde if he gave some naturall reason to devise a Bible and a Religion of their own that they might walk to heaven in the light of a fire of their own kindling without the Scriptures of God which is a false supposition and if he had denied reason to another part of mankinde surely all would say God had so far forth been more carefull of the salvation of the former as he should have willed their salvation and loved those in a higher measure to whom he gave reason on these termes and should have been lesse carefull of the salvation of those to whom he denied reason as he he had no more created such capable of salvation and of his love for the saving of them then brute beasts are and this answer layeth down a ground that naturall reason is sufficient without the light of Scripture to guide us in all these things of policy that are alterable then say I God did take a great deal of needlesse and superfluous pains in setting down so many particular Laws of Ceremonies and Civill Policy for the Iews if with the help of reason they might have steerd their course to Christ and salvation by the help of the star light of reason as a man though born naked may by help of reason make shift for garments to infants which beasts void of reason cannot do for thus the comparison must run and it shall be indeed a cavilling at Gods wisdom as Papists do calling the Scriptures inky Divinity 2. The word of God maketh it a great love of God and a work of Free grace that the great things of Gods Law are written to Ephraim Hos 8. 12. And their sin the greater that they should dare to multiply Altars v. 11. without warrant of Gods word as Formalists multiplied Altars Saints-dayes Surplices c. And it is an act of singular love that God gave his judgements Word and Statutes even of Ceremonies and policy to Israel and Iacob and did not so to every Nation Psal 149. 19 20. Ezek. 20. 11 12 13. This was Israels excellency above all Nations on earth Deut. 4. 6. Deut. 20. 33. Rom. 3. 1 2. Rom. 9. 4. that God gave them particular Lawes Iudgements Statutes not only in Morals but also in Ceremonials and Policy yet Hooker dare say We may not measure the affection of God towards us by such differences 3. It shall not hence follow God hath a greater love to the Iews then to us because he gave them Laws concerning civill policy which he gave not to us Except the Lord had given us power to make civill Laws which laid Morall obligation on our consciences even in civill things which morality He expressed in particular Laws written to them and not to us as Formalists teach for then he hath left us in Moralls to the darknesse of naturall reason in which condition we could not but erre and sin and make that morally good and obligatory of conscience which is morally evil for reason knoweth not what is positive Morally good except the light of Gods Word teach us and in Morals such as judiciall Laws were to the Jews the Lord should have been more carefull in his particular directing of them then of us and more tender to have them preserved from the sin of will-worship then us which cannot consist with the Dispensation of lesse light greater obscurity in regard of types and shadows toward them and of the Day-light of the Gospel and the arising of the Day-star and the filling of the earth with knowledge of the Lord toward us under the New Testament But the comparison must go upon this supposition that the Lord purposed to make Politick Laws in their Positives Morall and Obligatory of the Conscience of the Jews and the Civill Laws of the Gentiles under the New Testament in their Positives such as is not to carry Armour in the night and the like not to be Morall nor Obligatory of the Conscience But as touching that which is Morall in all Civill Laws the Lord is as carefull of our Temporall state as of theirs in condescending to particularize all Morals to us as well as to them Hooker That Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did the very different manner of delivering the Laws of Moses and the Laws of Christ doth plainly shew Moses had Commandement to
are to obey Christ vvho is above the Pope And therefore his mind is that all obligation of Conscience in humane commandments commeth from Gods will and law that is from the just and necessary matter of the law not from the will of men 6. Conclus All humane or Ecclesiastick lawes binding the conscience have necessarie and not probable deduction onely by the warrant of both the Mâ—jor Proposition and Assumption from the Word of God and Law of Nature This conclusion is against Suarez he seeketh onely a probable connexion betwixt obliging Lawes and the Divine law And Gregorius de valent is in very deed against Gerson who teacheth three things of all humane lawes 1. That they are in so farre just 2. That they in so farre oblige the Conscience as they have necessary dependance upon natures law or Gods word and therefore compareth them to these precepts that Physitians give to sicke persons they oblige the conscience of the sicke as I thinke from the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther for if the patient sleepe at such a time or drinke wine in such a case he killeth himselfe but they have not obliging power from the fift Commandement not as if the King being sicke were obliged by the fift Commandement to obey the Physitian as his superiour 3. He will have all humane laws that properly obligeth to be onely declaratory and to manifest onely the Divine law and to apply it to such and such a matter The Conclusion is clear from what is said before because all civil laws as meerly positive in the cafe of non-contempt doe not oblige and in the case of non-scandall as Medin Almaine Gerson teach And it followeth from a sure ground that Vasquez layeth downe and he hath it from Driedo to wit that the efficacy of obligation in humane lawes cometh not from the will of Lawgivers or their intention but from the dignity or waightines of the matter If then the matter be not from Gods law just the obligation is none at all for if the law from mans will shall lay on an obligation of three degrees whereas Gods law from Gods vvill before men inacted this in a Law laid on an obligation of two degrees onely tying the Conscience then the will of man createth obligation or the obligative power of conscience in the matter of the Law and by that same reason he createth goodnes which is absurd for that is proper to God onely I grant it is hard because of the variety of singular actions in mans life to see the connexion betwixt particulars of humane lawes and Gods lawes yet a connexion there is and for this cause the learned worthy Divine Pareus will have humane lawes in particulari per se in the particular and of themselves to binde the Conscience Whereas Calvin and Beza Iunius Tilenus Sibrandus Whittakerus and others deny this But the truth is humane civill lawes are two waies considered 1. As they are meerly Positive according to the letter of the Law 2. As they have a connexion with 1. The principles of nature of right and wrong 2. With the end of the law which is the supream law The safety of the people as the Civill law saith he who entreth to an inheritance and maketh no Inventory of all his goods shall pay debts above the-whole heritage this law according to the letter in the Court of conscience is unjust and so cannot oblige in Conscience so as he is guilty before God and deserveth the vengeance of everlasting wrath who doth not make an inventory of all his goods and produce it to the Iudge so he that goeth up to the walls of a City may by the Law be commanded to be put to death yet is he not guiltie of eternall death before God and therefore if the presumption which is the ground of the law cease as this He that maketh not an inventory with a purpose to enjoy the whole inheritance and pay no debts sinneth before God against conscience as famous jurists to wit Jason Bartolus and others teach for this Law considered as having connexion with a principle of nature that every man should pay his debts is a law binding the Conscience and the truth is the end of these Lawes oblige the Conscience they being divine expressions of justice and righteousnesse but not the Lawes themselves for whatever obligeth the conscience as a divine truth the ignorance thereof is a sinfull ignorance and maketh a man guilty of eternall wrath but men are not guilty lyable to the eternal wrath of God because they are ignorant of all the civill Lawes in Iustinians book then were we obliged to be no lesse versed in all the civill lawes that bindeth in foro humano then of the Bible and law of God The adversaries strive to prove that these lawes oblige the conscience we may heare Bellarmine Vasquez Valentinian and the Formalist and Arminian Doctor Jackson say To resist the Rulers in giving and making lawes is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. They have not refused thee but they have refused me that I should not raigne over them Suarez â—aith An humane law is the neerest cause of obligation of conscience as the eternall law is the remote cause And â—ackson as the immediate interposition of divine authority made the killing of Abrahams sonne holy which otherwise would have been cruelty so the interposition of authority derived from God make some actions that barely considered would be apparently evill and desperate to be honest and lawfull to strike a Prophet would seem sin but when a Prophet coÌ„mandeth to strike not to strike is disobedience 1 Kin. 20. 35 36. to rob a Spaniard is Piracie but to do it upon the Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State is obedience to the King Answ To resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and as a servant is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. proveth well But the assumption then is most false for rulers in making lawes and creating by their sole pleasure goodnes morall in particular matters without the word of God are not Gods servants nor is humane authoritie as humane the nearest cause of obligation of conscience instamped in these lawes nor is it the cause at all and therefore to resist them is not to resist God They be Gods instruments and Ministers in 1. Propounding and expounding Gods laws 2. In executing them and defending them from the violence of men 3. In making positive and directory civil lawes for civill government that are lawes improperly so called which bind the conscience as above is said in so far as they have dependance upon Gods Law for Iames saith There is but one Law-giver As for Church-canons all except Physicall circumstances in them are to be warranted by the word Therefore it is a vaine consequence of Valentia humane lawes oblige dependenter
a lege aeternâ as they depend on the eternall law Ergo they oblige in Conscience it followeth not They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition in that which is morall can be proved out of Gods word but so in their morallity they are meerely divine and not humane and positive and so the argument concludeth not against us They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law that is as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God in a Major proposition without probation of the assumption that we deny and it is in question now The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge rejected God not because Samuel had a power of making lawes without the warrant of Gods word Neither Moses nor Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines hand then Jackson saith For Bellarmine saith In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power to make that which is sinne to be no sin and that which is no sinne to be sinne So Iackson the interposition of derived authority maketh that which would be murther other wayes to bee a good worke that is men may doe what God onely can doe If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice then Abrahams derived authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice as to strike a Prophet of it selfe is a degree of murther but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet it is lawfull But can any blasphemer say that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord such as are humane positive lawes and our humane ceremonies see the text 1 King 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord smite me This was immediate divine and Propheticall authoritie and not humane Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull Court Parasites speake so he refuteth himselfe The Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State maketh that which is Piracy lawfull then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetick power and a law laid upon the Conscience but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine done to the State of England may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawfull Magistrate Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place which have no warrant of the word of God Yea even Stapleton a Papist saith as Doctor Field also observeth That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter and not from the will of the Lawgiver And so saith Gerson Almain Decius Mencha and our owne Iunius saith The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent not in the instrument Doctor Iackson saith unlimited and absolute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers that is due to God but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedience if they speake from God suppose they fetch not an expresse commission from Scripture for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture I were no more bound to beleeve obey my governours then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr 3. lih 4. cap. 6. not 89. my Governours then ther are bound to believe and obey me for equals are oblieged to obey equalls when they bring a warrant from Gods word and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall but titular and the same do th Sutluvius and Bellarmine say Answ We owe to equalls to Mahomet conditionall and cautionary faith and obedience thus I beleeve what Mahomet saith so he speake Gods word yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way so they speake according to Gods word 2. It followeth in no sort if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls Infetiours because there is a double obedience one of conscience and objective coming from the thing commanded And in respect of this the word hath no lesse authority and doth no lesse challenge obedience of Confcience and objective when my equall speaketh it in a private way yea when I writ it in my muse then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority for we teach against Papists that the word borroweth â—o authority from men nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man but as indeed the Word of God as the Scripture saith 1. There is another obedience officiall which is also obedience of Conscience because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular commanded in humane Lawes as humane so I owe obedience of subjection and submission of affection of feare love honour respect by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers when they command according to Gods Word and this I owe not to equals or inferiours and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular because they must warrant their mandates from the Word But it s alwayes this mans hap to be against sound truth But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this Thou shalt not murther Beleeve in Iesus Christ when Rulers and Pastors command them then when I read them in Gods word I prove 1. If this from a Ruler Thou shalt not murther challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees but as I read it my selfe or as my equall in a private way saith Thou shalt not murther it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely then is it more obligatory of Conscience and so of more intrinsecall authority and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it then when I read it or my equall speaketh it to me This were absurd for the speaker whether publike or private person addeth not any intrinsecall authority to the word for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word as the bearers were publike or private more or lesse worthy As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience should be resolved as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler and not on the authority of God the Author of his own word 4. I answer to Sutluvius That Christ in the externall policy of his owne house is a Lawgiver ordaining such and such officers himselfe Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency
and against order in which case the formall object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a particular humane Law but the violation of the morall goodnesse annexed to it and of the scandall given Now in this meaning the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindely Per se of it self punishable but by accident and so it bindeth the conscience by accident And in this sense great Doctors as Ambrose Anselme Theodoret Chrysostom Navarra Felinus Taraquel say That humane Laws oblige the conscience But the most learned of the Canonists aver that not to obey civill Laws laying aside the evil of scandall is no mortall sin and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltinesse before God 2. They object To resist the Laws of the Magistrate is to resist himself and to resist himself is to resist the Ordinance of God Ans To resist the Laws positive and particular in connexion with the morall reason of the Law is to resist the Ruler true But so the question is not concluded against us for by accident in that sense humane Laws binde the conscience but to resist the particular Laws as particular Laws as particular positive Laws is not to resist the Ruler A Ruler as a Ruler doth never command a thing meerly indifferent as such but as good edificative profitable and except you resist the morality of the positive humane Law you resist not the Ruler yea nor yet is the Law resisted 3. The Iesuit Lod. Meratius objecteth Every true Law obligeth either to guiltinesse or to punishment but the civill and Canonick Laws are Laws properly so called But they do not ever oblige to punishment only Ergo They oblige to sin Ans It is denied that Laws civill or Canonicall as meerly particularly positive do oblige as Laws or that they are Laws they be only Laws according to the morality in them that can promove us to our last end eternall felicity It is also false that the Iesuit saith If thou wilt be saved keep the Commandments doth command the keeping of all Civill and Canonick Laws or that hence is concluded a Law obliging the conscience that is humane and positive as if a Lent Fast a Pilgrimage and not carrying Armour in the night were commanded by Christ as necessary to life eternall The same Meratius striveth to answer the Argument of Almain and Gerson which is this Who ever can oblige to sin mortall before God he can inflict eternall punishment but no mortall man can inflict eternall punishment 1. Saith he This Argument would prove sins against the Law of nature as homicide and adultery not to be deadly sins for by the Law of nature eternall punishment is not inflicted for sins against the Law of nature but by the positive will of God If any say God is the author of the Law of nature because he is the Creator of that humane nature in the which this law is written So if that be sufficient that the law of nature oblige under eternall punishment so also the civill and Ecclesiasticall lavv shall binde the conscience because he is the author of that power which maketh Civill and Ecclesiastick laws for there is no power but it is of God Ans 1. By the Law of nature sins against the Law of nature deserve eternall punishment and that essentially laying aside the positive will of God to whom I grant it is free to inflict punishment or not to inflict and this agreeth to all sin But to carry Armour in the night laying aside the case of scandall and the morality thereof that no murther follow thereupon deserveth neither temporall nor eternall punishment And if this Argument of the Iesuits hold good no mortall sin shall oblige to eternall punishment because Gods positive will is the nearest cause of actuall punishment eternall in all sins 2. God is not the Author of a propper noâ—othetick power in man for that is the question 2. He answereth Distinguishing the Proposition None can oblige to a mortall sin but he who can inflict the eternall punishment of a mortall sin It is true saith he of the punishment which wholly dependeth upon the will of the judge who made the Law but it is not true of that punishment which no way dependeth upon the will of the Iudge such as is eternall punishment excommunication dependeth upon the vvill of man and it obligeth to eternall punishment yet man cannot inflict that eternall punishment for a man may command an act the omission whereof or the commission whereof is of such moment that it serveth much for the good of a community and therefore he vvho of knowledge and vvillingly doth such an act doth sin against right reason and so against the eternall lavv of God Ans 1. The distinction of the Jesuit is but a begging of the question He vvho can oblige to mortall sin by his Lavv can also oblige to eternall punishment if eternall punishment depend vvholly on his free vvill as the Lavv doth What is that but the inflicting of eternal punishment belongeth to him who maketh a Law obliging to sin mortal so being the inflicting of eternall punishment belong to him But our Argument is he who hath dominion and authority to make a Law hath dominion and authority to inflict a punishment answerable to the transgression of that Law for it is one dominion and power to make the Law and to inflict the penalty of the Law Man cannot make the penalty of eternall wrath Ergo he cannot make a Law obliging to eternall wrath 2. Excommunication is not done by mans will but by the power of the keys for a mortall sin deserving excommunication and so eternall wrath If any Excommunicate upon his sole will as wicked Popes have done in that case the will of a man obligeth neither to punishment nor to eternall punishment it is but Brutum Fulmen and not to be feared 3. If any Commit an act that hurteth a whole Community and is forbidden by men in Authority he sinneth against the Law of God though men had never forbidden that Act And we deny not but humane Laws agreeing with the Law of Nature doth oblige the Conscience both to sin and eternall punishment but then they are not humane Laws but Divine Laws and in that case two guiltinesses Duo reatus are Committed one against the fifth Commandment in doing what Superiors according to Gods Word forbiddeth and there is another guiltinesse against the matter it self and a Divine Law which also should stand as a sin before God thought the Ruler had never forbidden it But if any carry Armour in the Night being forbidden by the Iudge for eschewing of night homicide if no homicide follow at all and the matter be not known and so not scandalous the carrier of Armour is involved in no guiltinesse before God CAP. III. Of the power of the
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
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
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
Word and Sacraments if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments who made him a judge and a Ruler Will this satiâ—fie mens conscience The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister but the Minister may not play the Magistrate Now as Erastus saith the Minister in holy things is his servant called by him may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also Erastus Eli and Samuel were both Priests and Iudges and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent 2. Ministers ought not to usurpe the civill sword Ergo they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit it followeth not the contrary is evident 1 Thes 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7 8. Erastus Peter Martyr saith Com. 1 Sam. 8. Those that live wickedly may be corrected by the Magistrate But Papists give one civill Ecclesiastick power to the Pope and another to the Magistrate whereas the civill Magistrate is sufficient enough Ans Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expresly asserteth Excommunication and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors or Elders Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword Erastus Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is it is not pollitick externall visible for Christ reigneth in the world but his Government is invisible and spirituall in the Word and the Spirit Ans Christ denieth only that his Kingdome is of this World in regard it is not holden up by the civill sword of men or Magistrates as Erastus doth dreame who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the onely Catholick and principall Ruler in all Christs courts which Christ refuteth when he saith If my Kingdome were of this world mine owne would fight for me Now Erastus will have no weapon but the Magistrates sword to hold out and cast out all offenders out of Christs Kingdom but it is false that Christs Kingdom is not politicall externall and visible this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church Sure exhorting rebuking censuring withdrawing from the scandalous excommunication are visible externally and in a politick spirituall way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors for externall and spirituall are not opposed nor are politicall and spirituall opposed as Erastus dreameth and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus His Kingdom is not of this world Ergo it is not externall Erastus When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea and Gabinius having overcome Alexander had changed the state of Iudea the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up Ioseph bel Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph antiq l. 14. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synedrie for the most part had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus and under Archilaus it was more fully restored as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death setteth forth an Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them Ans Will then Erastus have Christ Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim in gaining a lost brother that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this 2. Say that the Sanedrim in sacris in in the holy things of God had its full power the Romans not impeding them hath any man a face to deny but Pharisees corrupted both Law Gospell Sanedrim and all and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government especially when they set themselves against the Messiah Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued but before they were subdued the Sanedrim was changed and corrupted 3. This is to beg the question to say they kept the power of the Sword For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power and forsooth because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles What then therefore the Sanedrim had the Law of God for it and Aaron and his sonnes might beat scourge imprison and kill as they killed Steven without Law or warrant except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature surely this is a vaine consequence 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both gave them liberty of their own Religion Ceremonies and customes at their pleasure and that is much for us the adversary so do reason from a corrupt unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law Erastus I have solidly proved there were not two distinct jurisdictions but that the Magistrate Governed all I deny not that the Magistrate took counsell at those that were skilled in the Law And I have proved that the Sanedrim in Christs time when he spake these words had the power of the sword in things pertaining to Religion Ans Let another man praise thee solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines is plain emptinesse 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law is not like the first pattern of Moses David Solomon who as Magistrates saith Erastus did rule all in the Church gave the Law to Aaron his sons directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord as nearest to him what they should do what Laws they should teach the people Shew us one precept practise or promise in the word where Moses David Solomon asked Counsell at Aaron the Priests Gad Nathan or the Prophets saying O sons of Aaron O Prophets advise us Magistrates what Laws we should command you touching your office your holy garments your washing your beasts clean and unclean your lâ—per your putting men out of the Camp touching the forme dimensions structure materials of the Arke Tabernacle Temple c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord for we are nearer to the Lord and have a more eminent place as Church-Officers then you who are but our Vicars Deputies and servants to be directed by us Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediatly from God and never consulted with any man either Aaron Priest or Prophet David and Solomon had the forme of the Temple given to them by the Lord in writing and advised with none at all therefore received from God and delivered to the Church what they received of the Lord. 2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers what they should command-Ministers to preach and do in their Ministery if by vertue of their Office they command Ministers 3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civill sword on their bodies to gain their souls which is the scope of Christ Matth. 18. CHAP. XVII Quest 13. Whether Erastus can make good that the
excommunicated without the consent of the Magistrate Where did Christ divide the externall Government of the Church in Civill Government and Ecclesiasticall as you distinguish them Ans 1. That it is expedient that the Christian Magistrate should be acquainted with the Excommunication of any under his jurisdiction that he may satisfie his own Conscience in punishing him civilly it is like some of our Divines do teach But that the Magistrate have a negative voice in Excommunication none of ours teach 2. We make no such division as that of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Church Erastus may dream of such a distinction We know all Government of the Church as the Church to us is Ecclesiasticall There is a Government of men of the Church that is Civill but we dreamed never of a Civill Government of the Church All the Government of the Church as the Church though externall is Spirituall Heavenly and subordinate to Jesus Christ as Lord and King of his own house as the Government of a house a Kingdom an Army a City is subordinate to the Lord of the house to the King Generall Commander and Lord Mayor and it is no more a Civill Government subordinate to the Magistrate and his Sword then Christs Kingdom visible and externall or invisible and internall is of this world When therefore Erastus denyeth that there is any Church-Government he meaneth there is no Spirituall Church Government in the hands of Presbyters but because we know no Government of the Church as the Church but it is Spirituall and the Government of the Church by the Christian Magistrate is a Civill Government of men as men and that by the power of the Sword and so it is no Church-Government at all and therefore we justly say that Erastus denyeth all Church-Government Erastus When Paul saith Act. 23. Thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Doth he not acknowledge the High Priest to be his Judge Paul denieth that he had done any thing contrary to the Law And Tertullus saith We would have judged him according to our Law if Lysias had not without Law violently taken him from us Ans Ananias was to judge him only in an Ecclesiasticall way and when Paul saw that they went beyond their line to take his life he appealed from their inferior judicature to Caesar who only had power of his life 2. Lysias had Law to vindicate an innocent man accused on his life before a most uncompetent judicature Tertullus knew the Iews had favour and connivence in many Lawlesse Facts CHAP. XVIII Quest 14. Whether Erastus do strongly confute the Presbytery of the New Testament BEza saith there vvas need of same select men in the Apostles time to lay hands on Ministers to appoint Deacons for there vvas no Jevvish Synedrie no Magistrate to do it and vvhen Paul forbiddeth Christians for things of this life to implead other before the heathen Magistrate would he send them in spirituall businesse to such or must that Tell the Church have no use for a hundreth years after Christ So Beza yea if the Lord ascending to heaven left Officers for the building and Governing his Church Eph. 4. 11. and some to be over the people in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. 13. some to watch for their souls whom they were to obey some to feed the flock and to drive away the wolves Act. 20. 28 29 30. some to Govern the house of God no lesse then their owne house 1 Tim. 3. 4. a Presbytery in generall Erastus cannot deny only he denieth such a Presbytery and saith that it is like this such a one is a living creature Ergo such an one is a dog But if I can demonstrate there is a Presbytery and they were not all Bishops as is clear Rom. 12. 89. 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and if Tell the Church by no Grammer can be Tell the Bishop except you make the Queen the Bride and the servant or friend of the Bridegroome all one It must follow there is both a Presbytery and such a Presbytery in the Church nor do we argue from a generall to specials Erastus The Church may not kill men but she may pray that God would destroy them or convert her enemies Ans To pray that God would destroy him whom we are to admonish as a brother is a strange discipline Erastus will never make good from Scripture that God hath appointed praying for the destruction of men to be a saving ordinance appointed of Christ for gaining of souls such as we take rebuking admonishing excommunication eschewing the company of scandalous brethren which have for their intrinsecall end the repentance of a brother under these censures and therefore this of Erastus his killing of men is a new forged censure Erastus Whereever the Scripture speaketh in the New Testament of a Presbytery there is no other understood but that of preachers therefore it is false that the Apostles have commanded any other Elders beside those that labour in the word Ans The antecedent is false 1 Tim. 5. 17. as I have demonstrate in another place I repeat it not here let any disciple of Erastus answer if he can 2. The consequence is vaine for if in every place of the New Testament where mention is made of an Elder the Holy Ghost mean only a Preaching Elder it followeth only that any other officers as Deacons and those that labour not in the Word yet Govern well are not called with the name of Presbyters And so the Argument is against the name not against the office and thing What if the Presbytery be named from the most principall part as is ordinary in Scripture doth it follow that there be none members of the Presbytery but only Preachers of the Word In no sort Paul saith of the visible Church of Corinth Ye are bought with a price ye are justified ye are sanctified Ergo none were members of the visible Church but those that are redeemed justified and sanctified it is like the consequence of Erastus 3. I retort this vaine argument thus none in Scripture have the name of Apostles But the Eleven and Mathias none are called the witnesses of the Lord but they 1 Ioh. 1. 1 2. Ergo there be no preaching Ministers neither Timothy Titus Epaphroditus that are to be called witnesses of the Lord but the twelve Apostles so where doth Erastus finde that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deaconrie or office of labour in the Ministery is given to any but to those that labour in the word Rom. 11. 13. Ergo must there be no deaconry but labouring in the word the plaine contrary is Act. 6. Erastus Beside Levites and Priests there belonged to the Synedry of the Iews other heads of families Ergo beside Ministers there must be Prophets and Doctors in the Presbytery it followeth not Ans Erastus fancies a conclusion of an Argument that Beza saith not for he
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
and God inviteth them to repentance and the staying in the Church And the Sacraments are to Erastus means of repentance and this casting out must be to save them for no power is given of God to the Magistrate or Church for destruction but for edification Now to put them out of the Church that they may be saved is as Erastus conceiteth to cast a lascivious Virgin out of the company of chaste Matrâ—ns to the end she may preserve her chastity I speak here all in the language of Erastus who useth all those against casting any out of the Church by Presbyters but they stand with equall strength against his casting out of idolaters and apostates out of the Church and so do the rest of his Arguments Therefore this conclusion of Erastus is a granting us the whole cause after in six books he hath pleaded none should be Excommunicated he falleth on Bellarmines Tutissimum igitur c. when he had written six books against justification by faith Lastly why should idolaters apostates and obstinately wicked men be excluded from the dispute of Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments for he knoweth that Beza and Protestant Divines do make these the speciall though not the whole subject of the dispute Now Erastus concluding his six books doth hereby professe he hath never faithfully stated the question when he excludes those from the subjectum questionis who especially heareth not the Church and ought to be Excommunicated Thus have I given an account as I could of the wit of Erastus against the freedome of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus CHAP. XXIII Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall Discipline QUEST XIX Whether or no the Christian Magistrate be so above the Church in matters of Religion Doctrine and Discipline that the Church and her Guides Pastors and Teachers do all they do in these as subordinate to the Magistrate as his servants and by his Authority Or is the spirituall power of the Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ only VVEE know that Erastus who is Refuted by Beza Vtenbogard whom Ant Walens Learnedly Refuteth Maccovius opposed by the Universities and Divines of Holland Vedelius Answered by Gu. Apolonius and others and the Belgick Arminians in their Petition to the States and Hu. Grotins against Sibrandus Lubert Divers Episcopall Writers in England do hold That the Guides of the Church do all in their Ministery by the Authority of the Christian Magistrate I believe the contrary And 1. We exclude not the Magistrate who is a keeper of both Tables of the Law from a care of matters of Religion 2. We deny not to him a power to examine Heresies and false Doctrine 1. In order to bodily punishment with the sword 2. With a judgement not Antecedent but Subsequent to the judgement of the Church where the Church is constituted 3. With such a judgement as concerneth his practise lest he should in a blinde way and upon trust execute his office in punishing Hereticks whether they be sentenced by the Church according unto or contrary to the word of God as Papists dream 3. We deny not but the Prince may command the Pastor to Preach and the Synod and Presbytery to use the keys of Christs Kingdom according to the Rules of the Word But this is but a Civill subjection though the object be spirituall But the Question is not 1. Whether the Christian Magistrate have a care of both Tables of the Law 2. Whether he as a blinde servant is to execute the will of the Church in punishing such as they discern to be Hereticks we pray the Lord to give him eyes and wisdom in his Administration 3. Nor thirdly Whether he may use his coercive power against false Teachers that belongs to the controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience 4. The Question is not Whether the Magistrate have any power of jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience they grant that belongeth to the Preaching of the Word But the Question is touching the power in the externall Court of Censures 5. The Question is not Whether the power of exercising Discipline be from the Magistrate I mean in a free and peacable manner with freedome from violence of men we grant that power and by proportion also that exercise of Discipline is from him But whether the intrinsecall power be not immediately from Christ given to the Church this we teach as the power of saying peacably from danger of Pirats and Robbers is from the King but the Art of Navigation is not from the King But the Question is whether the Magistrate by vertue of his office as a Magistrate hath Supream power to Govern the Church and immediatly as a little Monarch under Christ above Pastors Teachers and the Church of God to Iudge and determine what is true Doctrine what Heresie to censure and remove from Church-Communion the Seals and Church-offices all scandalous persons and that if Pastors or Doctors or the Church Teach or dispense censures they do it not with any immediate subjection to Christ but in the Name and Authority of the Magistrate having power from the Magistrate as his servants and delegates To this we answer negatively denying any such power to the Magistrate and doe hold that the Church and Christs courts and Assemblies of Pastors Doctors and Elders hath this power onely and immediately from Iesus Christ without subordination in their office to King Parliament or any Magistrate on earth by these Arguments 1. Because in the Old Testament the Lord distinguished two courts Deut. 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement 10. Thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and inquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee c. There be here two Courts clearly one court of Priests and Levites that were Iudges another of the Iudge Now the King by vertue of his Kingly office might not usurpe the Priests office 1. Vzziah was smitten with Leprosie for so doing 2. It is evident in Moses his writing that Aaron and his sonnes the Priests and Levites were separated for the service of the Tabernacle to teach the people to carry the Arke to sacrifice to judge the Leper and to judge between the clean and the unclean to put out of the campe out of the congregation the unclean and to admit the clean Lev. 1. 7 9 12 c. and 5. 8. and 7. 7. and 13. 3 4 c. 23. Numb 5. 8. c. and 18. 4 5. 2 Chron. 29. 11. You hath the Lord chosen to stand before him 1 Sam. 21. 1 2. Lev. 21. 1. Iosh 3. 8. 1 Kin. 8. 3. 1 Chron. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 5. 7. and 7. 6. and 8. 14. Zeph. 3. 4. Hag. 2. 11 12. Mal. 2. 7 Deut. 10 9. and 21. 5. Num. 1.
29. Deut. 10. 8 18. Numb 1. 50. and 3. 9 12 41. and 8. 10. Psal 122. 5. In Jerusalem there were set thrones of judgement the thrones of the house of David Mat. 22. 21. Christ commanded to give to Cesar the things that are Cesars and he in his own person refused to usurpe Cesars place Luke 12. 14. Man who made me a Iudge and interdicted his Apostles thereof Luke 22 24 25 26. and yet appointed for them a Judicature of another kinde Mat. 18. 15. Mat. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 5. and if any should deny that the Civill Magistrate had another Court in which he judged the Scriptures will refute him 3. It is evident that Iehoshaphat did not institute but restore those two courts 2 Chron. 19. 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters never any Erastian could satisfie either themselves or others to shew us what were those two courts so distinguished by their two sundry Rulers Amariah and Zebadiah the one a Priest the other a Magistrate 2. By the different formall objects the matters of the Lord the matters of the King and confounded they must be if the King and Ruler be a judge in the matters of God except God make him both a civill judge and a Prophet as were Moses and Samuel which yet were differenced when the God of order established his Church in Canaan The Church convenes for a Church businesse Iosh 18. 1. to set up the Tabernacle but for a civill businesse to make war the State conveneth Iosh 22. 12. 15. 16. Iudg. 21. 12. and Ier. 26. 8. there is the Church judicature discerning that Ieremiah was a false Teacher and they first judge the cause and v. 16. The Civill Iudicature discerneth the contrary and under Zorababel Ezra and Nehemiah they indured different judicatures Iesus Christ was arraigned before Caiphas the High Priest for pretended blasphemie before Pilate the civill judge for treason but Caiphas was to determine onely by Law in questione juris whether it was blasphemie which Christ had spoken but he had no power by Gods Law to lead Witnesses or condemn Christ Nor is it true that the Priests had their government onely about Ceremonialls for they were to judge of Morall uncleannes also which even then debarred men from the holy things of God as is cleare Hag. 2. 12. Ezek. 44. 9. 10 23 24. and if any say that the Magistrate amongst the Iewes did judge of Ecclesiasticall things and reformed Religion We answer extraordinarily the Magistrate might prophecie and did prophecy as did Samuel David Solomon Why do not Erastians bring those examples to prove that Kings Provasts Iustices may now preach the Word and administer the Sacraments which yet is unlawfull to them by grant of Adversaries for the examples of the Kings amongst the Iewes is as strong for preaching as for governing and because Prophets did judge the people of old yet no Protestant Divine will say that now Pastors may also usurpe the civill Sword Now least any should object the case is not alike in the Jewish and Christian Church surely the King of the Church hath no lesse separated such men as Paul and Barnabas for the Ministery now then at that time Rom. 1. 1 2. Act. 2. And sent labourers to his vineyard Luk. 10. 2. Matth. 20. 2. 9. 37 38. And Ambassadors to Preach in his Name 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ministers of Christ and Stewarts of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. Men sent of God whose feet are pleasant for their good News as were the Prophets of old who were not only gifted to preach but instructed with Divine Authority as is clear Rom. 10. 14. 15. Isa 52. 7. 40. 9. Nahum 1. 15. Yea and men that feeds the flock not only by Preaching but also Govern the Church so that they must take heed that Ravening Wolves creep not into the Church who shall not spare the flock Act. 20. 28. 29. Men who must be obeyed because they watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. And can govern the Church as well as they are apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 5. 2. Men that labour amongst us and are over us in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. And men who are to call to the work other faithfull men that are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Such as are separated from the affairs of this life such as Magistrates are not 1 Cor. 6. 3. such as Rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. and are not to receive accusations but under witnesses and are to lay hands suddenly on no man not to call them to the holy Ministery till they be sufficiently tryed 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 22. all which import teaching and governing Now if all these directions be given to Timothy and other Pastors till the end of the world then must all these directions be principally written to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and these Epistles to Timothy agree principally to the Christian Magistrate and to Pastors and Doctors at the by as they be delegates and substitutes of the Magistrates and that by office the Emperour of Rome was to lay hands suddenly on no man and commit the Gospel to faithfull men who could teach others and was not to receive an accusation against an Elder and certainly if the Magistrate call to office those that are over us in the Lord and if those who watch for our soules especially be but the curates and delegates of the King and Parliament then the King and Parliament behoved in a more eminent manner to watch for our souls for directions and commandments of God in this kinde are more principally given to the Master Lord and chief Governour of the house of God if the Magistrate be such then to the servants delegates But where is there any such directions given to the Emperour King or Christian Magistrate by any shadow of ground in the Word It is not much to say The Magistrate was an heathen an enemy at this time and therefore those could not be written to him For 1. No force can strain these two Epistles to Timothy and the other to Titus which contain a form of Church-policy to any Christian Magistrate for then the qualification of the King if he be the supream Governour of the Church should far rather have been expressed then the qualification of a Bishop and a Deacon which is no where hinted at 2. All these directions notwithstanding this do and must actu primo agree to the Magâ—strate for his office who is chief governour what he should be is described in the Word 3. When Christ ascended on high he gave as a fruit of his ascension sufficient means for his intended end The perfecting of the Saints the gathering of his Body the Church and the edifying thereof even
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
not subordinate to the Ministers of the Gospel as Ministers far lesse to the Magistrate as the Magistrate because it dependeth upon none on earth Minister or Magistrate but the only good pleasure of him who when he ascended to heaven gave gifts unto men that there is such an office as Minister Pastor or teacher And the Church cannot create a new office of a Prelate because of its nature it tendeth to a supernaturall end the governing of Christs body in a way to life eternall purchased by Christ Now the question in this sense whether the power of the Ministery be subordinate to the Magistrate in its constitution it is alike in its subordination to Magistrate and Minister certain it is subordinate to neither Other lawfull and profitable offices and Arts are from God mediately possibly by the intervening acts of rationall nature though Magistracy be from God Rom. 13. 1. yet it would seeme God by the naturall reason of men might devise and constitute the very office of Magistracy in abstracto and the Art of sayling painting c. yet is there no subjection of power to power here by way of dominion Hence the question must be of the subordination of the power quoad exercitium whether Ministers in the exercising of their Ministeriall calling be subordinate to the Magistrate as the Magistrate 5. Dist A judge is one thing and a just judge another thing so here are we to distinguish between a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate As 1. a husband is one thing and a Christian husband another thing a Captaine is one thing and a Christian and a beleeving Centurion or Captain such as Cornelius Acts 10. is another a Physitian is one thing and a gracious Physitian is another thing sure a heathen Husband hath the same jus Maritale the same Husband power in regard of Marriage union that a Christian and beleeving Husband hath 2. A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate may be one and the same Magistrate with one and the same Magistraticall power as being first heathen Magistrate as Sergius Paulus Act. 13. 7 12. and there after converted to the faith Paulus was no lesse a civill Deputie when Heathen then when Christian and not more a Deputy as touching the essence of a Magistrate when a Christian beleever then he was before when a Heathen yet to be a Magistrate and to be a beleeving Magistrate are two different things even as Christianity is a noble ornament and a gracious accident and to be a Magistrate is as it were the Subject even as a man and the accidents of the man are two different things 6. There be two things here considerable in the Magistrates office 1. There is his jus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistraticall power or the authority officiall the power of office to beare the sword 2. There is aptitudo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speciall heavenly grace of well governing this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift or grace of God to use that power for Christ These two make one Christian husband one Christian captain Physitian Master in relation to to the wife souldiers sick servants Now the Magistrate heathen as Magistrate even Nero when the Church of God is in his court and dominions hath the same jus the same Authority and Officiall power to be a keeper of both Tables of the Law and to defend the Gospell and to command the Preachers and Synods to fulfill their charge and to see that the officers doe their dutie and to punish dumbe dogs Idolaters excommunicated persons to drive away with the sword false Teachers from the flock he hath I say the same Magistraticall power while he is a Heatheâ— and when he is converted to the Christian faith and he is equally head of men that professe Christ when Heathenish as when Christian but in neither States is he the Head of the body the Church and you give not to Cesar the things that are Cesars if you make converted Nero because a Magistrate now the head of the Church and deny non-converted and heathenish Nero to be the Head of the Church for he is a Magistrate with compleat power of the Sword in the one case as in the other that he neither doth nor can use the sword for the Church it is from Nero his state of infidelity that he is in as a man and not the fault of his office for when Paul saith the Husband is the head of the Wife doth hee meane a Christian husband onely and exclude all heathen Husbands No for then the wife were not to be subject to the Husband if a Heathen and an unbeleever which is against Pauls mind 1 Cor. 7. and the Law of Nature But the converted Magistrate who was before a heathen Magistrate hath a new aptitude faculâ—y and grace to keep both Tables of the Law and to govern in a civill way and indirectly the affaires of Christs Kingdome Hence the adversaries clearly contradict themselves by confounding those two a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate one while they give supream power over the Church to the Magistrate as the Magistrate sometime to the Magistrate as Christian So Vtenbogard in his book De officio authoritate supremi Magistratus Christiani in rebus Ecclesiasticis p. 7. and p. 8. hoc addo ut intelligatur Magistratum cum religioneÌ„ Christianam amplectitur non acquirere novam authoritatem sed quod eam authoritatem quam ante etiam in rebus religiâ—nis â—ultus divini habebat authoritateÌ„ rectè utitur If the Magistrate when he becommeth a Christian acquireth no new authority as a Magistrate but onely useth well his old Authority in matters of Religion and of Gods worship which he had before while he was Heathen as he saith then the Heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate hath a supreame power in Church matters and yet in the same place he draweth the state of the question to a Christian Magistrate De solo Christiano Magistratu acturus The Arminians in their Apologie fol. 297. as saith their Declaration speake onely of the Christian Magistrate and yet page 298. potestati enim supremae sive Architectonicae qua potestas suprema est jus hoc ut competat ratio ordinis sive boni Regiminis natura sua postulat si Magistratui qua tali jus hoo competit â—rgo multo magis competit Magistratui Christiano Sure if the Magistrate in generall and as the Magistrate have a supream Authority in the Government of the Church such as the Adversaries contend for then the Christian Magistrate farre more must be Head of the Church and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be supreame Governour and judge in all Ecclesiasticall causes and in these same causes he must not be Iudge as a Magistrate but as a Christian Nor can they make a Christian Magistrate à medium per participationem utriusque extremi a middle betweene a Magistrate and a Christian 1. For where is there such an
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
Devil God save the Magistrate datur tertium he is for Christ as a Christian and as a Christian but as a Magistrate he is not for Christ as mediator that is as having his office of Christ as mediator and being from Christ a Magistrate that is as M. Coleman expoundeth it an officer having power of both the Swords for Mr. Coleman saith p. 20. Christian Magistracy is an Ecclesiasticall administration Ergo he hath the power of the Spirituall Sword and Paul Rom. 13. saith he hath from God the power of the other Sword Yea we cannot say that a Magistrate as a Magistrate or a Minister as a Minister are either redeemed and saved in Christ nor no redeemed or no saved in Christ but in another reduplication The Magistrate as a Magistrate is not redeemed but as an elected man nor is he damned or not redeemed as a Magistrate but as a reprobate and an unbeleeving man and the like I say of a Minister he that is not with Christ as his immediate and supream swordbearer is not against Christ for so all the world except the Prince should be against him Obj. 5. The Magistrate as he defendeth the body and goods so also the the fame of men hence what is a matter of good or ill report is judged by the Magistrate who may put ill doers to shame Iudg. c. 187. But Church scandals blasphemy heresie apostacy are matters of ill report and of shame Ergo they are to be judged by the Magistrate Ans Non concluditur negatum We deny not but the Magistrate may judge and put to shame offenders but it is civill shame by which the Magistrate judgeth any offender to be an evill Citizen and hurtfull member of the common-wealth Iudg. 18. 17. The Church hath no power thus to judge or thus to put to shame But there is an Ecclesiasticall shame in which the Church judgeth whether such a man be a sound and faithfull subject of the Kingdome of Christ or a hurtfull Member of the Church and of this shame speaketh Paul 2 Thess 3. 14. keep no company with him that he may be ashamed and the same way we are to distinguish a good name for it is an honour that it be said of any man as Psal 87. This man was borne in Zion Obj. 6. What the Magistrate as a Magistrate punisheth that as a Magistrate he judgeth but as a Magistrate he punisheth Idolatry and heresie Ergo as a magistrate he judgeth it Ans What the Magistrate punisheth that he judgeth distinguo What he punisheth that he judgeth the way that he punisheth for as he punisheth civilly and with the sword so he judgeth in a civill way not as a Church scandal but as a civill disturbance 2. In a constitute Church by a subsequent judging after those whose lips should preserve knowledge have judged it to be Idolatry and heresie he is to judge it and in order to corporall punishment its true and thus the Major is granted But the assumption is false for the Magistrate judgeth nothing as scandalous no Idolatry or heresie with an antecedent judgement and with order to Ecclesiasticall punishment to gain the soul Obj. But there is no other judging or punishing required but such as the magistrate inflicteth Ans This is a false principle and everteth all Church Government Obj. 7. But so you make two supream magistrates the King and the Church two collaterall supremacies yet so as the magistrates conscience lyeth under the feet of the Church Ans The Church hath a Ministery no dominion of Magistracy 2. There is a collaterality without equality The Magistrate is highest and worthiest the other hath no dignity no supereminency but to be authoritative declarers of the mind of Christ 3. The Magistrate is no more tyed to the judgement of a Synod or Church then any private man is tyed in his practice the tye in Discipline and in all Synodicall acts and determinations is here as it is in preaching the Word the tye is secondary conditionall with limitation in so farre as it agreeth with the Word not absolutely obliging not Papal qua or because commanded or because determined by the Church and such as Magistrates and all Christians may reject when contrary to or not warranted by the Word of God Obj. 8. But Pastors have authority equally immediate and independent under God as the magistrate hath and what more can they have except the Crowne and Scepter is not this an emulous and odious equality beside a collaterality hence they cry the liberty the liberty of the Kingdome of Christ the right the power of the Church is taken away so often as the magistrate punisheth scandals Ans Non-subordination can never inferre equality who denieth that the Magistrate may command the Husband and Wife to do a duty to each other the father not to provoke the son the sonne not to disobey the Father the Pastor and People the Master and Servant the Captaine and Souldier to do a duty each one to another And there is a proper right and liberty and power immediately given by God without the King or Magistrates interposing of their authority to all these the Kings authority maketh not the man a Father nor the Sonne subject to the Father nor the Servant to the Master nor the Souldier to the Commander God immediately made those powers and God in the Law of nature hath given a power to the Father over the sonne without the Magistrate yea though there had never been a Magistrate in the world so the Pastors and Elders by divine institution have a power and liberty to feed and governe the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers and set them over as those who must give an account to the great Shepherd Acts 20. 28 29. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Tim. 5. 17. now it no more followeth that all Fathers are equall to the Magistrate all Masters all Captains to the King then that the Church or Pastors are equall to the King for Fathers Masters Captaines Husbands have immediately from God in the Law of Nature a supream a high and independent Authority as the Church hath without any intervention of the will or authority of King or any earthly Magistrate and without any subordination as they are such to the Prince 2. The emulation between the Magistrate and Pastors is no more in point of government then in point of preaching exhorting rebuking even of Kings and all that are in Authority now we have both demonstrated from the Word and have the grant of Adversaries that in point of preaching and rebuking the Pastors have an immediate supremacy and independency under Iesus Christ and all emulation here is from men who will noâ— submit to the yoke of Christ 3. If the Magistrate should usurpe over Husbands and Masters and Fathers their jus maritale herile Paterum and spoil them of Husband-power and masterly and fatherly power as our Adversaries counsell the Magistrate to take
or State a power to unjustice ad malum nâ—â—la est potestas Obj. 14. How can the Magistrate determine what the true Church and ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword and how can he give judgement of a â—alse Church false Ministery false Doctrine and false Ordinances and so pull them down by the sword and yet you say the Magistrate is to give no spirituall judgement of these nor hath he any spirituall power for these ends and purposes Bloody Tenent Ans The Magistrate judges of these as a Magistrate not in a Pastorall way or Ecclesiastically for then by office he should be a preacher of the Gospel but civilly as they are agreeable or contrary to the Laws of the Common-wealth made concerning Religion and in order to the civill praise and reward of stipends wages or benefices or to the bodily punishment inflicted by the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. So though the object be spirituall yet the judging is civill and the Magistrates power in setting up true or pulling downe false ordinances is objectively spirituall or civilly good or ill to speak so against the duty or agreeable to that which men owe as they are members of a civill incorporation a City or Common-wealth But the same power of the Magistrate is formally essentially in it selfe civill and of this world CHAP. XXVI Quest 22. Whether appeals are to be made from the Assemblies of the Church to the civill Magistrate King or Parliament and of Paul his appeal to Cesar FOr the clearer explanation of the question its possible these considerations may help to give light 1. There be these opinions touching the point Some exclude the Magistrate from all care of Church-discipline â— As Iesuits and Papists will have Princes not to examine what the Church the Pope and the cursed Clergy of Rome decrees in their Synods To these the Sorbonists of Paris oppose and the Parliament of France cause to be burnt by the hand of the hangman any writings of Iesuits that diminisheth the just right of the Magistrate 2. Those who in the Low-countries did remonstrate under the name of Arminians as they are called hold that the Magistrate ought to tollerate all Religions even Turcisme and Iudaisme not excepted because the conscience of man cannot be compelled Some of them were Socinians as Henry Slatius who saith right downe he that useth the sword or seeketh a Magistracy is not a Christian yea war is against the command of Iesus Christ or in any tearms to kill any saith Henry Welsingius Episcopius their chief man will have the Magistrate going no further then reall or bodily mulcts or fines Ioan. Geisteranus pronounceth it unlawfull to be a Magistrate to use the sword But all say the Magistrate ought not to use the sword against Hereticks Blasphemers Idolaters or against any man for his conscience or Religion 3. Those that think the Magistrate bear the sword lawfully yet do confine him to the defence of the halfe of Gods Law the duties of the second Table and not to these all but to such as border not directly on conscience for if some should sacrifice their children to Molech and Devils as some do the Magistrate were not to punish them it being a joynt of their Religion and a matter of conscience and all these will be found to give to the Magistrate as the Magistrate just as little as Iesuits do in the matters of Religion and that is right downe nothing except possibly the Magistrate be of their Religion only whom he Governs only as a Christian man the Magistrate hath more with these then with Papists 4. Erastus giveth all in Doctrine and Discipline both in power and exercise to the Magistrate even to the dispensing of Word and Sacraments 5. Others forsaking Erastus in a little But following him in the main deny power of order 2. Power of internall jurisdiction granteth to him all the externall government of the Church 6. We hold that the Magistrate keeps both Tables of the Law and that he hath an inspection in a civill coactive way in preserving both Tables of the Law but that he is not as a Magistrate a member of the Church but as a Christian only 2. The exercise of Discipline is one thing and the exercise of it as the modus the way of exercising of it either in relation to Ecclesiasticall constitutions or in relation to the politick and civill Laws of a Common-wealth is a far other thing 3. As the Church is to approve and commend the just sentence of the civill judge in punishing ill doers but only conditionally in so far as it is just so is the magistrate obliged to follow ratifie and with his civil sanction to confirme the sound constitutions of the Church But conditionally not absolutely and blindely but in so far as they agree with the Word of God 4. Hence there is a wronging of the Church as the Church and a civill wronging of the Magistrate as the Magistrate or of the members of the Church as such or of the members of the Common-wealth as such the former and the latter both cannot belong to one judicature No more then the failing of a Painter against the precepts of Art because he hath drawn the colours proportion and the countenance beside the samplar and the failing not against Art but against the Lawes of the King in that he hath lavished out too much gold in the drawing of the image doth belong to one judgement for the Painter as a Painter according to the Law of Art must judge of the former and the Magistrate as a Magistrate of the latter 5. An appellation is one thing and the complaint of an oppressed man is another thing or a provocation to a competent judge is one thing and the refugium the refuge and fleeing of an oppressed man to a higher power is another thing if the Church erre and fail against the Law of Christ in the matter and decree the man to be a heretick who is none and that to be heresie which is truth the oppressâ—d man in a constituted Church may have his refuge to the godly Magistrate and complain but he cannot appeal for an appellation is from an erring judge to an higher judge in eadem sâ—rie in the same nature and kinde of judicatures as from a civill Court to a higher civill Court and from an Ecclesiasticall Court to a higher as suppose the Church of Antioch judge that the Gentiles must be circumcised the godly there may appeal to the judgement of Apostles and Elders in a Councell conveened from Antioch and Ierusalem both and therefore because the Magistrate can no more judge what is heresie what truth as a Magistrate then he can dispense Word and Sacraments an appeal cannot be made to him who is no more a judge ex officio nor he can dispense the Sacraments ex officio but a complaint may be made to the Magistrate if the Church
to the Iewes if it were a matter of wrong and wicked lewdnes O yee Iewes reason were that I should bear with you 15. But if it be a question of words and names and of your Law looke yee to it for I will be no judge of such matters Ergo to the Romans all the blasphemies of the Iewish law was not a matter of wicked lewdnesse nor of death Now the story is clear they were seeking Pauls life and for names and words the Iewes should not reach Paul nor move the Romans to put to death a Roman except they could prove sedition or treason against him and Acts 25. Festus saith to Agrippa That the Priests and Elders desired to have judgement against Paul 18. But against him they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed 19. But had certain questions against him of their owne Superstition and of one Iesus who was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive Here it is clear all are but words nothing worthy of death which the Iewes chiefly intended therefore they accuse him of treason as we may collect from Pauls Apologie Acts 25. 8. Neither against the Law of the Iewes neither against the Temple nor yet against Cesar have I offended any thing at all Therefore Act. 24. Tertullus a witty man burdeneth Paul with that which might cost him his head v. 5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition amongst all the Iewes throughout all the world see Acts 21. 38. of all which though blasphemy according to the Iewish Law was something yet sedition to the Romans who only now had power of Pauls life was all and some and when the Deputies counted so little of Religion the Iews knew sedition and treason against Cesar behooved to do the turn and Paul seeing they pursued him for his life appealed to Cesar to be judged in that Now except the adversaries prove that Paul referred the resurrection of Iesus and of the dead and his preaching Christ and the abolishing of sacrifices the Temple the Ceremoniall Law to be judicially determined by Nero as by the head of the Church they prove nothing against us Hence their chiefe argument is soone answered in what cause Paul was accused of the Iews in that he appealed to Cesar But he was accused not for his sedition but for his Doctrine Act. 26. 18. Ergo Paul appealed to Cesar in the cause of Doctrine not of sedition For 1. The Major is dubious for in what cause he was accused of his head which was the intent of the Iews in that he appealed true but in what cause he was accused in all and every Article of the points of his accusation and challenge I deny that for as touching doctrinals and his being judged by a lawfull Church and rightly constituted he appealed neither from the Sanedrim nor from Festus but declined Festus nor in these did he appeal to Cesar he only appealed in all cases which might concern his head and blood 2. The assumption is false for he was accused of sedition as is evident from Act. 25. 8. and 24. 5. 3. Though the Priests and Elders were most corrupt men yet that they believed that Cesar or bloody Nero his lips should preserve knowledge and that the Law should be sought from the mouth of Nero as the head of the Church can never be proved which must be proved to justifie Pauls appeal in the tearms of the adversary Obj. But may not Nero accuse Paul that he dare preach his Iesus Christ in the Emperours dominions Ans If his dominions be the Christian Churches conquered by his sword he may accuse as he conquered that is he may oppresse the consciences of men in accusing as he oppressed them in their bodies and liberties in the conquering of them But he may not as a conquerour accuse them for their conscience he may if he conquer those that worship Sathan cause instruct them in all meeknesse and lenity But this he doth by the sword as a Christian ruler to inlarge the dominions of Christ for when â—â— conquereth their bodies it is not to be thought that he conquereth their souls or acquireth any new dominion over their consâ—iâ—nces But though he do as a Magistrate command them to be instructed I doubt if he have a negative voice in imposing any Religion that he will though they be heathens though some learned Divines say be have a definitive voice in setting up what Religion he will or tollerating it I conceive though he have a definitive voyce in erecting the only true Religion in his heathenish dominions when there be no Ministers of the Gospel there yet not for any false Religions that being of perpetuall truth God never gave authority or power of the sword to do ill ad malum non est potestas what other things Videlius and Vtenbogard have on the contrary are answered Hence we ask 1. If the intrinsecall end of judging and censuring Ecclesiastically be not the inlightning of the mind the gaining of souls and if Nero or Christian or Heathen Magistrates be appointed for that spirituall end 2. If Paul aymed to refer the judging of the Gospel to Nero 3. If Paul knowing the Sanedrim sought his blood not the gaining of his soul might not appeal to the Magistrate to save his life 4. If it was not the Law of natures dictate in Paul so to do and not any positive constitution of the Magistrates Headship over the Church and Gospel 5. If the Ecclesiasticall judicature will swell without its sphere of activity to dispose of the life and blood of the Saints if then the state of the question be not changed and if then it be not lawfull to appeal and decline and provoke to the civill Magistrate 4. Moreover Paul appealed not to Cesar in ordine ad censuram auâ— penâ—m Ecclesiasticam in order to a Church censure as if he thought Cesar should principally excommunicate and cast him out of the â—ynagogue or judge him in an Ecclesiasticall way whether he had done or preached against the Temple and Law of Moses or not which must be proved if the adversaries will prove a proper appeal from the Church to the Prince which is now our question All this which is our mind is well explained by our Countryman Ioh. Camero prelectio in Mat. 18. 15. p. 151. Christiani principes sunt precipui in Ecclesia in sensu diviso sunt precipui et sunt in Ecclesia non in sensu conjuncto non sunt precâ—pui Ecclesiastici Non enim obtinent principes directe authoritatem Ecclesiasticam sed indirectè non quod velimus ulla in causa ullum eximi jurisdictione principis sed quia ejus jurisdictio non nisi per media Ecclesiastica pertinet ad conscientiam nempe princeps non predicat Evangelium non ligat et solvit peceatores at de officio principis est dare operam ut sint qui predicent Evangelium ut sint qui ligent
c. 12. Zozomen l. 7. e. 8. Theodoretus l. 5. c. 9. Historia tripartit l. 9. c. 14. say that the Emperor ordained him the Synod named him the truth is the Bishops were devided in judgement and its like they referred the matter to the godly Emperour In the mean time Athanasius Epist de solit vita Ambros l. 5. orat ad auxentium and l. 5. Epist 32. ad valentinianum Zozomen l. 6. c. 7. Concilium Toletanum III. Concilium milevitanum and divers others which I have cited elsewhere make the Emperor a Son of the Church not a Head and Lord intra Ecclesiam filium Ecclesiae non judicem non dominum supra Ecclesiam I might adde Augustin Epist 48. 50. 162. l. 1. de doctr Christ c. 18. Cyril Alexandrinus in an Epistle to the Synod of Antioch all Protestant Divines of note and learning CHAP. XXVII Quest 23. Whether the subjecting of the Magistrates to the Church and Pastors be any papal Tyranny and whether we differ not more from Papists in this then our adversaries The Magistrate not the Vicar of the mediator Christ The Testimonies of some learned Divines on the contrary answered IT is most unjustly imputed to us that we lay a Law upon the conscience of the Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church not inquiring into the Nature of the thing This Doctrine we disclaim as Popish and Antichristian It hath its rise from Bonifacius the III. who obtained from Phocas a bloody tyrant who murthered Mauritius and his Children as Baronius confesseth and yet he saith of this murtherer optimortum imperatorum vestigia sequutus he made an Edict that the Bishop of Constantinople should not be called Oecumenick nor universall Bishop but that this should be given only to the Bishop of Rome So Baronius yieldeth this tyranny was inlarged by Hildebrande named Gregorius the seventh a monster of tyrannicall wickednesse and yet by Papists he is sanctitate et miraculis clarus Baronius extolleth him these and others invaded both the swords Bishops would be civill judges and trample first upon the neck then upon the consciences of Emperors and make Kings the hornes of the beast and seclude them from all Church businesses except that with blind obedience having given their power to the beast as slaves they must execute the decrees of the Church Paul the III. the confirmer of the order of Iesuits who indicted the Councell of Trent as Onuphrius saith up braideth Charles the V. for meddling with Church businesse They write that Magistrates do not see in Church matters with their owne eyes but with Bishops eyes and that they must obey without examining the decrees of Councels and this they write of all subject to the Church Toletus in Instruct Sacerdâ—t l. 4. c. 3. Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum morâ—tur in credendo licet sit error Card. Cusanus excit l. 6. sermon obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino Ib. sententia pastoris ligat te pro tua salute etiam si injusta fuerit Envy cannot ascribe this to us Calvin Beza yea all our writers condemne blind obedience as brutish But our Adversaries in this are more Popish for they substitute King and Parliament in a headship over the Church giving to the King all the same power in causes Ecclesiastick that the Pope usurped 2. They make the King a mixed person to exercise spirituall jurisdiction to ordaine Bishops and deprive them and Mr. Prinne calleth the opinion of those who deny Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction legislative a high word proper to God only coercive power of Christian Emperors Kings Magistrates Parliaments in all matters of Religion what in fundamentall Articles of salvation Church-government Discipline Ceremonies c. Anti-monarchicall Anti-parliamentarie Anarchicall as holden by Papists Prelates Anabaptists Arminians Socinians c. It s that which Arminians objects to us and calleth the soul heart and forme of papall tyranny But that the Magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination whither they be right or wrong as Papists teach that the Magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience and submit his faith to them because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church doth erre or not is clear 1. Because if in hearing the word all should follow the example of the men of Berea not relying on the Testimony of Paul or any preacher try whether thâ—â— which concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no and accordingly receive or reject so in all things of Discipline the Magistrate is to try by the word whether he ought to adde his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick and a perverter of souls But the former is true the Magistrates practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing herericks concerneth his conscience knowing that he must do it in faith as he doth all his moral actions Ergo the Magistrate must examine what he practiseth in his office according to the word and must not take it upon the meer authority of the Church else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimaté on the authority of the Church not on the word of God which no doubt is Popery for so the warrant of the Magistrates conscience should not be Thus saith the Lord but Thus saith the Church in their decrees 2. The Magistrate and all men have a command to try all things Ergo to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good 1 Thes 5. 21. To try the spirits even of the Church in their decrees 1 Joh. 3. 1. 3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground that 1. The Church cannot erre in their decrees 2. It s against Scripture and reason that Magistrates and by the like reason all others should obey the decrees of the Church with a blinde faith without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees which is as good Popery as Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the Church beleeveth with an implicite faith so ignorance shall be the mother of Devotion who ever impute this to us who have suffered for non-conformity and upon this ground that Synods can erre refused the Ceremonies are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyall odious to Magistracy in that which we never thought â—ar lesse to teach and professe it to the world 4. Their chiefe reason is the Magistrate by our doctrine by his office is obliged 1. To follow the judgement of the Church and in that he is a servant or inslaved Qui enim
when he contributes his power to those things that materially conduce to a supernaturall end though he doe not contribute any thing that formally conduceth to such an end 2. So you may say a Christian Husband as a Husband a godly Physitian as a Physitian a Printer who printeth the Bible do nothing serviceable to Christ as Christ and in promoting Christs Mediatory Kingdom when the one begetteth children that being borne in the visible Church are made heires of the Kingdome of Christ and the other when by his Art and skill he preserveth the life of a godly and zealous Preacher The third when by his Art he publisheth in print the Testament of Christ the Physitian doth somewhat as a Physitian that is serviceable to Christ as Mediator yet I hope it is no Ecclesiasticall businesse to restore to health a godly Minister nor to beget a child who is made an heir of Grace nor to print the Bible so a Philosopher as a Philosopher doth convince one that worshippeth bread that the man leaveth his error and this is materially service to Christ and a promoting of Christs Mediatory Kingdom but neither Husband Physitian Printer or Philosopher are in these acts the Vicars and Deputies of Iesus Christ as the Magistrate is holden to be by the Adversary Nor 2. do they as Ecclesiasticall persons formally advance the kingdom of Christ as do the preachers of the Gospel far lesse more principally do they advance Christs Kingdom as the Magistrate is supposed to do Nor 3. hath their thus promoting of Christs Kingdom any influence upon the conscience as the Magistrate must have if he forbid sin as sin now the Magistrate as such doth nothing to promote formally the mediatory Kingdome of Christ for he may doe and doth all hee doth as a Magistrate yea suppose he were a Turk set over Christians as their Magistrate granting that Christ was a true Prophet yet may he as a Magistrate punish those who shall teach that Christ was a false Prophet and an impostor and though his Magistraticall acts be serviceable to Christ materially yet not formally 1. Because this Magistrate denieth Christ to be the Saviour of the world and yet as a Magistrate he justly punisheth the man that blasphemoâ—sly calleth Christ a deceiver and an impostor 2. Because as a Magistrate he believeth him not to be God and so ex intentione operantis he punisheth him not for a wrong done to Christ as Christ and as the Saviour of mankind but as a wrong done to the common wealth and as a disturber of the peace thereof Hence these Propositions touching the Magistrates relation to the Mediator Christ and his Church Propos 1. The Magistrate as a Magistrate is not the Vicar nor Deputie of Iesus Christ as Mediator 1. Because this is the heart and soul of Popery that the Papists teach that Christ as Mediator hath left a temporall an earthly and visible Monarch as his Vicar on earth Now that learned and singular ornament of the Protestant Churches Andreas Rivetus hath well said Christ hath instituted neither Kings nor Princes in the Church as his successors nor any Vicars with a domination but onely Ministers and Servants who are to discharge their Embassage in the Name of the onely Prince Christ for an Embassage cannot institute other Ambassadors either Kings or Princes but onely Ministers who do serve not reigne in the Kingdom of Christ he himselfe onely reignes the Servants of this great King promote the Kingdom of their Prince nor do they ever usurpe the royall power Yea all the arguments of Protestants that are brought to prove that the Pope a Bishop and a Church man because he is a Bishop and a Steward in the Church and in Christs spirituall Kingdom that is not of this world cannot be an earthly Prince and Monarch having power either directly or indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia to dispose of Kingdomes and crownes and enthrone and dethrone Kings doe also prove that the King cannot be head of the Church nor the Magistrate an Officer of the Church Doe not Protestant Divines condemn that blasphemous speech of Cardinall Bertrandus that Christ who was a temporall Lord on earth should not seem a discreet and wise Prince if he had not left a Temporall Vicar behinde him in the Church and that of Armacanus to be false that Christ by birth was the true King of Iudea and so a Temporary Prince hence say they there should be a temporary Prince and an earthly Monarch the successor of Christ as King and Mediator This Becanus the Iesuite maketh a speciall ground of the Popes Headship of the Church and for this Suarez disputeth yea the Iesuite Aegid Conninck saith It is the common and received opiâ—â—â—n of all the Romish Doctors that Christ as man hath a true Kingly power and a direct dominion over all the Kingdomes of the world to give them lawes and to exercise all Kingly power over them though de facto he abstained from it and is not upon this pillar builded the Popes Supremacy and that which Augustinus de Ancona saith Idem esse dominium dei Papâ— it is the same dominion which God and the Pope hath because it is the same jurisdiction of the Ambassador and of the Lord who sent him I deny not but many Papists give to Christ an indirect Kingly power and to the Pope they give the same indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia as Vasquez and Pet. Waldingus and others but this we say if Iesus Christ forbid a preacher of the Gospell remaining a preacher to be a civill Magistrate or temporall Lord as he doth both by precept and and practise Luke 22. 24 25 26. and 12. 13 14. Ioh. 18 36. and 6 15. then upon the same ground he must forbid the civill Magistrate to be a Church Governour as if God should forbid a Physitian to be a Painter because the two callings cannot lawfully consist in the person of one man he should also forbid a Painter to be a Physitian then the Arguments against a Monarchy and Magistraticall power in the Bishop of Rome must fight against any Ecclesiasticall power in a Magistrate if then the Pastors doe as Pastors rebuke exhort excommunicate and censure as directly subordinate to the Magistrate then Pastors as Pastors discharge their office as inferiour and under Magistrates and so they partake in so farre of a temporall dominion being direct instruments under Temporall Lords and if the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe command them to dispense Word and Sacraments and discipline and make and unmake Pastors and regulate and limit them and make Lawes to them then the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth partake of an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and both are forbidden by Christ in the places cited 2. If the Magistrate be the onely supream Church Governour under Christ the government of the Church must be a visible Monarchy and the Magistrate must have both the Swords Temporall and
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
to raise them Ergo if he be not to be judged as a contemner of Gods law in things indifferent farre lesse should he be judged by the Church law 4. Proposit Observers of dayes or non-observers of dayes should have certaintie of Faith in these indifferent things Ergo the light of the Word should lead Rulers and People here v. 5. in things indifferent 5. Proposit The observer of indifferent things as dayes in that case at Rome and the non-observers of dayes should not trouble one another because both are to observe and not observe indifferent things for Gods glory 1. Both gives thankes 2. Both liveth and dieth as Christs for Gods glorie 6. 7. 8. 9. Therefore Gods glorie is the end that ruleth the use of Ceremonies as they are indifferent Proposit 6. v. 10. 11. 12. a Christian should not condemne a Jew noâ— one brother another in things indifferent 1. Because we are brethren 2. Because it is Christs place to judge and condemne 3. Because every man must give an account for himself Ergo. Lawes of Rulers to condemne or punish are not to be made in such cases Proposit 7. v. 13. When the use of things indifferent is a stumbling block and scandall to our brethren they are against charitie and unlawfull Proposit 8. v. 14. there is a Prolepsis Meats clean or not clean may be eaten but all meats are clean and Paul is perswaded of that by Iesus Christ Ergo The Apostle answereth 1. by denying the major Proposition in two cases and setteth downe a distinction All things are clean in themselves but they become unclean in two cases 1. If one weake in the faith believe that the meat that he eateth is against the word of God the me at to him is unclean 2 If he eat before one that believeth it is forbidden in Gods Law to eat such meats his eating is a stumbling blocke to the weake But one might say It is a taken Scandall and not given for it is lawfull to eat thy brother deemeth it unlawfull out of ignorance of Christian libertie so say Formalists Ceremonies be indifferent if any offend at the use of them it is ascandall taken not given O but Paul forbiddeth to scandalize or to eat Hence the 9. Proposit The use of things indifferent as Ceremonies before any Law â—e made of them by confession of Formalists is indifferent and may be done and not done but if they scandalize Paul proveth by eight arguments they are unlawfull 1. If fighteth with Charitie that for meat so lâ—tle a thing for the knot of a straw a Ceremonie thou slay thy brother for whom Christ died v. 15. Where these reasons be 1. It is uncharitable walking 2. It is murther slay not him 3. It is contrary to Christs love who died for thy brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian libertie to be evill spoken of v. 16. 5. From the nature of these things which are indifferent these in which the Kingdome of God consisteth not as Meats and Surplicâ— crossing kneeling c. when they scandalize ought to be omitted as being against righteousness and being sinnes of murther 2. Against Peace sinnes of contention 3. against joy of the Holy Ghost making sad and discouraging thy brother in his Christian â—ace and he that serveth God in peace and righteousnesse and joy is acceptable v. 18 6. The use of things indifferent in case of scandall conduce not to peace and edification v. 19. 7. It is a destroying of the worke of God v. 20. illustrated by a repeated prolepsis but the meat is clean â—ea but saith Paul it is evill and so morally unclean to him that eateth with offence v. 20. 8. Ab equo â—ono we are to doe good but to eat and drink with the scandalizing of our brother and to practise Ceremonies is not Good Proposit 10. The practising of things indifferent or Ceremonies for the very â—â—â—â—ing of the â—aith that we have Christian libertie to practise or noâ— practise in the case of scandall is not lawfull v. 22. set downe by a proâ—epsis Keep the faith of thy Christian libertie in case of scandall to thy selfe and to God Proposit 11. In the use of things indifferent we are to allow our selves that is to have the approbation of our Conscience that what we doe is lawfully v 22. Proposit 12. He that practiseth indifferent things with a doubting conscience and not in faith sinneth and is condemned v. 23. 1 Cor. 6 v 12 All things indifferent are lawfull in themselves but they are not expedient If we be brought under the power or band of them by law Ergo in the meanes of worship not onely must we see what is lawfull but also what is profitable and conducing to the end He reasoneth upon a given but not granted hypothesis that Fornication is indifferent as the Gentiles taught as we doe in the matter of Ceremonies 1 Cor. 7. v. 6. But this I speake by permission not of Commandement Ergo in things in which God hath granted us libertie to doe or not to doe permission hath place not obliedging necessitie or penall lawes 13 Proposit There cannot be commanding Lawes in things that are polltickly good or evill according to the individuall complexion temperature or gifts of singular men to marry or not to marry cannot be commanded for where God looseth no power on earth can bind v. 33. 1 Cor. 8. v. 7. Paul condemneth them in the use of their libertie Christian Howbeit there be not in every man this knowledge then that Rulers may make lawes in things indifferent without scandall they must remove ignorance 2. If there be but one person weake there is not in every man that knowledge in knowledge a Law obliedging all in things indifferent cannot be made V. 8. There is a definition of a thing indifferent It is a thing that commendeth us not to God which neither helpeth nor hindereth pietie nor maketh a man better or worse before God Then Ceremonies pretended to be for order decencie edification to stirre up the dull minde to spirituall duties cannot be things indifferent Hence observe 1. The materialls of worship as linnen cloathes habites gestures may be in their physicall consideration indifferent but as applyed by formulistes they cannot be indifferent for in their use kneeling appropriated to sacramentall bread linnen appropriated to the body of a Priest while he officiateth cannot be but religious or prophane 2. If God command gestures he commandeth this gesture hic nunc If in generall â—â—ealing be forbidden then for Achan to steale this Babylonish garment must be forbidden 3. It seemeth to have been after-noon with Henry Lesly of after cuppes when he saith if Papists and Protestants be two divers kindes of worshippers then their actions of worship must be indifferent as be their agents for actions are distinguished by their objects and ends Papists in kneeling worship their God of bread we in kneeling at the Sacrament worship the true God For when
the Canons of Pearth faction 3. You say the negative part of the fift Commandement forbidding the resisting of the power Rom. 13. 2. by us is to be understood with exception of the case of scandall taken whereby you insinuate that not to obey the acts of Pearth Assembly is a resisting of the power of Rulers Rom. 13. 2. It is ignorantly spoken to resist every law of the Rulers is not to resist his power when the lawes are such as commandeth scandall yea by your own doctrine it is lawfull to flie when a Ruler unjusty commandeth persueth his subjects pag. 3. n. 19. And to â—â—ie I am sure is to refuse subjection to the Lawes of the Ruler from whose tribunall we â—liâ— yeâ— and to flie so is to resist his lawes but I hope it is not to resist the power for to resist the power bringeth damnation and guiltinesss before God Rom. 13. 2. But to flie from his legall Citations is to resist his lawes but doth not I hope bring damnation before God and sinne upon the conscience as you grant Duplyers n. 43. Men are ready to stumble and to be scandalized at our refusing obedience to the lawfull Commandements of our Superiours for they will take occasion by our cariage to doe that unto which by nature they be most inclined to wit to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie Answer If any stumble at our non-obedience to Pearth Articles and thence be induced to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie it is a scandall meerely taken no wayes given as is cleare because they stumble at our obedience to God in that we refuse to kill one for whom Christ died 2. It is no wayes true that men are naturally inclined to vilipend Laws in a matter indifferent as you hold Ceremonies to be from whence ariseth Scandall yea we are by nature much bent to extoll and love-lawes commanding soul-murther and all lawes inductive to Poperie which is but a masse of carnall propositions of heterodox Divinitie every way sutable to our flesh The third exception is answered already the fourth is to be discussed in the following Chapter Quest IIII. Whether the Precept of obedience to Superiours or the precept of eschewing scandall be more obligatorie Dupliers pag. 65. n. 43. LAst of all when a man is peremptâ—rily urged by his Superiours to obey their lawfull Commandements and in the meane time feareth that if he doe the thing commanded by them some through weaknesse shall be scandalized by his carriage in this case he is not onely in difficultie and strait betwixt the Commandement of men and the Commandement of God who forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended But also he seemeth to be in a strait betwixt two Commandements of God to wit the precept that forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be scandalized and the other which forbiddeth the resisting of Authoritie Answer 1. The question of purpose is perversly set do â—ne for they should say whether the precept of obedience to Superiours in a straw lifting in things indifferent and meerely positive and not necessarie to salvation be more obligatorie then the precept of God in the law of nature in a matter necessarie to salvation as a Commandement of God forbidding soul-murther and scandalizing him for whom Christ died Or thus Whether am I obliedged rather to obey God forbidding me to murther my brother or to obey man commanding me to kneele towards Bread and Wine and to crosse the aire with my thumbe upon the face of a baptized infant 2. The question seemeth to make a collision of Commandements as if God could command things contradictorie and certainly if the not obeying of Pearth Articles be a scandall given as you say it is I shall undertake to prove that the practice of these Ceremonies is a Scandall given and so it is not a seeming strait as you say but a reall strait by your doctrine There be cases wherein whether Rulers command things or command the contrary a passive scandall doth arise but because a passive Scandall is the sinne of the scandall taker and not of Rulers giving the Church is not to regard it as Matth 11. 18 19. The Jewes are scandalized at Christs eating and drinking and are scandalized at John the Baptists not eating and drinking But neither Christ nor John doe culpably give scandall But there can be no such exigence of providence wherein non-practising of your commanded Ceremonies is a given scandall and the practising of them is also a given scandall Because as Bannes and our owne Amâ—sius saith There is not such a perplexitiâ— 1. God should have brought a man then in some cases under an absolute necessitie by way of contradiction to sinne and murther his brother whether he doe such a thing or not doe it 2. Twentie Jewes are scandalized Rom. 14. Because Paul eateth such and such meats which they conceive are forbidden by Gods law And twentie Christians are scandalized because Paul eateth not such and such meats then we suppose and it s very casuall for seeing to be scandalized ariseth from the knowledge or ignorance of the minde and divers men may have contrary opinions about one thing Some thinke it unlawfull for Paul to eat some thinke it unlawfull not to eat Hence upon the use of a thing indifferent twentie are scandalized and upon the non-using of that same indifferent thing twentie are also scandalized What shall Paul doe in this strait I answer he taketh Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. the negative I will not eat flesh if meat offend my brother Then the twentie that are scandalized by the non-practice of the thing indifferent doe take scandall onely whereas Paul giveth no scandall actively Also the othet twentie who are scandalized by Paul his practice of the thing indifferent are justly scandalized it is both a scandall taken and active and a scandall given and passive Some object but if either of the sides be indifferent to wit either to use a thing indifferent or not to use it If ten take offence at the use of it and ten take offence at the non-use of it there is a necessitie of scandalizing either of the sides for the twentie weake Christians are scandalized at Pauls abstinence from such meats conceiving that he Judaizeth whereas the Profession of his Christian libertie in eating would edifie them and not scandalize them Answer The use of a thing indifferent is not Gods lawfull mean of edification God hath appointed his Word Workes the holy and blamelesse profession of his children to edifie and not the using of actions indifferent yea actions indifferent as they are such and separated from necessitie and morall reason are not lawfull and so the cessation from that action is lawfull and necessarie and if the use scandalize non-using of things indifferent is not indifferent but necessarie as non-scandalizing and negative precepts alwayes binding abstinence with Paul is necessarie It is vaine that Paybodie saith that
Peter was Gal. 2. in danger of a double scandall for saith he he was in danger to scandalize the Gentiles in refusing their companie as if they had been no brethren which was the greater scandall and in danger to scandalize the Jewes in eating with the Gentiles which was a lesse sinne and lesse scandall But I answer Paul did not then justly rebuke his Judaizing Galat. 2. which doth gratifie Barronius Bellarmine and Papists who will have Peter an Apostle who could not erre 2. It should follow that Paul rebuked Peter because that of two evills of sinne he choosed to commit the lesser sinne Whereas of two evills of sinne neither is to be chosen One might then lawfully commit fornication to be free of adulterie and so fornication should be lawfull which is absurd And Paul should call Gal. 2. 14. it upright walking according to the truth of the Gospell to choose a lesse sin 3. Peter by eating with the Gentiles should not have scandalized the Jewes but edified them in showing the Christian libertie they had in Christ as is cleare v. 5. To whom we gave no subjection no not for an houre by practising Jewish Ceremonies that the truth of the Gospell might continue with you Duplyers pag. 66. It is certaine we are freed from one of these precepts for Gods precepts are not repugnanâ— one to another Ye commonly say the precept of obedience to humane authoritie must give place to the precept of eschewing Scandall though it be causlesly taken because the command of a Superiour cannot make that fact to be free of scandall which otherwise would be scandalous But it is certaine that laying aside the case of scandall to denie obedience to the ordinance of our Superiours injoyning and peremptorily requiring of us things lawfull and expedient is really the sinne of disobedience Ye will say that the scandall of weake brethren may make that fact or omission not to be disobedience which otherwise would be disobedience because we ought not for the Commandement of man doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended and so the precept of obedience bindeth not when offence of a weake brother may be feared On the contrary we say that the lawfull commandement of Superiours may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be imputed unto us which otherwise would bee imputed unto us as a matter of our guiltinesse No scandall â—f weake brethren causlesly taken can make that fact not to be the sinne of disobedience which otherwayes that iâ— extra casum scandali if it were not in the case of scandall would bee the sinne of disobedience Answer 1. This is right downe worke But 1. I Answer Both the precepts are not obligatorie you say true We commonly say saith the Doctors that the precept of obedience to humane authoritie must give place to the precept of eschewing scandall although it be causlesly taken We say not that Commonly nor at all if by Scandall causlesly taken you mean scandall passive onely taken and not given for we are not to regard such scandalls But here the scandall is given in that we must practise base Ceremonies indifferent knots of straws for mens pleasure though from thence many soules for whom Christ died be destroyed 2. It is good reason that the precept of obedience to humane authoritie in things which you call indifferent and might well be sent away to Rome were it not the Lord Prelates pleasure to command them for their owne carnall ends should yeild and be gone and lose all obligatorie power because it is but a positive precept and 2. affirmative that obliedgeth not ad semper as Crossâ— kneele weare Surplice And 3. In a thing indifferent and that this Divine Commandement of God scandalize not kill not one redeemed by Christ should stand in force 1. Because it is a naturall precept 2. It is negative and obliedgeth eternally 3. It is of a necessarie matter because no man-slayer hath life eternall 1 Jh. 3. 15. But our Doctors will have the Commandements positive of men to stand and the Commandements of God which are expresly of the law of nature to fall before their Dagon and to lose all obligatorie power whereas Gods owne positive law yeildeth and loseth obligatorie power when Gods naturall Commandement of mercy commeth in competition with it as is cleare as the noon-day in David famishing who eat the Shew-bread which by a positive law was not lawfull to any save the Priests onely to eat yet must mans law stand and Gods law of nature fall at the pleasure of these Doctors 3. Wee say justly you erre in saying it is reall disobedience to deny obedience to the ordinance of Superiours when the matter of their law is indifferent and when it is scandalous and obedience cannot be given to it but by sâ—aying him for whom Christ died yea to give obedience to Superiours in that case is reall murthering of soules and reall disobedience to God Yea and if there be murthering of a weake brother in the fact it cannot come under the compasse of the matter of an humane law and the Scandall maketh it no obedience to men but disobedience to God 4. You retort bravely but Popishly the argument back upon us But we bring our argument from the law of Nature Thou shalt not murther nor scandalize and we bring it not so much against the obedience to the Commandement of Superiours as against the law and Commandement of Superiours and this Argument is against the Ceremonies as if they had not been commanded and as they were before the Assembly of Pearth and therefore the consideration of a lawfull Commandement to take away the scandall is not to any purpose And so 5. I may invite Papists Jesuites and all the Patrons of the Pope to thanke you and kisse your pen for these words we say that the lawfull Commandement of Superiours of Prelates commanding things indifferent may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be imputed unto us which otherwise would be imputed unto us as a matter of our guiltiness What ever my brethren may be imputed to you otherwise before the law of Pearth Assemblie was made as the matter of your guiltiness was your sinne for nothing can be imputed to Men or Angels as guiltiness but fin But if the Commandements of Prelates may make that not to be imputed to you which otherwise and before or without that law of Superiours would have been imputed as the matter of your guiltinesse then the law of Superiours and Prelates may make that which without that law would have been sinne to be no sinne at all I know no more said by Bellarmine of the Universall Prelate of the world but that he can make sin to be no sinne and no sinne to be sinne And that the Pope cannot command vertue as vice and vice as vertue for if he should doe so the Church should be obliged to believe vertue to be vice and vice
to be vertue But much good doe it you Masters of Arts. Yet Bellarmine in his recognitions saith not so much of his great Pope-Prelate as you say of your little Prelates for he will not give the foresaid power to the Pope but in doubtsome acts and in acts of positive lawes about fasting you give to Prelates more to wit that their commanding will may make sinnes forbidden in the law of nature to be not imputed as the matter of our guiltinesse and to be no sinnes We cannot want dispensations and indulgences at home ere it be long if happily we pay well for them Yet Bernard will not have the Popes commandement to make that which is simply evill to be lawfull The Popes pleasure make not things good saith Tolet yea a subject saith Alphonsus dâ—â—â—astro may without sinne contemne the law of his Superiour judging it to be evill and contrary to reason But I reason thus It is the incommunicable power of the Supreame Law giver to make the killing of Isaac which otherwayes would have been imputed to Abraham as a matter of guiltinesse and crueltie to be no sinne Ergo Prelates have not power to make an act of soul murther to be no sinne to scandalize a weake brother is to destroy him for whom Christ died Rom. 14. v. 15. 1 Cor. 8. v. 11. yea and by the same law Rulers may make an act of Adulterie an act of Chastitie an act of lying an act of truth speaking 2. If Rulers even the Apostle Paul be tyed by the law of Nature to Charitie to their brethren as Rom. 14. 15. Not to stay him for whom Christ died not to seâ—ke their owne things but the good of their brethren 1 Cor. 10. 24. Not to eat things sacrificed to idols before the weake v. 29. To doe all for the glory of God v. 32. Then is it sinne in the Ruler himselfe to scandalize the weake Ergo Rulers cannot command to others that as obedience which they cannot doe themselves without prodigious disobedience to God What Paul forbiddeth in Canonical Scripture as murther that he cannot command in Church Canons as obedience Canonicall to Superiours 3. Prelates shall have immediate Dominion over our consciences to bind us to obedience by doing acts that otherwise should be imputed to â—s as the matter of our guiltinesse and because the same power that bindeth the conscience may also loose so they may dispense with all the ten Commandements and coyne to us a new Decalogue and a new Gospell They may legitimate murthers paricides and illegitimate Godlinesse and rightâ—â—â—snesse and sobriâ—tiâ— by this Divinitie 4. That must be false It is better to obey God nor man Act. 5. but to abstaine from scandalizing a weake brother is an act of obedience to the sixt Commandement Ergo the contrary cannot be done at the command of Prelates 6. Gods positive lawes yeildeth Thou shalt not kill to wit to the law of nature David may eat shew bread when he is famishing Ergo the Prelates law farre more must yeild to the sixt Commandement thou shalt not scandalizâ— nor kill the soule of him for whom Christ died 7. Rulers must all be infallible law-makers 8. Rulers might command bodilie murther and it should not be murther they may command to digge pitts in the way of Travellers To marry with Infidelâ— to send abroad a goaring Ox to give knives to little children They object A Master a father may command a servant and a son to do that which if the servant or son refuse to do their disobedience scandalizeth And again a Master a Father may command the contrary and if they disobey they scandalizâ— culpably Erg. The commanding will of a Master and a Father and farre more of publick Rulers may make that to be active scandall which is no active scandall A Carpenter may command his servant to remove a tree from the East end of his house to the West end and againe he may for his sole will to try his servants obedience command him to remove it againe to the East end of his house Answer 1. The Master Father Carpenter command either these things as artificiall agents from reason of art and then the question is not touched for in scandalls men are considered as morall agents or they command them as morall agents and that either for their sole will and pleasure and so they be idle and unreasonable actions and cannot be lawfull commandements and so are they scandalous both to Commanders and obeyers but they may well command upon just reasons that which if servants and sonnes obey not they give Scandall and they may command the contrary of that same at another time when now contrary reasons maketh it lawfull and expedient and if servants and sonnes obey not the contrary they also give Scandall but here the change is not from the will and authoritie of the Commanders but from the things themselves which are changed so that which is an active scandall at some time the contrary of it may be an active scandall at another time as in the ease Rom. 14. To eat meats before the weake which they conceive to be forbidden by Gods law is to slay him for whom Christ died and an active scandall because then the Ceremonies were mortall and indifferent nothing essentially constituteth an active and a given scandall but these two 1. That it may be left undone as the author of the course of conformitie saith well out of Hieronimus Without hurting of the truth of a sound life and a sound faith and righteousnesse 2. If upon the practice of a thing indifferent and not necessarie any of the foresaid three wayes we see some shall be scandalized though they take scandall upon an unjust ground it is an active scandall as to eat such meats before the weake Rom. 14. is in another time and case as Galat. 2. when the Ceremonies are now deadly and upon just reasons not necessarie the practising I say of the same is an active scandall and so if any be scandalized at the eating Rom. 14. it is scandall both taken and also culpably given and if any be scandalized at the not eating as the case is Galat. 2. That is only a passive scandall and so not given because the times of the expyring of the dutie of Ceremonies and the full promulgation of the Gospell varieth the case now and the sole will of Rulers maketh not the change So if any offer Incence to the Brazen Serpent so long as it hath vertue as Gods ordinance to cure the stinged persons he is scandalized by a passive scandall onely for Gods institution maketh it now the necessary ordinance of God And the Magistrates suffering of the Brazen Serpent to remaine now is no active scandall and the passive scandall is onely taken away by information and the sound exponing of the right use of a necessary ordinance of God But after that the Brazen Serpent loseth its vertue and
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
the thing commanded Yea and if the positive Commandements of the Lord our God who of Justice and kingly soveraigntie hath right to aske obedience of us above all earthly Superiours doe yeeld and cede as lesse obligatorie then commandements of love only that are commanded in the law of nature What doe our Doctors clatter and fable to us of a right of Justice that mortall Rulers have to command in things indifferent from which the destruction of soules doth arise for these commandements of Rulers kneele religiously before bread the vicegerent image of Christ crucified keepe humane holy-dayes Crosse the aire with your thumb above a baptized infants face at best are but positive Commandements not warranted by Gods word But shall they be more obligatorie by a supposed band of Justice that Prelates have over us to command such toy's then this divine law of God and Nature Rom. 14. For indifferent dayes meats surplice destroy not him for whom Christ died All the Casuistes and Schoolemen Navarra Sylvester Sanchez Raphael de la Torre Meratius Duvallius Thomas Scotus Bonaventura Suarez Vasquez Grego de Valentia Albertus Richardus Biel Corduba Angelus Adrianus Alphonsus Becanus yea and all the hoast of our Divines cry with Scripture that Mercie and the precepts of Love and of the Law of nature are more obligatorie then Sacrifice burnt offerings and Gods owne positive lawes yea and that positive lawes lose their obligatorie power and cease to be lawes when the lawes of nature and necessarie duties of mercie and love as not to murther our brother not to scandalize standeth in their way I might wearie the reader here with citations and bewilder my selfe also but it is a point of Divinitie denyed by none at all 3. What we owe of Justice to our Superiours is indeed both a morall debt of obedience and a debt of justice and law which Rulers may seeke by their place and ex jure as Aristotle saith but this right is limited Rulers have no right to seeke absolute obedience but only in the Lord not against charitie And though the place of Rulers be authoritative yet their commanding power as touching the matter of what they injoyne is only Ministeriall and they cannot but in Gods place exact that which is Gods due and seeing God himselfe if he should immediatly in his owne person command he would not urge a positive commandement farre lesse the commandement of light and vaine Ceremonies against and beyond the precept of love not to destroy a soule for whom Christ died Ergo Superiours under God who borrow all their right from God cannot have a higher right then God hath 4. The comparison of a man who oweth moneys to a Creditor and oweth moneys to the poore is close off the way for he is obliged to pay the Creditour first but the case here is farre otherwise The debt of practising indifferent feathers and straws such as kneeling crossing wearing Surplice is neither like the debt owine to the poore nor to the creditour For natures law and Gods word 1 Cor. 10. 18 19. maketh the non-practise non-murthering obedience to God when the practise of indifferent things is a soule-stumbling to the weake and the practising is but at its best obedience to a positive Law and ought to stoope and goe off the way and disappeare when natures Law Murther not doth come in its way When the Doctors put Loyaltie above Charitie they suppose obedience to commandements commanding scandalizing of soules to be loyaltie to Superiours which is questioned it being treason to the Soveraigne of heaven and earth to destroy his Image it is taken as loyalty by our Doctors but not proven to be loyaltie and so a vaine question here whether Loyaltie be above Charitie or not But I dismisse the Doctors till another occasion Other things as Popish tenents in their booke are a thousand times answered by us Quest V. Whether or not in every indifferent thing are we to eschew the scandall of all even of the malicious IT is knowne that many take offence at tolling of Bells at a Ministers gowne while hee preacheth at the naming of the dayes of the weeke after the Heathen style from the seven Planets as Sunday the day of the Sunne Moonday the day of the Moon c. It is true Bells are abused by Papists while as they be consecrated baptized used to chase away devils But these be scandals taken and not given for we read not of scandals culpable in Gods word but there be some apparent morall reason in them 2. The object scandalizing hath no necessitie why it should be Now there is a necessitte of Bells to give warning to convocate the people to Gods worship and they are of meere civill use and have no morall influence in the worship for the same tolling of bells is and may be used to convocate the people to a Baâ—oncourt to heare a declamation to convocate Souldiers there is no apparent morall reason why the tolling of a Bell should scandalize and the toller of the Bell for warning of the bodily and personall convocation of the people is not a morall agent properly the action of tolling remaineth within the sphere of an actiâ—n physicalâ— in lineà Physicâ non in lineâ morali aut religiâ—sâ aut Theologiâ—â for so here I must contradistinguish a Physicaâ—l action from a Religious action 2. The tolling of bels have a necessitie of expediencie I mean necessity in specie in the kind though not in in lividuo in the particular and no particular can be more fit and convenient people must have some publ que signe for the dyat of meeting else the worship would be wearisome to those who met long before the time and it would be scandalous and inconvenient to others to meet after the publick worship is begun If any say tolling of Bells is not necessarie sounding of Trumpets beating of Drummes may be civill signes of convocating people touling of bells being so fouly abused by Papists to superstition and so being not necessarie ought to be removed But I answer beating of Drummes wanteth the necessitie of conveniencie as in raynie weather it could not be nor can they give warning so conveniently blowing of Trumpets might seeme as Jewish Joel cap. 2. v. 15. as tolling of Bells seemeth Popish and the degrees of necessitie of conveniencie should sway the Chuâ—ches determination in these cases and this exsuperancie of necessitie of conveniencie is in all things though we cannot see it alwayes 2. The instamped civill gravitie in a Gowne maketh it necessary with the necessitie of expediencie being in it selfe a grave habit fit for an Oratour who is to perswade 3. The names of dayes to signifie civill times and things out of a religious state is necessary now and the Holy Ghost doth use for civill signification such termes as Mars-street to signifie civill and meerely historically such a place And the Ship whose signe is Castor Pollux yet these were heathen
marrying both free to the conscience and also not necessarie to salvation they had laid bands upon Pauls libertie 3. We see not how the Ceremonies are left free to the conscience because they are alterable by the Church for the reason of kneeling to bread of humane dayes of Surplice is morall not Nationall there is no reason why prophaning of the Lords Supper should not be eschewed in all the world and at all times as in Britaine and at this time and Crossing and Surplice doth signifie dedication to Christs service and Pastorall holinesse in all the world as in Britaine and therefore they cannot be nationall rites and alterable but must be universall and at all times and in all places doctrinall 4. The very externall Washings Feasts New-Moones Offerings though they should be thought free toward the conscience are externall burdens against Christian libertie as our Divines Calvin Chemnitius Polanus teacheth and Bellarmine answereth the places alledged speaketh of Jewish servitude But our Divines especially Junius and Whittakerus answer Bellarmine that Paul Coll. 2. speaketh against all Commandements of men yea hee speaketh against Angel worship which is not a Jewish shadow whereof Christ is the bodie But they say it is a wide rule that all things that may be wanting in Gods worship are to be omitted in the case of scandall I answer there be three sort of things here considerable 1. Things not commanded of God as all religious observances these are utterly unlawfull when the using of them scandalizeth 2. Things that fall under an affirmative precept and these cannot be totally omitted for eschewing scandall for what ever God hath commanded is some way necessarie Ergo it some wayes and in some cases may be done though offence be taken at it but branches or parts of affirmative precepts may be omitted for eschewing of scandall as such a particular kneeling in prayer in such a place but Gods affirmatiue precepts leave not off to be alwayes scandalous actively though information be given for where the use hurteth the abuse and scandall is not taken away by teaching to teach how Images should not be abused make not Images to leave off to be scandalous objects 3. There bee some things of meere civill use as Bells Gownes Pulpits preaching on Tuesday or Thursday These be considered two wayes 1 As necessarie with necessitie of conveniencie simply 2. With necessitie of conveniencie secundum prevalentiam graduum as convenient in the highest degree of necessitie or that morall maximum quod sit in the first degree what scandalizeth is to be rejected in the last respect they oblige and if any be scandalized thereat it is taken and not given It may be the Church sees not alwayes the highest and superlative conveniencie in these Physicall circumstances but they oblige not because of the Churches authoritie no more then the word of God borroweth authority from the Church but they have an intrinsecall necessitie in themselves though right reason in the Church see not alwayes this necessitie therefore that a signe be given for convening the people that the Preacher officiate in the most grave and convenient habite is necessarie Jure divino by Gods law and that tolling of Bells and a Gowne a Pulpit bee as particulars most convenient for these ends the Church Ministerially doth judge so as the obligatorie power is from the things themselves not from the will of humane Superiours No necessitie of peace which is posterior to truth no necessitie of obedience to authoritie no necessitie of uniformitie in these externals simply and as they are such are necessities obliging us to obedience for things must first in themselves be necessarie before they can oblige to obedience I must obey Superiours in these things of convenient necessitie because they are convenient and most convenient in themselves and so intrinsecally most necessarie but they are not necessarily to be done in themselves because I must obey Superiours and because I must keep uniformitie with the Church The will of Superiours doe find in things necessitie and good of uniformitie but they doe not make necessitie nor the good of uniformitie We should be servants of men if our obedience were ultimatè resolved in the meere will of Superiours in any the least circumstance of worship and what I say of actions holdeth in matters of meere custome also But Master Sanderson D. Forbes M. Paybodie teach that we are not to regard the scandall of the malitious as of Pharisees To which I answer We are to have alike regard in case of scandall to wicked and malitious as to weake and infirme For we are not to regard the passive scandall of the weake more nor of the wicked for who ever stumble at the necessarie ordinances of God they take a scandall which is not culpably given But that we are to regard the active scandall of all even the most malitious I demonstrate thus 1 Rom. 14. 15. Paul proveth that we are not to scandalize our brother 1. because it is against charitie 2. Because we are not to destroy him for whom Christ died but we owe love to the malitious even to our enemies and must not walke uncharitably toward him as the law of God requireth 3. A malitious man is one for whom Christ died very often as is cleare in Paul before his conversion 2. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Wherefore give no scandall neither to the Jewes nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God 33. Even as I please all men in all things not seeking mine owne profit but the profit of many that they may be saved Here be many arguments for our purpose All men whether weake or wilfull are either Jewes or Gentiles and none more malitious against Paul and the Gospell then the Jewes yet must we take heed that we give them no scandall 3. If we must please all men in all things indifferent Ergo also malitious men 4. If we must seeke the profit not of our selves but of all men and seeke to save them and so seeke the salvation even of the malitious as Christ prayed for his malitious enemies so must we not scandalize them 5. I argue from the nature of scandall scandall is spirituall murther but the sixt Commandement for biddeth murthering of any man either weake or wilfull for no murtherer can have life eternall 1 Joh. 3. 15. Now weaknesse or malice in the scandalized is accidentall to the nature of scandall active for active scandalizing is to doe inordinately and unseasonably that which hic nunc may be omitted from which any is scandalized either weake or wilfull to lay a snare to kill a wicked man except it be by the authoritie of him who beareth the sword under God is murther no lesse then to kill an innocent man 6. To scandalize actively is to be accessarie to the sinne of the partie scandalized but we may not be accessarie to the sinne of either wilfull wicked or weake
Bellar. de Pont if Rom l. 4. cap. 16. Quiounque potest precipere polest etiam actum indifferentem suo precepto facere necessarium per se bonum p Silvest in voce abrogat q Tartar in moral cap. 5. 7. r River catho orth tom 1. q. 9. tract 2. q. 2 Å¿ Field l. 4. cap. 33. t Pareus u Soto l. 1. de just q. 6. art 3. x Sylvest Verbâ— in obedientia in â—iâ—c y Jo Eselius in ezpos Decall praecept 4. cap. 36. z Cap. 2. De constit Rem quae culpa caret in damnum vocari non convenit Other Arguments for the obligation of humane Laws Answered a Ambros b Anselm c Theodoretus in loc Rom 13. d Chrysos in Rom. 13. hom 23. e Navar. in sum cap. 23. numb 54. f Felinus cap. 1. de sponsalib n. 18. g Taraqu Prefat de utroque retractu n. 74. What it is to resist the Ruler h Lodovi Merat par 1. tract de leg disp 1. Sect. 13. i Merat ib. Sect. 2. Why men cannot make laws that layeth a tye on the Conscience 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 That there is such a divine ordinance as Excommunication Objections against excommunication removed Praelee in Math. 18. ver 15. page 144. We mayrebuke our brother in a prudent way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus Mat. 18. Object 4. The church Mat. 18. is not the Civill Sanedrim How Publicans were excluded from the Temple a Dâ—uâ— 23. 1 2 3 4 5. I'sa 79. 1. Lam. 1. 10. b Lev. 25 44. Lev. 26. 45 2 Kin. 16. 3. 2 Kin. 17. 8. 11. â— Chro. 16. 35. 2 Chro. 33. 2 9. Neh. 5. 8 9 Psa 9. 19. Psal 10. 16. Psal 33. 10. Psal 44. 2. Psa 80. 9. Ier. 10. 2. Ezech. 23. 30. Eze. 25. 7. Ioel 2. 7. Obad. v. 15 Miâ— 5. 15. Hag. 2. 22. Zach. 1. 15. Theophylact in Math. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Object 8. Beza de de Presbyterio excom p. 60. Joseph de bello Iudaiâ— l. 1. c. 4. Pharisaei omnia pro arbitrio administrabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian dialo 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 11. 28. signifie Binding and loosing acts judiciall a Camero prelect in Mat. 16. b Vatablus on Esay 22. c Calvin prelect in Esay 22 d Muscu com ibid e Gualther Homil. in loc f Piscator shol in Esa g Beza on Mat. 16. h Pareus comment in Mat. 16. i Cotton Keyes of the Kingdome p. 2. Beza de Pres byter pag. 63 64. That Excommunication is a divine Ordinance is proved by 1 Cor. 5. To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing The essentials of excommunication 1 Cor 5. Cutting off not alwaies killing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ab interiâ—re populâ—rum sacrum Morall guiltinesse excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews The place Ezekiel 44. v. 11. 12. 13. 14. to be fulfilled under the New Testament Object Ceremoniall exclusion from holy things under the old did tipifie exclusion for morall uncleannesse under the New Testament Levit. 5. 2â— The Churches exclusion from the Seales declarative not coactive by violence Remonstrant in Apollo Censures applied to some by name Arg. 2. Eschewing the society of scandalous church members must be a church censure The hindering of Jezabel by preaching onely not sufficient Debarring of the scandalous from the seals proâ—ed It belongeth not to the Magistrate to â— debar from the seals Thomas Erastus lib. 3. confirmat Thesium lib. 3. â— 3. pag. 207. Nam et sacramenta sub sub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomine comprehendi concedo Erastus Confi thes l. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Qui membra externae volunt ecclesiae videri illi non calcabunt Sacramenta nec offereâ—tem laniare tentabunt fiquis talis reperiatur hune ego minime admittendum censeâ— Confirmatiâ— Thosium Erast Consâ—â— thes l. 1. c. 1. p. 72. Erast will have no man excluded from the Sacraments pag. 86. Si per subductionem pabuli intelligis verbi aut sacramentorum negationem de tuâ— hoc dicis non lâ—queris cum scripturis quae nusquam jubent pabula haec subducere According to Erastus his way we cannot deny the seals to a Turk P. 75 76. Toexclude men from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication Pag. 78. Excommunication is no reall separation of one from Christs invisible body Pag. 79. P. 81 82. Pag. 83. Pag. 86. Pag. 88. 8â— Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it is not empty Cap. 2. l. 1. p. 93. Putting out 1 Cor. 5. Excommunicating Lib. â— c. 2. pag. 103. Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iewes from the Sacraments for Morall uncleannesse A twofold forgivenesse Pag. 117. All are invited to the SacrameÌ„ts but not that they come any way they please The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus Cap. 3. l. 1. p. 117. Lib. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Et si quis talis qui caleabit sacramenta reperiatur hunc ego numinè admittendum censeo Pag. 118. Two sorts of signes some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life Pag. 120. P. 120 121. All are commanded to hear the Word but not to come to the Supper Arg. 16. Page 124. Page 124. Confirm Thes l. 2. c. 1. p. 130. 131. 133. 134. 136. 137. Ceremoniall uncleannes typified Exclusion out of the visible Church for Scandals not out of the Kingdome of Heaven Page 140. Page 142 143 144 145. Page 146. Page 140. At nemo propter ingenitam naturae corruptionem pâ—nitur Page 147. Legall uncleannesse was sin Page 150. Lib. â— c. 2. p. 154. 155. The scope and sense of Mat. 18. perverted by Erastus Our Saviour speaks of all not of private and lesser scandals onely Page 26. in Thes 41. By the word brother is not meant a Iew onely Erast conf Thes l. 2. â— 1. p. 133. Sive facinorosos facinoris paeniteret sive non paeniteret paena non minuebatur L. 2. cap. 2. page 155. Thes 41. p. 46. Pag. 156. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandall Page 158. Page 156. 157. A twofold forgiving Thes 42. page 27. Page 16. Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth Christs scope spiritual Erast his way is carnall Thes 42. pag. 28. Lib. 3. c. p. 181. Pag. 186. 187. Pag. 188. A Publican most odious to the Iews Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 190 191. Page 191. P. 192. 193. Pag. 195. 196. A publican most odious to the Iewes No private forgivenesse Mat. 18. pag. 198 â—ed si docendo priâ—atus aliquem ad duxcrit ut peccata sua agnoscat et ex certa side â—â— Dei be â—â—gnitate propter meritum Christi acquiescat an non solutus erit Si frustraÌ„
of death judged only De questione iuris of the question of Law Pag. 276 277. The Priests and Levites had no law-Law-power by Gods Law or from Cesar to put Christ to death pag. 279. The Sanedrim had no law-Law-power against Steven The like is true of Paul Pag. 280. Pag. 280. 281. How the Christian Magistrate is to be acquainted with excommunication Page 281. Erastus l. 4. c. 5. c. 6. Beza de presbyter p. 110. A colledge of church-rulers in the N. T. pa. 284. Page 285. Pag. 286. pa. 287. Beza de presbyt p. 112. 113. Page 288. Beza de Presbyt p. 112. 113. Page 289. page 290. 291. Due right of Presbyteries qu. 7. c. 7. sect 7. page 141 142 143. seque page 293. page 294. Erastus l. 4. c. 7. p. 295. 296. page 296. No miraculous killing 1 Cor. 5. or tormenting of the mans body Page 296. pa. 297. Lib. 5. c. 1. Erast 298. page 299. page 29â— Erastus yieldeth there is a Presbytery The Magistrate under Church discipline Annot. on the Bible An. 1645. in Zach. 3. 7. A judicature proper to the priests as priests Page 300. Page 301. Page 300. Erastus Quis unquam dubitavit an Ministris liceat improbe ageâ—tes Magistratus ex verbâ— Dei objurgare arguere reprehendere increpare adeoque solvere ligare Page 302. 303. How the Magistrates consent is requisite in Excommunication Page 302. The Magistrats sword no kindly mean to gain souls as Erastus dreameth Rom. 1. 16. L. 5. c. 1. p. 302. 303. Page 303. 304. page 305. The Morally unclean debarred out of the temple Page 305. No price of a whore to be offered to God what it meant Annot. an 1645. an ou Deut. 23. 18. Vata in loc que injustè parta sunt nullo modo offerri debent Deo Page 307. Our chiefe argument for excommunication not answered Page 308. 309. The place Matth 5. When thou bringest thy gift c. discussed Page 309. 310. How men doe judge of inward actions Page 310. Solus deus ut sine errore cogitationes judicat ita easdem quoque pu nit Ib. in rectione eâ—terna ecclesâ—e infinite falli omnes possumuâ— quamobrâ—n sâ—ccrâ— bio nihil debemus quam mandatum expresse nobiâ— lâ—gimus Page 309. Lib. 3. c. 3. A contradiction in Erastus frequent Page 311. Page 311. 312. 313. What it was to be cast out of the synagogue Page 313. 314. page 31â— The Apostles not cast out of thy Synagogue that we can read Navar. in Enchâ—rid c. 27. 11. n. 13. Greg. q. 3. c. 1. Page 315. Page 316. Annot. an 1645. on Ezra 10. 8. Annot. an 1645. on Deut. 23. 1. Erastus ib. 315. Non igitur noluit Deus hoscâ— circumcidi in Templum atque ad Sacramenta admitti sed noluit proveris Judaeis â—os haberi Erastus l. 6 c. 1. p. 317. Page 318. Ministers subject to the Magistrate P. 318. 319. Page 318. P. 319 320. Page 321. Page 321. Page 321. Page 322. Though there were no framed Christian Church yet Christ might say Tell the Church P. 323. 324 Pagninuâ— Merc. in Thesaur p. 994. Page 324. 325. Page 326. There was no more a right constituted Sanedrim in Christs time then a Christian Church Page 327. Page 328. page 329. Iunius â—nimâ—â— in Bellar dâ—â—oâ—ciâ— l. 1. c. 12. Not. 18. deâ—â—â—iente conjunctione Magistratus potest a liquid Ecclesia extra ordiâ—em â—aceâ—e quod ordinario non potest contra deficiente Ecclesià à suo officio potest Magistratus extra ordinem procurarâ— ut Ecclesia ad officium râ—deâ—â— id â—nim juris communis est extraordinariis maâ—is remedia etiam extra ordinem adhiberi posse Page 329 330. Page 330. Rebuking of Princes argue no lesse jurisdiction then all that the Presbytery doth Erastus l. 6. c. 2. p. 331. 332. Magistrates if scandalous are to be debarred from the Sacrament P. 331. 332 Page 332. Page 334. Page 335. Every profession maketh not men capable of the holy things of God Page 335. 336. Page 336. Page 336. 337. â—â— 340. Page 341. Erast l. 6. c. 2. p. 341. Page 341. Erastus 341 sequitur si faciâ—orosi sint arcendi â— Sacrament is eligendos esse qui malis interdieant oratione lectione Elcemosynarum distributione c. The Magistrate cannot admit to and debar from the Sacrament Page 346. The sword no intrinsecall mean of gaining souls Page 347. Page 348. 349. The Church as the Church not subordinate to the Magistrate Arg. 1. Ezek. 44 15. Governement peculiar to the Officers now as to the Priests and Levites of old The Epistles to Timothy and Titus must chiefly be written to the Emperour and Magistrate if Pastors be but Servants of the Magistrate Argum. 4. Trigland de civi Eceles potest disser Theolo c. 4. p. 80. Arg. 3. Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers immediatly from God The Magistrate not subordinate to Christ as Mediator Argum. 2. The patern Church of the Apostles not ruled by the Magistrate Erast and Mr. Pryn grant that there is such an ordinance as excommunication Confirm Thes l. 6. c. 2. p. 349. Sane ut â—dololatram apostatam negaâ—â—us membram esse Ecclesiae Christi sie etiam nequitâ—am sâ—am defendentem inter membra Ecclesiae censendum esse Et quemadmodum illes ex Christiano caetu judicamus exterminandos sic hos quoque putamus in eo catu non esse ferendos Erastus confirm Thes l. 3. c. 3. p. 207. Mr. Pryn in his vindication of four serious questions p. 30. 31. Vindication of four serious questions page 52. The Gospel preached to those to whom the Sacraments cannot be dispensed The Sacrament a confirming ordinance Vindication p. 35. We partake of the sins of many in dispensing to them the Sacrament and not in preaching to them the Word Viâ—d p. 36 Vindication p. 40. 41. We know no extraordinary conversion by Miracles without the Word Andrad defens fidei Trid. l. 2. p. 239. falsa sunt haec plerunque plerunque infirma etiam Ecâ—lcsiae verae judicia Maldonat in Mat. 7. v. 22. Greg. de Valâ—n tâ—m 3. dis 1. p. 4. sect 3. Bellarm. de lib. arb lib. 6. cap. 1. Durandus quest 1. in Prolegom Sent. Sect. 46. The Sacrament of the Supper not a first converting ordinance yeâ— a confirming one it is The Lordâ— Supper presupposeth faith and conversion in the worthy receiver in Church-profession Vindicat. pag 2. 3. Vindicat. page 41. Arg. 5. The Magistrate subject to the Church Argum. 6. Arg. â— The church a perfect society without the Magistrate Vtenbogard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius de vita constant l. 4. c. 24 Hyeronimuâ— in chron an 366. Genebrard in liberio Niceph. l. 4. c. 24. Socr l. 3. c. 21. Hyeronim chron an 367. Barron an 366. Arg. 9. Differences between the Magistrate and Ministers of the Gospel and Church The Magistrate cannot limit the pastor in the exercise of his calling See Henr. Salcobrig in Becano Bac. p. 140. Ait regem esse
primatam Ecclesia Anglicanae and regeâ— sâ—cro olcâ— uncti capaces sunt spiritualis jurisdictionis Rex propriâ— autorite creat Episcopus See Cald. â—u altar Dam. p. 14 15 16. seq That Magistrates are more hot against punishing of sin by the Church then against sinfull omissions which argueth that they are unpatient of Christs yoak rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the subject in this point Not any power or office subject to any but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons A Magistrate and a Christian different Two things in a Christian Magistrate jus authoritie aptitudo habilitie Pareâ—â— Com. in Rom. 13. dub Iac. Triglandius de potest civ Ecclesiastica c. 10. 207 208. Vbi nam injuâ—xit Christus Magistratui Christiano ut oves Christi quae â—ales Regat Christianity maketh no new power of or to Magistrates Jac. Trig. land diâ—â—er Theo. de potest civ c. 8. p. 174. A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary upon which the former Distinctions followeth ten very considerable Assertions 1. Assert The Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth the exercise of Ministeriall power but not the spirituall and sincere manner of the exercise Magistrates as godly men not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of ministeriall power Augustin contr literas petilian l. 2. c. 92. contr Cresconi l. 8. c. 5. reges serviunt Dâ—o in quantum sunt homines in quantum sunt reges Exo. 18. 21 Deu. 1. 16. 17. Dâ—u 17. 19 20. A two fold good in a Christian Magistrate essentiall accidentall Asser 3. The Magistrate as such commandeth only in order to temporary reward and punisheth and layeth no commands on the constience Nota. Nota. Magistrates as Magistrates forbid not sin as sin under the paine of eternall wrath Two sorts of subordinations Civill Ecclesiastick Ministers not the Ambassadors of an earthly King but of the King of Kings Church Officers as such not subordinate to the Magistrate See the Arminian Remonstrance in Apol. c. 25. fol. 299 300. What power Erastiaus give to Magistrates in Church matters The minde of Arminians touching the Magistrates power in Church matters Remonstrant Arminian c. 25. p. 304 â—â—c Trig. de potest 〈…〉 Eccelesiastica dissâ—â—tatio Thâ—â—l p. 123 Tâ—mâ—lorum usus sâ—ipeâ—â—iorum publâ—â—orum â—â—â— in re nihil potest ille enimextrinsâ—â—us accedit ad res Ecclesiasticas eorumque naturam atque indolem nihil immutat A threefold consideration of the magistrate in relation to the Church Course of conformity part 3. pag. 146. Reciprocation of subordinaâ—â—â—ns between Church and Magistrate Aâ—t Walens p. 2. de quatenus pastor subjiciatur magist pag. 15 16. Iac. Trig. disser Thel de potest civ Ecclesi c. 5. pag. 124. profess Leyden in Syno purioris Theol. dis de disc Ecclesi de magistrati Zipperus de pâ—litâ—a Ecclesiast l. 3. c. 13. Calvinus Insti l. 4. c. 11. Pet. Cabel Iavins in apolâ—gâ—tico Rescript pro libert Ecelesi c. 6. p. 79. M. Cot. in a Model of Church and civill power P. Matyr loc Communi l. 4. c. 13. D. Pareus in prefat ad hâ—seam Epist ad langravi August confess Artic. de potâ—st Ecclesi Helv. confess Anno 1566. Art 18. Suevica confess Art 13. Saxonica Art 12. Anglic. fol. 132. Scotic confess The Ministers as Ministers neither Magistrates nor subjects The Magistrate as such neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator nor under Satan but under God as creator A Prince as a gifted Christian may preach and spread the Gospell to a land where the Gospell hath not bin heard before but not as a Magistrate Ità videlius Ep. Const quest 11. Vtenbogard cont Pontific primat p. 71 72 73 Anto. Wal. p. 2. p. 30 31. Cabcl Iavius apol disser de l. Eccles c. 6. p. 82. Iac. Trig. Des Thho The King and the Priest kept the book of the Law but in a farre different way Bloody Tenent Cap. 82. page 119. C. 65. â—a 123. C. 85. pa. 124. The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another God hath not given a power to the magistrate and Church and to judge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause Bloody Te. c. 84. p. â—22 Bellarmine de laicis c. 17. c. 18. Slatius iâ— aperta declaratione p. 53. Magistratus non valet sub penaâ—terne condemnation is gladio uti aut dominatum petere quisquus id facit Christianus non est Welsing lib. de officiâ— homi Christiani p. 1. Sim. Epis dis 13. c. 18. 19. Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in causes Eccleâ—iasticall It is one thing to complain to the Magistrate another thing to appeal What an appeal is Refuge to the Magistrate is not an appeal A twofold appeal De Lib. Eceles c. 9. p. 134 135. Iac. Trig. de civili Ecclesiastic potest â— 20. p. 420. 421. Mr. Pryn his Truth Triumphing sect 2. and 3. p. 7 8 c. 16. Sect. 13 14 15 16. Prinne Truth Triump p. 31. The Magistrates punishing or his interest of faith proveth him not be a judge in Synods Truth triumphing sect 2. 31 32. Page 31. Of Pauls appeal to Cesar that it proveth not that in Ecclesiasticall controversies we may appeal to Heathen or Christian Magistrates as to Iudges of matters Ecclesiastick from the Church Paul appealed from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour civill and heathen judge in a matter of his life not in a matter of Religion What power a conquerour hath to set up a religion in a conquered nation Videlius de Episcopat Constant p. 77. Vtenbogard p. 33. Camero prelâ—ct in Mat. 16. v. 18. 19. Tu es pâ—trus p. 17. Due right of Presbyteries p. 435 436. 437 438. c. Camero 16 17. 18. There were no appeals made to the godly Emperors of old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To lay bands on the conscience of the Prince to tye him to blind obedience Popish not our Doctrine Platina in Bonifac. 3. Baronius an 602. n. 18. Baronius an 606. n. 3. Baroni an 1085. Onuphorius an 1527. 1540. Mr. Prinne Truth triumphing Remonstr in apolog p. 299. esse papatus corculum esse id ipsum in quo â—iâ—a est fâ—rma papatus five papalis hierar â—biâ—s Remonstr in apolog So Stapleton Bellarmine and other Papists argue The Magistrate as a Magistrate cannot forbid sin as sin The Magistrate as the Magistrate promoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom materially not directly and formally The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the Mediator Christ The adversaries in the doctrine of the Magistrate Popish not we at all Andreas Rivetus Iesuit Vapul in Castigati Notarum in Epist ad Balsacum Edit 1644. c. â—1 page 40. Christus neque Reges neque principes instituit in Ecclesia sed neque successores habet neque vicarios quibus competat jus dominatus ministros tantum instituit nomine principis unius legatione
If one Church shall offend another the offended may admonish and if the Church be not gained the offended Church is to tell more Churches Synodically conveened as may be gathered from Christs Scope to remove all Scandals between brother and brother Church and Church Erastus Tell him between thee and him if it be told me conscio I onely knowing then he hath sinned against me privately should I not reprove him before others if he have sinned against others but Christ will not have me to take any Witnesses at the first Ans 1. I may tell him between me and him a publike fault this proveth onely my admonition to be private when the fault is known to twenty and scandalizeth them and it proveth not the fault to to be private But you will say then I must take these twenty who are offended no lesse then I am to goe my selfe I answer not so For 1. I may be ignorant that any knowes it and I am not to uncover what God hath covered except it were a sin that bringeth wrath on the whole Land as blood and the Canaanites sinnes 2. Though I should know twenty were offended charity will bid me try if I onely can gaine him and then love maketh the worke easier to twenty Erastus But Matthew and Luke compared together doe teach that Christ speaketh of such sinnes as one Brother may pardon another seventy seven times and the question of Peter to Christ how oft shall my brother offend and I forgive him saith that Christ speaketh not of the sinnes that the Church onely can forgive for Peter knew well that he his alone could not forgive these sins which onely the Church and a multitude can pardon Ans Though it be true Matthew and Luke c. 17. speake both of scandals and scandalous sins in generall yet it is evident they speak of two sorts of scandalls Luke speaketh v. 3. of scandals between brother and brother which may at first be taken away by rebukes but he hath nothing of the Churches part touching these But Matthew hath it at length chap. 18. ver 15 16. 17 18. 19. 20. The Luke 17. 4. and Matthew more distinctly chap. 18. ver 21. upon the occasion of Peters question resolveth a case of conscience how Christians are to passe by in love the faults one of another even to seventy times seven they are not scandals of one and the same nature as Erastus conceiveth The former is how we may gain an offending brother from the guilt of active scandall in giving offence to us and that is by free rebuking and if that gain him not then by taking witnesses and rebuking him and if neither that can do it by telling the Church to which Christ hath given a more powerfull way to binde and loose in earth and heaven saith Matthew Luke speaketh onely of simple rebuking which tendeth to the other two The latter way is how we our selves may be freed from passive scandall if our brother provoke us seven times or seventy seven times a day this must be by a private pardoning and laying aside all grudge or hints of revenge toward our brother and this is a great mistake in Erastus that he confoundeth those two scandals which by two Evangelists are distinguished for Peter upon occasion of the former Church-scandals proposeth the second Mat. 18 21. then came Peter to him and said Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him Peter asketh nothing of gaining the offender and Christ answereth nothing of gaining him having satisfied them fully in that before But Peter came in with a new question concerning private forgiving 2. It is evident in the former that Christ speaks not of sins that one brother may forgive another for then it were free to the offended after two admonitions ineffectuall to gain the offender to forgive and desist as he doth in the matter of forgiving But it is not free to him to desist if the offender refuse to be gained and adde contumacy the offended cannot pardon the punishment he ought to remit the private grudge he is under a command of Christ to tell the Church that is one punishment and if he yet be obstinate he is to be reputed as a Heathen and a Publican that is another punishment which a private man cannot dispense with 1. He cannot dispense with Christs command 2. He cannot omit all Lawfull means of gaining the soul of his brother for the Law of nature tyeth him to it Erastus will have it a matter of holding off of an injury only by complaining to the Roman Emperour a carnall way Christ is on a higher and more spirituall strain to gain a soul as is clear If he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother rest there But if he hear thee not go yet on to gain him Take with thee two or three then if he had been gained at first a second admonition before two or three were needlesse But if yet he be not gained then go yet on to seek the gaining of his soul and tell the Church and if the Church cannot gain him then let him be as a Publican and cast out This is also a way of gaining that his spirit may be saved 1 Cor. 5. Therefore this is most false that Christ speaketh of those sins which we may forgive Who can believe that it is credible that our Saviour hath a more noble end and more excellent then to gain a brothers soule or that he doth teach us in these words to discend from such a spirituall end as the repentance of an offender to a far baser end to hold off injuries by fleeing to a heathen Iudicature Erastus Christ speaks of such sins as the offender cannot deny before witnesses But sins to be punished by Excommunication so hainous as deserveth to be delivered to Satan he would deny Ergo he must speak of smaller sins Ans This is for us he speaketh of such sins that the offender will persist in against the Authority of witnesses Synedrie or Church and Magistrates as Erastus thinketh while he be as a Profane Heathen Ergo he may deny them 2. If we suppose three faithfull witnesses who have seen and heard such as will testifie the sin before the Church it is like to be a grievous and publick trespasse Nor would Christ have the Magistrate troubled and the Church offended for such sins as may fall out in a brother seven times yea seventy seven times in one day and may be by private transactions pardoned as Erastus saith How should Erastus his civill throne sink under threescore and ten scandalls in one day Erastus The Church punisheth not the man for such sins but dismisseth him as an injurious person Ans True if we believe Erastus begging the question 2. To declare a brother no brother but a prophane Heathen without Christ in the world nad out of the Covenant of Grace must be the highest Church-censure must be more highly
punished then so Erastus I call them light faults only compared with crimes punished by the Law Ans Such as contumaciously defended makes a man none of Christs but the prophanest living yea of a believing Jew an Apostate and a Heathen deserveth to be punished by the judge Erastus If the offended be willinger to suffer the injury then to compeer before a heathen judge he may Ans There be no smell of an Heathen or Roman Judge in the Text Id Erastus adjecit de suo 2. It is not free to gain or not gain my brothers soul or obey Christs command or not obey it Paul 1 Cor. 6. forbiddeth us to implead our brethren before Heathen Judges Erastus saith Christ commandeth the contrary Erastus answers Paul saith in these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in smaller matters as of goods we should not Ans It s true Paul giveth instance in those that he calleth things of this life but in opposition to the great matter of Judging the world and Angels 2. Paul saith generally Ye go to law one vvith another 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4. And he esteemeth it such a fault that he saith of it v. 9. Knovv ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Erastus Paul himself appealed to a heathen judge Cesar Ans True but not for small offences falling out seventy seven times a day for which the Magistrate will not punish such as these offences be saith Erastus pag. 181. pag. 28. Thes 42. But being accused of a high crime of life and death 2. He appealed not from a godly Magistracy such as the Synedâ—y holdeth forth but from bloody judges 3. In matters not with Saints as 1 Cor. 6. And brethren to whom you are to grant pardons seven and seventy seven times a day but with Blasphemers and Murtherers of Christ Act. 18. 6. 1 Thes 2. 15. Erastus Christ teacheth how private iniuries may be removed vvithout offence by the Magistrate but not hovv vve may reduce to repentance a brother that giveth scandall Ans There 's not a footstep of injuries or Magistrate or sword in the Text 2. ver 7. And all along he speaketh of scandalls that may hinder our entring to heaven and these words rebuke him Thou hast gained thy brother are clear as the Sun that he intendeth the offended in all these steps is to gain the soul of the offender Erastus This is no Argument at all he speaketh of gaining an offending brother Ergo His scope is not to repair any civill losse But I pray you a brother argueth an iniurious man and convinceth him of his error hath he not first gained him to God and then to himself vvhile he maketh him of his enemy his friend can there be a better way of compounding private iniuries if his conscience be healed will he not leave off to be iniurious Ans I may say as he saith to that Apostolick servant of God holy Beza Egregia vero ratiocinatio The question is now touching the scope of Christ Matth. 18. Erastus proveth repairing of civill injuries to be Christs scope and how proveth he it Because he that is gained to God by repentance is a made friend and vvill leave off to do civill vvrongs Iust as if one should say the scope of the holy Ghost in the history of the Creation in the two first chapters of Genesis is to make the Reader a good Philosopher Why because he that understandeth the works of Creation the Heaven Stars Sun Moon Seas dry Land Trees Herbs c. Must not this man be an excellent Astronomer Geographer Physiloge c So may he say the scope of the holy Ghost in the ten Commandments is to make a man an excellent Citizen of London or Paris Why how is that the scope of the ten Commandments by Erastus his Argument What better way can there be to make a good sociall Civilian then if he be well versed in the Doctrine of the ten Commandments so may I say the scope of Paul in the first eleven Chapters of the Epistle to the Romanes is to make a man love his brother why Because if he know God and free justification by faith in Christ and our freedom from the Law and the Doctrine of Election by Free-grace and the like he cannot but love his brother Now how can that be Christs scope which is neither spoken In terminis Nor so much as insinuated Now to gain an offending brother is In terminis spoken ver 15. Thou hast gained thy brother so Erastus granteth this is Christs scope but not his last scope and gaining of his soul he will have but a scope for a civil end to hold off injuries How carnall is the glosâ—e of Erastus Now the scope of Erastus is never spoken never hinted at Erastus cannot deny our scope onely he will not have it the chief scope of the words the best ground he hath for his scope is that Tell the Church is Tell the Civill Magistrate Erastus to put a good face on the businesse saith scanning on the sense of the words Christ therefore saith rebuke him Matth. 18. That we may understand that he is to be convinced of his error and iniquity that he may acknowledge it not onely to us and before men but far more to God and so thou hast gained thy brother and lost him if he refuse to hear thee that is If he suffer not himself to be convinced and do not acknowledge his fault he is bound in Heaven and this is that which I would say this gaining of him is the pardoning of a civill wrong that he may be received in friendship Ans If Christs intenâ—ion be that he may rather acknowledge his fault to God then to the offender as Erastus granteth then Christs scope in these words must be his spirituall gaining to God not a civil depulsion of a civill wrong but the former Erastus granteth 2. If spirituall gaining be intended in all the steps of our Saviours progresse and when this is obtained the progresse doth cease then means rather crossing and thwarting that scope then suitable spiritually thereunto are not to be attempted then is not civill depulsion of injuries our Saviours scope in the words but the former is true Ergo So is the latter the Proposition is evident from the nature of a scope and end in any speech I prove the Assumption by parts 1. If rebuking of an offending brother gain him to repentance then it is clear the offended man is to rest there and not to Tell the Church or Magistrate for he hath obtained even the end for which Erastus contendeth and who goeth about new means to compasse an end already obtained Christ would never command that yea when Christ saith ver 16. If he hear not thee then take with thee one or two more Ergo If he had heard him he was not to take one or two more and ver 17. If he should