Law but Gods owne Law which the Priests and Levites were to expound So that it was proper for that time and there is not the like reason that the Ministers of Jesus Christ in the New Testament should judge or rule in civill affairs nay it were contrary to the rule of Christ and his Apostles for us to do so yet the Levites their judging and governing in all the bufines of the Lord is a patterne left for the entrusting of Church officers in the New Testament with a power of Church government there being no such reason for it as to make it peculiar to the old Testament and not common to the New The fourth Scripture which proves an Ecclesiasticall government and Sanhedrin is 2 Chro. 19. 8 10 11. where Iehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government which was first instituted by the hand of Moses and afterward ordered and setled by David Moreover saith the Text in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies c. It is not controverted whether there was a civill Sanhedrin at Ierusalem but that which is to be proved from the place is an Ecclesiasticall Court which I prove thus Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiasticall members judging Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end moderated by an Ecclesiasticall president having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and controversies brought before them by appeale or reference from inferiour Courts and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiasticall officers There it must needs be granted that there was a supream Ecclesiasticall court with power of Government But such a Court we finde at Ierusalem in Iehoshaphats time Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man wil deny For a Court so constituted so qualified and so authorised is the very thing now in debate And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption shall have leave to call it by another name if he please The assumption I prove by the parts 1. Here are Levites and Priests in this Court as members thereof with power of decisive suffrage and with them such of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel as were joyned in the government of that Church Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Divines and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders And this is one of the Scriptures alledged by our Divines against Bellarmin to prove that others beside those who are commonly but corruptly called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voyce in Synods 2. Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes were here judged which are called by the name of the judgement of the Lord V. 8. and the matters of the Lord distinguished from the Kings matters V. 11. so V. 10. beside controversies between blood and blood that is concerning consanguinity and the interpreting of the Laws concerning forbidden degrees in marriage it being observed by interpreters that all the lawfull or unlawfull degrees are not particularly expressed but some onely and the rest were to be judged of by parity of reason and so it might fall within the cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin Though it may be also expounded otherwise between blood and blood that is Whether the murther was wilfull or casuall which was matter of fact the cognisance whereof belonged to the civill Judge It is further added between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements noting seeming contradictions between one Law and another such as Manasseb Ben Israel hath spoken of in his Conciliator or when the sence and meaning of the Law is controverted which is not matter of fact but of right wherein speciall use was of the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge and the Law was to be sought at his mouth Aâ—…al 2. 7. and that not onely ministerially and doctrinally but judicially and in the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem such controversies concerning the Law of God were brought before them as in 2 Chro. 19. the place now in hand Yea shall even warn them c. Which being spoken to the Court must be meant of a synedricall Decree determining those questions and controversies concerning the Law which should come before them As for that distinction in the Text of the Lords matters and the Kings matters Erastus page 274. saith that by the Lords matters is meant any cause expressed in the Law which was to be judged Whereby he takes away the distinction which the Text makes for in his sence the Kings matters were the Lords matters Which himselfe it seems perceiving he immediately yeeldeth our interpretation that by the Lords matters are meant things pertaining to the worship of God and by the Kings matters civill things Si per illas libet res ad cultum Dei spectantes per haec res civiles accipere non pugnabo If you please saith he by those to understand things pertaining to the worship of God by these civill things I will not be against it 3. It was for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord. It s not said against one another but against the Lord for two reasons 1. Because mention had been made of the Commandements Statutes and Iudgements after the generall word Law V. 10. by which names Interpreters use to understand both in this and many other places of Scripture the Lawes morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall Now the case to be judged might be part of the Ceremoniall Law having reference to God and his Ordinances and not part of the Judiciall law or any injury done by a man to his neighbour And in referâ—nce to the morall Law it might â—e a trespasse against the first Table not against the second 2. Even in the case of a personall or civill injury or whatsoâ—ver the controversie was that was brought before them they were to warn the Judges in the Cities not to trespasse against the Lord by mistaking or mis-understanding the Law or by righting mens wrongs so as to wrong Divine right And for that end they were to determine the Ius and the intendment of the law when it was controverted 4. Whatsoever cause of their brethren that dwelt in the Cities should come unto them V. 10. whether it should come by appeale or by reference and arbitration this Court at Ierusalem was to give out an ultimate and authoritative determination of it So that what was brought from inferiour courts to them is brought no higher to any other Court 5. This Court had an Ecclesiasticall Prolocutor or moderator V. 11. Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord Whereas Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah was Speaker in the civill Sanhedrin for all the Kings matters Amariah and Zebadiah were not onely with the Sanhedrin as members or as Councellors but over them as Presidents Eis summos Magistratus
vers 18. But Becmanus answering Iulius distinguisheth the Text as I do for which Analysis I did formerly cite Beza Zanchius Gualther Bullinger Tossanus M. Bayne beside diverse others But I have found none that understands the Text as Mr. Hussey doth except the Socinians and Photinians who do not acknowledge that Christ hath such an universall dominion and Lordship over all things as God the Father but onely that he ruleth over all things as Mediator Now for answer to that which Mr. Hussey pag. 26. 27. alledgeth to prove that Christ as Mediator reigneth over all things First he tells us out of Diodati that Christ is head of the Church and King of the Universe and out of Calvin that the Kingdom of Christ is over all and filleth heaven and earth But who denieth this That which he had to prove is that Christ as Mediator is King of the Universe and as Mediator his Kingdom is spread over all and when he hath proved that he hath another thing to prove that the universality of Christs Kingdom as he is Mediator is to be understood not onely in an Ecclesiastical notion that is so far as all Nations are or shall be brought under the obedience of the Gospel but also in the notion of Civil Government that is that Christ reignes as Mediator over all creatures whether under or without the Gospel and that all Civil Power Principality and Government whatsoever in this World is put in Christs hand as Mediator If therefore he will argue let him argue so as to conclude the point The next objection he maketh is from Heb. 1. 2. Christ as Mediator is made Heir of all things But I answer Christ is Heir of all things 1. as the eternall Son of God in the same respect as it is said of Christ in the next words of the same verse that he made the world and thus he may be called Heir of all things by nature even as Col. 1. 15. he is called the first borne of every creature 2. He is heir of all things as Mediator for the Heathen and all the ends of the earth are given him for an inheritance Psal. 2. 8. but that is onely Church-wise he shall have a Catholique Church gathered out of all Nations and all kings and people and tongues and languages shall be made to serve him Moreover Mr. Hussey objecteth from Heb. 2. 8. and 1 Cor. 15. 28. that God hath put all things under Christs feet as he is Mediator Answ. As this is not perfectly fulfilled in this World but will then be fulfilled when Christ shall have put down all rule and all authority and power so in the measure and degree wherein it is fulfilled in this World it concerneth not men onely but all the works of Gods hands Heb. 2. 7. Thou crownedst him with glory and honour and didst set him over the works of thy hands Which is taken out of the eighth Psalme vers 6. 7. Thou hast put all things under his feet all sheep and oxen c. Now how is it that the Apostle applyeth all this to Christ How doth Christ rule over the beasts fowles fishes Calvin in 1 Cor. 15. 27. 28. answereth dominatur ergo ut omnia serviant ejus gloriae He ruleth so as all things may serve for his glory So then all things are put under Christs feet as he is Mediator both in regard of his excellency dignity and glory unto which he is exalted far above all the glory of any creature and in respect of his power and over-ruling providence whereby he can dispose of all things so as may make most for his glory But it is a third thing which Mr. Hussey hath to prove namely that Christ as Mediator exerciseth his office and government over all men as his Subjects and over all Magistrates as his Deputies yea over all things even over the reasonlesse creatures for by his arguing he will have Christ as Mediator to governe the sheep oxen fowles and fishes all things as well as all persons being put under Christs feet But in the handling of this very argument Mr. Hussey yeelds the cause God is said to put all things under him saith he whereby it is implyed that all things were not under him before they were put under him but as the second Person in Trinity so nothing could be said to be put under him because they were in that respect alwaies under him Is not this all one for substance with that distinction formerly cited out of Polanus of a two-fold Kingdom of Christ one natural as he is the second Person in the Trinity another donative as he is Mediator Lastly Mr. Hussey argueth from Phil. 2. 8. 9. 10. Christ as Mediator is exalted to have a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee may bow Answ. Here is indeed a dignity glory and power as Diodati saith above all things but yet not a government or kingdom as Mediator for those who must bow the knee to Christ are not onely things in heaven that is Angels and things in earth that is men but also things under the earth that is divells yet divells are none of the Subjects of Christs kingdom as he is Mediator Therefore this Text proves not a Head-ship or Government over all which Mr. Hussey contends for but a power over all I will here anticipate another objection which is not moved by Mr. Hussey It may be objected from 1 Cor. 11. 3. that the head of every man is Christ. I answer 1. Some understand this of Christ as God and as the Creator of man And if it be said that the latter clause the head of Christ is God is meant of Christ as Mediator and not as God yet Martyr tells us out of Chrysostome that all these comparisons and subordinations in this Text are not to be taken in one and the same sence 2. I grant also that Christ may be called the head of every man not onely in respect of his God-head but as Mediator that is the head of every man in the Church not of every man in the World for the Apostle speaks de ordine divinitus sancito in Ecclesiae corpore mystico as Mr. David Dicksone an Interpreter who hath taken very good pains in the Textuall study of Scripture saith upon the place I shall clear it by the like formes of speech Ier. 30 6. Wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loyns Luke 16. 16. The Kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth unto it 1 Cor. 12. 7. The manifestaetion of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall Heb. 2. 9. Iesus did taste death for every man Yet none of these places are meant of every man in the World 3. Yea in some sence Christ as Mediator may be called the head of every man in the World that is in respect of dignity excellency glory eminence of place quia in hoc sexu ille supra omnes eminet saith
onely of that avoiding or rejecting by which every private Christian ought to observe and avoid and not receive false Teachers but of a publike Ministerial or Consistorial rejecting of an Heretick by cutting him off or casting him out of the Church It is a Canon de Judiciis Ecclesiasticis saith Tossanus upon the the place This the Greek will easily admit for Stephanus in Thesauro linguae Gr. tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for recuse aversor repudio and citeth out of Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repudiate or put away a wife As here also we may read A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition repudiate or put away though the word reject doth also bear the same sence And as the Greek will admit it so I have these reasons to confirm it which shall suffice for the present He that pleaseth may read a large Discourse concerning the censure of Hereticks in Claudius Espencaeus upon this place First The Apostles scope is not to hold forth the common duties of all Christians except ex consequenti but his primary intention all along in that Epistle is to instruct Titus concerning the ordering and governing of the Church Chap. 1. vers 5. Secondly there must be a first and second admonition before the Heretick be thus rejected This rejecting is not for his dangerous and false Doctrine simply or by it self considered but for his contumacy and incorrigiblenesse But private Christians ought to observe by the judgement of private discretion and ought in prudence and caution to avoid all familiar fellowship and conversation with a man that is an Heretick though he hath not yet gotten a first and second admonition Matth. 7. 15 16. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in â—…eeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening Wolves Ye shall know them by their fruits Thirdly the admonition in the Text is a publike authoritative or ministerial admonition after that thou Titus hast once and again admonished him saith the Syriack therefore the rejecting must also be publick and ministerial Fourthly This rejecting of an Heretick is the last act when he appears incorrigible We find before chap. 1. vers 13. Rebuke them sharply and chap. 2. vers 15. Rebuke with all authority But now when the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reject this is a higher degree and this much more must be with all authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words compare with 1 Cor. 7. 25. where the Apostle opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commandement and opinion or judgement From all which it will appear that this rejecting of an Heretick by Titus and others joyned with him in the Government of the Church was an authoritative and Juridical act and the judgement thereupon decisive not consultative onely Fifthly Look by what authority Elders were ordained by the same authority they were for heresie maintained with contumacy rejected for the Apostle committeth into the same hands the ordaining of Elders and the rejecting of Hereticks compare Tit. 3. 10. with Tit. 1. 5. Now the ordination was by the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4. 14. Therefore so was the rejection I conclude with the Dutch Annotations upon Tit. 3. 10. reject i. e. Have no communion with him Let him go without disputing any further with him and casting the holy things before such dogs Matth. 7. 6. Let him not remain in the outward communion of the Church The sixth Argument I draw from 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not ye judge them that are within Vers. 13. Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked person 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment or censure which was inflicted of many Here is an Ecclesiastical judging not by the judgement of private Christian discretion onely for so they judged those also that were without but an authoritative corrective Judgement by which a scandalous brother a rotten member like to infect other members is put away from among the people of God And this Judgement was made sentence given and censure inflicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by many that is not by all but by the Elders of that Church saith Walaeus Tom. 1. pag. 468 or you may read by the chiefest So Piscator and Heinsius upon the place The sence is all one as if the Apostle had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by them that have the rule over you Now what will you make of judging putting away and censuring being acts neither of a civil power nor put forth upon any except Church-members if you make it not a corrective Church-government As for Mr. Colemans answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amounts to no more but an objurgation I have fully confuted that in Male audis pag. 12. 13. 14. which I will not resume But beside all I said there I add somewhat which I have since observed Zonaras in Conc. Antioch can 22. useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to be punished or censured and in Conc. Carthag can 49. he calls the man who is under Church-censure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Balsamon in Conc. Carthag can 46. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both of them do often use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Church-censure as in the place last cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea the Councell of Antioch held under Constantius useth Pauls word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse Ecclesiasticall censure and an act of corrective government Can. 3. It is said of him that receiveth a Presbyter or Deacon being justly deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille quoque à communi Synodo puniatur ut qui Ecclesiastica statuta dissolvat Ibid. Can. 22. A Bishop is prohibit to ordain within the charge of another Bishop unlesse that other Bishop consent But if any presume to do such a thing let the ordination be void or null 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipse a Synodo puniatur and let himself be punished by the Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Balsamen how they should be punished who ordain without the bounds of their owne charge and without consent of him whose charge it is may be learned from other Canons Where you see he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree in signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is punishment The sixth general Councel Can. 60. useth the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for suffering punishment adding also by way of explanation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be subject to afflictions and labours Seventhly We have an Argument from 1 Cor. 14. 32 33. And the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the Author of confusion but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints The Apostle is giving such rules and directions concerning prophecying or interpretation of Scripture that upon the one hand there may be a liberty to all the Prophets to prophecy and that the Church may be edified by the gifts of all and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek Scholia which he useth to cite hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly Peter addeth not as being Lords or over-ruling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might understand he condemneth the ruling power of the Lord Bishop not of the Lords Bishop of Episcopus Dominus not of Episcopus Domini Just as Ezek 34. 4. the shepheards of Israel are reproved for lording it over the flock with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them It was their duty to rule them but it was their sin to rule them with force and with cruelty The twentieth Argument I take from 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God Moreover it is required in Stewards that a man be found faithfull And Tit. 1. 7. a Bishop is the Steward of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This name doth exclude Lordship and dominion but withall it noteth a ministeriall rule or government as in the proper so in the metaphorical signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name diverse times given by Aristotle in his Politicks to the civil Magistrate The Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as fynonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esthâ—…r 8. 9. To the Lieutenants and the Deputies The 70. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy Ghost by the same word expresseth Government Gal. 4. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is under Tutors and Governors Rom. 16. 23. Erastus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact thinks he was Governour of the City Erasmus that he was praefectus aerario Town-Treasurer The English Translators call him the Chamberlain of the City Yea setting aside the metaphorical signification of this name often used for a name of rule the very literall and native signification of the word will serve to strengthen this Argument in hand Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is house-stewards or over the house but what house Aristotle at the beginning of the second book of his Oeconomicks distinguisheth a fourfold oeconomy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kingly noble civil private The Ministers of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the first sort They are stewards in the house of the great King He that is steward in a Kings house must needs have a ruling power in the house 1 Kings 4. 6. Ahishar was over Solomons houshold 1 Kings 18. 3. And Ahab called Obadiah which was the Governour of his house 2 Kings 18. 18. Eliakim which was over the houshold In all which places the 70. have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I hold therefore with Peter Martyr upon 1 Cor. 4. 1. that Ministers being by their calling and office stewards in the house of God ought to cast out prophane impure persons out of the house and receive them again upon their repentance And why are they called Stewards of the mysteries of God surely the Sacraments are part and a chief part of those mysteries and Christ hath made his Ministers not the civil Magistrates stewards of these mysteries to receive unto or to exclude from the Sacraments and as they may not keep back any of the children of the house so they may not suffer dogs to eat at the childrens Table The one and twentieth Argument which shall claudere agmen shall be drawn from Act. 15. where we find an Ecclesiastical Assembly or Synod of the Apostles Elders and other choice brethren snch as Iudas and Sylas These did so assemble themselves and proceed with authority in a businesse highly concerning the truth of the Gospel Christian liberty the healing of scandal and the preserving of peace in the Church as that it is manifest they had and executed a power of government distinct from Magistracy Mr. Selden de Jure natur Gent. lib. 7. cap. 12. hath sufficiently expressed that which is the ground of my present Argument and I rather choose to speak it in his words then in my owne Now a dispute being had of this thing at Antioch Paul and Barnabas who having used many Arguments against that Pharisaical opinion yet could not end the controversie are sent to Hierusalem that there the thing might be determined by the Apostles and Elders It is agitated in a Synod In it it is determined by the Apostles and Elders that the Gentiles who had given their names to Christ are not indeed bound by the Law of Moses or of the Hebrewes as it is Mosaicall and prescribed to the Church or Common-wealth of the Iewes but that they ought to enjoy their Christian liberty And so much for that which the Synod loosed them from But what dorh the Synod bind upon them The Synod doth also impose certain things namely abstinence from fornication and from things offered to Idols and from blood and things strangled VT QUAE NECESSARIO OBSERVANDA EX AUTHORITATE SYNODI saith Mr. Selden BEING SUCH AS WERE NECESSARILY TO BE OBSERVED IN REGARD OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SYNOD by those who giving their names to the Christian Religion should live with the Jewes they also giving their names to the Christian Religion and so enter into religious fellowship with them I shall adde two other Testimonies of Mr. Prynns The first I shall take out of his twelve considerable serious Questions concerning Church-Government pag. 5. where arguing against the Independency of particular Congregations he askes whether the Synodâ—…l Assembly of the Apostles Elders and Brethren at Hierusalem Act. 15. who MADE AND SENT BINDING DECREES to the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria and Cilicia and other Churches be 〈◊〉 an apparent subversion of Independency So that by Mr. Prynns confession the Scripture holds forth other Governours or Rulers in the Church beside Magistrates and the authority of these other Governours to be such as to make and send to the Churches BINDING DECREES in things and causes Ecclesiastical Another Testimony I take from his Independency examined pag. 10 11. where he argueth against the Independents and proveth from Act. 15. the authority of ordinary Ecclesiastical Synods bringing also six Arguments to prove that the Apostles did not there act in their extraordinary Apostolical capacity or as acted by a spirit of infallibility but in their ordinary capacity Thereafter he concludeth thus Therefore their assembling in this Councel not in their extraordinary capacity as Apostles onely buâ—… as Elders Ministers and the Elders Brethrens sitting together in Councell with them upon this Controversie and occasion is an undeniable Scripture authority for the lawfulnesse use of Parliaments Councels Synods under the Gospel upon all like necâ—…ssary occasions and FOR THEIR POWER TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES OF RELIGION TO MAKE CANONS IN THINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCHES PEACE AND GOVERNMENT Loe here Mr. Prynn gives us an undeniable Scripture authority for a diataktick governing power in the Church distinct from Magistracy How he will draw from Act. 15. the use of Parliaments or their authority I do not imagine It is enough
both of them it seemeth having read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however they understand the power related unto to be more then Doctrinall I conclude that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 4. must be more then Doctrinal declarations and that it is meant of binding decrees that I may use Mr. Prynns phrase especially when joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a Judgement passed and given upon the making and sending of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the judgement of one or two but the judgement of the Apostles and Elders Synodically assembled So Acts 21. 25. Iames and the Elders speaking of that Synodical judgement say we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing c. These four considerations being laid together concerning an intrinsecall Ecclesiastical power of assembling together Synodically of choosing and sending Commissioners with a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in other parts of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies scandals and schismes arising in the Church of making and imposing binding decrees on the Churches will infallibly prove from Scripture authority another Government in the Church beside Magistracy I might here adde other Arguments but so much for this time CHAP. X. Some Objections mâ—de against Ecclesiastical Government aâ—d Discipline answered MR. Hussey in his Epistle to my selfe objecteth thus What will your censure doe it will shame a few whores and knaves a great matter to shame them the Law of nature shameth All this in terminis might have been as justly objected against the Apostle Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians to put away from among themselves the incestuous man What will your censure do Paul a great matter to shame one whom the law of nature shameth The Lord save me from that Religion which will not shame Whores and Theeves and all other whom the Law of Nature shameth and that in a Church way as well as civilly if any such member fall into such impiety yet this is not all All Orthodox Writers that write of Church-censures will tell him that scandalls either of Doctrine or life either against the first or second Table fall under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure Secondly He argueth thus Ibid. Sure in the day of our Lord there will be as good a returne of the word preached as of the censure And in his plea pag. 1. If the Word be able to make the man of God perfect then nothing is wanting to him perfectum cui nihil deest and it is a wonder how that Conscience should be wrought upon by humane authority with whom divine cannot prevail Answ. 1. This also he might as well have objected against the Apostle Paul who did require the Corinthians to put away from among them the incestuous man and Titus to rejâ—ct an Heretick after once or twice admonishing of him 2. He might object the same thing against Magistracy Shall there not be a better account of the word preached then of Magistracy and if the Word be able to make the man of God perfect there is no need of Magistracy Perfectum est cui nihil deest Surely many Erastian Arguments do wound Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Government 3. Church-censures are not acts of humane authority for they are dispensed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and if clave non errante are ratified in heaven 4. Discipline is no addition to that Word which is able to make the man of God perfect for it is one of the directions of the Word 5. The comparison which some make between the efficacy of the Word preached and the efficacy of Church-discipline as to the point of converting and winning foules is a meer fallacy ab ignoratione â—…lenchi for Church discipline is not intended as a converting light-giving or life-giving Ordinance Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and the Word is the power of God for salvation to every one that beleeveth But Ecclesiastical Discipline hath a necessary use though it hath not that use Discipline and censures in the Church are intended 1. For the glory of God that his name may not be blasphemed nor the doctrine of the Gospel reproached by occasion of uncensured scandalls in the Church 2. For keeping the Ordinances of Christ from prophanation and pollution that signa gratiae divinae the signes of Gods favour and grace and the seales of his Covenant may be denied to unworthy scandalous persons 3. For preserving the Church from the infection of bad and scandalous examples it is fit to put a black mark upon them and to put away the wicked person as the Apostle saith for a rotten member if it be not cut off and a scabbed sheep if not separated from the flock may infect the rest 4. For the good also of the offender himself that he may be ashamed and humbled 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2. Cor. 2. 7. This afflicting of the sinner with shame and sorrow may and shall by the blessing of God be a means to the destruction of the flesh 1 Cor. 5. 5. that is to tame and mortifie his lusts and so far removere prohibens that he may be the better wrought upon by the Word I conclude Church-Government being instituted by Christ and having a necessary use in the Church the Erastians gain nothing by comparing it with the Word Because it is not so necessary as the Word Ergo it is not necessary at all Or because it is not efficacious in the same manner as the word is Ergo it is not efficacious at all The Apostle saith Christ sent me not to baptizâ—… but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. 1. 17. What if he had said Christ sent me not to rule but to preach the Gospel Then had the Erastians triumphed Yet this expression could not have proved that Church-government is not an Ordinance of Christ more then that can prove that Baptisme is not an Ordinance of Christ. A negative in the comparative will not inferre a negative in the positive 3. Object I could never yet see said Mr. Coleman how two co-ordinate governments exempt from Superiority and inferiority can be in one State Against this I instanced in the co-ordinate governments of a General and an Admiral of a Master and a Father of a Captain and a Master in one ship Mr. Hussey finding he can not make good Mr. Colemans word tells me pag. 7. that he meaneth two supreme co-ordinate Governments Where first he loseth ground and tacitely yeeldeth that Church-Government and Civil Government distinct each from other do well consist as long as they are not supreme but as two armes under one head No inconsistency therefore of Congregational and Classical Elderships and of Provinciall Assemblies with the subordinate Magistrates and civil Courts in Cities and Counties Next we shall find also in Scripture two co-ordinate supreme Governments for the civil and the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jewes were both supreme and co-ordinate and there was no appeal from the
of all such as may be satisfied this I avouch and averre It is Jure divino It is the will of God and of his Sonne Iesus Christ the King and Head of his Church that there be a Church-Government in the hands of Church-Officers distinct from the Civil Government It is de necessitate praecepti of the necessity of precept that it be sâ—… It is sin and a violation of Christâ—… Institution if it be not so I am confident the Arguments which I have brought Chap. 9. will reach this point and fully conclude it especially if the strength of them be put together Yet now to drive the nail to the head I adde these following Arguments directly inferring and proving an Institution First The Scripture speaks of Church Government in the same manner and with the same height fulnesse and peremptorinesse of expression as it speaketh of other things which are without controversie acknowledged even by the Erastians themselves to be Institutions of Christ. For instance Let the Erastians prove against the Socinians the necessity and perpetuity of the Ordinance of Baptisme that it ought to continue alwais in the Church and that by vertue of an Institution and precept of Christ I will undertake by the like medium to inferre the like conclusion concerning Church-Government Again let them prove the necessity perpetuity and institution I say not now of the Word it self or of preaching but of the ministery or of the Pastoral office I will bring the like Argument concerning Church-Government I do not now compare or paralel the Government with the Ministery of the Word quo ad necessitatem medii vel finis as being equally necessary to salvation nor yet as being equally excellent but this I say The one is by the Scripture language an Institution and Ordinance of Christ as well as the other One Ordinance may differ much from another and still both be Ordinances Secondly Church-Government is reckoned among such things as had an Institution and which God did set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. It is a good Argument for the Institution of Pastors and Teachers that God set them in the Church as we read in that place and Christ gave them to the Church Ephes. 4. 11. Will not this then hold as well for the Institution of a Government in the Church That the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are Ecclesiastical and distinct from civil is already proved Chap. 6. Thirdly If it be the will and commandement of God that we be subject and obedient to Church-Governors as those who are over us in the Lord as well as to civil Governors then it is the will of God that there be a rule and Government in the Church distinct from the civil For Relata se mutâ—…o ponunt vel tollunt If we be obliged by the fifth commandement to honour Magistrates as Fathers then it is the will of God that there be such Fathers So when we are commanded to know them which are over us in the Lord and to esteem them highly 1 Thess. 5. 12. to honour doubly Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. to be subject and obedlent unto Ecclesiasticall Rulers Heb. 13. 17. with verse 7. 24. doth not this intimate the will of God that Pastoâ—s and Elders be over us in the Lord and rule us Ecclesiastically Fourthly That which being administred is a praise and commendatiâ—n to a Church and being omitted is a ground of controversie to Christ against a Church can be no other then an Ordinance and necessary duty But Church-Government and Discipline is such a thing as being administred it is a praise and commendation to a Church 2 Cor. 2. 9. Revil 2. 2. and being omitted is a ground of Controversie to Christ against a Church 1 Cor. 5. 1. 2. 6. Revel 2. 14. 20. Ergo. Fifthly The rules and directions concerning an Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline are delivered preceptwise in Scripture 1 Cor. 5. 13. Put away that wicked person from among you 2 Thess. 3. 14. Note that man Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Augustine lib. contra Donatistas post Collationem Cap. 4. saith that Church-censurâ—s and discipline are exercised in thâ— Church secundum praeceptum Apostolicum according to the Apostolick precept for which he citeth 2 Thess. 3. 14. Sixthly There is an Institution and command Matth. 18 17. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican In which place there are three Acts of the Church that is of the Assembly of Church-Officers 1. They must be met together to receive complaints and accusations Tell the Church 2. They give sentence concerning the case if he neglect to hear the Church c. Where heareing is required and obedience there must needs be an authoritative speaking or judging So that they who would prove the Church here hath onely power to admonish doctrinally because it is said If he hear not the Church they may as well prove that the Judges of Israel had no more power but to admonish doctrinally because it is appointed Deut. 17. 12. that the man who will not hearken to the Judge shall die and it is not there expressed that the Judge shall put him to death more then it is expressed here that the Church shall declare the offender to be as a heathen and a publican 3. They must bind such a one by Excommunication Whatsoever ye bind on earth c. Neither could it ever enter in the thoughts of Jesus Christ to command one Church-member or private brother to esteem another brother as an heathen and a publican whom he would not have so esteemed by the whole Church and least of all can it be the will of Christ that one and the same person should be esteemed by one of the Church to be as a heathen and a publican and withall be esteemed by the whole Church as a brother a good Christian a Church-member and accordingly to be freely admitted to the Ordinances CHAP. XI The necessity of a distinct Church-Government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates SOme when they could not denie but there was a Church-Government in the Primitive and Apostolick Churches distinct from all civil Government and Churchcensures distinct from all civil punishments yet they have aledged though no such thing was alledged of old neither by Constantine and other Christian Emperors nor by others in their behalf that this was for want of Christian Magistrates and that there is not the same reason for such a Church-Government or censures where there is a Christian Magistracy See Mr. Husseys plea pag. 24. As likewise Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised Master Colemans re-examination pag. 16. calls for an instance where the State was Christian. For taking off this exception I shall observe First of all Grotius otherwise no good friend to Church-Government being poisoned with the Arminian Principles who have endeavoured to weaken extremely the authority of
Classical and Synodical Assemblies and to give a kind of Papal power to the Magistrate yet in this particular he argueth strongly for us and not against us Secondly Where is that Christian Magistracy which hath suppressed or punished all such offences as did fâ—ll under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure in the Primitive and Apostolick Churches Or where is that Christian Magistrate that will yet undertake to punish all those offences and scandals which were censured in the Apostolick Churches Till some such instance be given this exception against Church-discipline and censures under a Christian Magistrate hath not so much as colour enough Aliae sunt leges Caesarum aliâ—…e Christi aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit saith Hierome in Epitaph Fabiâ—…lae Caesars Lawes and Christs Lawes are not the same but different Papinianus commands one thing Paul another thing Chrysostome Homil. 12. in 1. Epist. ad Cor. tells us that the best and wisest Law-givers had appointed no punishment for fornication for consuming and trifling away of time with playing at dice for gluttony and drunkennesse for Stage-plaies and lascivious whorish gestures therein Is there not some cause to apply all this and much more of this kind even to Christian Law givers and Magistrates Put the case that he who is called a brother as the Apostle speaks that is a member of the visible Church be found grossely ignorant of the Principles of Religion and so far from growing in knowledge that he loseth the knowledge of the Scriptures and of the truth of God which he had for this hath been diverse times observed through neglect of the means or if he be known to neglect ordinaâ—lly prayer in and with his Family and to continue in that offence after admonition or if he live in known or scandalous malice and envie and refuse to be reconciled with his neighbour or if he be a known lyar and dissembler or if by his words and actions he do scandalously and manifestly shew himself covetous drowned in sensuality ambitious proud or if he give a foul scandal by filthy and obscene speeches by lascivious obscene whorish-like gestures or actions where the act it self of adultery or fornication cannot be proved I suppose that for these and such like scandals which are causes deserving not onely the Elderships enquiry and admonition but suspension from the Lords Table the Christian Magistrate neither doth nor by the civil or municipal Laws is bound to arraign and punish all such as are guilty thereof Thirdly whereas Arch-bishop Whitgift Answ. to the Admon pag. 114. did alledge that the Church may not be governed under a Christian Magistrate as it may under a Tyrant which he brings as an exception against ruling Elders and Elderships while he could not denie but such there were in the Primitive Church Mr. Cartwrigh in his Reply pag. 140. answereth that if these Elders under a Tyrant had medled with any office of a Magistrate then there had been some cause why a godly Magistrate being in the Church that office should cease but since they did onely assist the Pastor in matters Ecclesiastical there is no distinction between times of persecution and times of peace as touching the office of Elders The like say I of Church-censures and discipline If the Government of the Church by Presbyteries and Synods if suspension and excommunication in the Apostles times had been an usurping of any thing belonging to the Magistrate then there had been some reason to lay aside all Church-censures and Ecclesiastical Government when the Magistrate turned Christian and willing to do his duty But if not then the civil and Church-government may still remain distinct even where the State is Christian. Fourthly Every Institution or Ordinance of Christ must continue as a perpetual obligation unlesse we can find in the Word that Christ hath given us a dispensation or taken off the obligation and set a period to the Ordinance that it shall continue so long and no longer I mean every Ordinance of Christ must be perpetual which we cannot prove from the Word to be but temporal or extraordinary Now in the Word Christ hath not appointed the governing the Church and correcting scandals to be onely under a Tyrant and to cease under a Christian Magistrate neither is there any such thing held forth in Scripture which yet our opposites must shew if they will make good what they say But contrariwise what Christ delivered to the Apostles and they to the Churches is to be kept and continued till our Lord come again 1 Cor. 11. 23. 26. 1 Tim. 6. 14. and he himself saith Rev. 2. 24. 25. That which ye have already hold fast till I come These things were not spoken to the Apostles to Timothy to the Churches of that time personally for they were not to live till Christs comming again but the charge was given to them in name of and with respect unto all the Ministery and Churches of Christ. Fifthly This exception made against Church-censures under a Christian Magistrate supposeth that such censures will make an interfering and clashing between the civil and Ecclesiastical power But there is no cause for that fear these powers being so hugely differenced in their efficient causes matters formes ends effects objects adjuncts correlations and ultimate terminations as I have made it to appear in the particulars Chap. 4. Sixthly The Churches liberty and power is not to be infringed diminished nor taken away but preserved maintained enlarged and augmented under a Christian Magistrate Were it not a sad case if there should be cause to say that the Churches of Christ have not so much liberty under a Christian Magistrate to keep themselves and the Ordinances from pollution as they had under Pagan and Infidel Magistrates Seventhly Why may not Christian Church-government consist with Christian Magistracy as well as the Jewish Church government did consist with the Jewish Magistracy being of the same Religion Or if we please to look to later Presidents who can be ignorant that civil government and Church-discipline have rather strengthened then destroyed each other not onely in France where the Magistracy is not Protestant but in Scotland in the Low-Countries in Geneva and else-where Eightly We have covenanted to endeavour a Reformation of Church-Government and discipline according to the word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches Now both the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches leadeth us to a Church-government distinct from civil Government and the example of the best Reformed Churches doth undeniably lead us to a Church-discipline even where he Magistrate is Christian neither doth the word make any exception of Christian States but contrariwise chargeth us to keep the commandement and Ordinances till Christ come again Ninthly The Magistrate hath other work to do and such as will take up the whole man and if he should take upon him the whole burthen of Church-Government the enquiring into examining and correcting of all
the Apostles did Rom. 10. 18. Col. 1. 6. And if the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance for known impenitent scandalous prophane persons within the Church what reason is there imaginable why it is not also a converting Ordinance for Heathens Pagans Turks Jews Or where have we the least hint in Scripture that an Ordinance which may convert the prophanest unexcommunicated person within the Church cannot convert both Heathens and excommunicated Christians The Assumption I prove from Mr. Prynns own acknowledgement pag. 38. though the Sacrament saith he must not be administred to Heathens to whom the Gospel may and must be preached before they beleeve and professe Christ yet it must be administred to them as well as Baptisme after their beleef and profession of Christ. Where he clearly grants both Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper to be onely sealing and confirming not converting Ordinances to Heathens and therefore not communicable to them till after they beleeve and professe Christ. Nineteenthly That Ordinance which is not communicable nor lawful to be administred to any known impenitent sinner under that notion but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins past is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is such Ergo. The Proposition I prove thus A converting Ordinance may be administred to known impenitent sinners under that notion or lookt upon as such wallowing in their blood and filthinesse Yea a converting Ordinance qua converting is not nor indeed can be administred to penitent sinners qua penitent or lookt upon as truly converted For as every effect is in order of nature posterior to its cause so a converting Ordinance being the instrumental cause of conversion regeneration and repentance it must needs be supposed that conversion and repentance doth not in order of nature precede but follow after the administration of the converting Ordinance The Assumption is granted by Mr. Prynn pag. 37. The Minister saith he doth not I suppose he will also say ought not administer the Sacrament to any known impenitent sinners under that notion but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins past and promising purposing to lead a new life for the future Therefore yet again by some of his own principles the Sacrament is not administred as instrumental to the first conversion of scandalous unworthy persons in the Church for where there is in any Ordinance an instrumental causality toward the conversion of a scandalous person that Ordinance must needs be administred to that person under the notion of an unconverted person and the effect of conversion lookt upon as consequent not as antecedent The twentieth Argument and the last is this As I have before shewed that Mr. Prynn in holding the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance unto which unregenerate impenitent and unbeleeving persons not being excommunicated ought to be admitted doth joyn issue with Papists and dissenteth from the Protestant writers in a very special point and that the controversie draweth very deep So I will now make it to appear that he dissenteth as much from the Ancients in this particular Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. Hierarch Cap. 3. Part. 3. speaking of the nature of this Ordinance of the Lords Supper tells us that it doth not admit those scandalous sinners who were in the condition of penitents before they had fully manifested their repentance much lesse prophane and unclean persons in whom no signe of repentance appeareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not admitting him who is not altogether most holy Just in Martyr Apol. 2. lets us know that in his time the Lords Supper was given to none but to such a person as was lookt upon as a beleever and washed in the laver of regeneration and lived according to the rule of Christ. Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Augustine de side operibus Cap. 18. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist. 143. and others might be here added But I shall bring their full testimonies chap. 17. where I will shew Antiquity to be for the suspension of scandalous persons unexcommunicated Beside these I add also Beda upon 1 Cor. 11. who tells us both out of Augustine and Prosper that none ought to come to the Lords Table but a justified person and such a one as abideth in Christ and Christ in him Isidorus de Ecclesiast offic lib. 1. Cap. 18. citing the Apostles words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily addeth For this is to receive unworthily if any man receive at that time in which he should be repenting The same words hath Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Cleric lib. 1. cap. 31. Which plainly sheweth us that in their Judgement the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth suppose conversion and repentance to be already wrought and if it be not wrought the receiving is an unworthy receiving Moreover that the Lords Supper was not anciently esteemed a converting Ordinance but a sealing Ordinance supposing conversion is more then apparent by the distinction of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa fidellum and by that proclamation in the Church before the Sacrament Sancta Sanctis the sence whereof Durantus de ritibus lib. 2. cap. 55. num 15. giveth out of Chrysostome and Cyrill that Sancta Sanstis was as much as to say Si quis non est sanctus non accedat If any man be not holy let him not approach Or as if it had been said to them The Sacrament is a holy thing sancti vos cum sitis sancto Spiritu donati and seeing you also are holy the holy Spirit being given unto you atque ita sancta sanctis conveniant and so holy things agreeing to holy persons If the Lords Supper be a holy thing intended onely for holy persons then sure it is no converting Ordinance I might also cite divers School-men against Mr. Prynn in this particular I shall instance but in two for the present Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. dist 9. Quaest. 1. proveth from 1 Cor. 11. 27. that it is a mortal sin for a man to come to the Sacrament at that time when he is living in a mortal sin and that he who is not spiritually a member of Christ ought not to receive the Sacrament which is a signe of incorporation into Christ. Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest. 11. Membr 2. Art 2. Sect. 2. saith thus As there is a double bodily medicine curativa conservativa one for cure another for conservation so there is a double spiritual medine to wit curativa conservativa one for cure another for conservation repentance for the cure the Eucharist for conservation c. CHAP. XIIII Mr. Prynne his twelve Arguments brought to prove that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance discussed and answered IT shall be now no hard businesse to answer Mr. Prynns twelve Arguments brought by him to refute my assertion that that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance See Vindic. pag. 41. to 45. First he tells us we grant
bondage Grotius his Interpretation of the word Church not inconsistent with ours Divers Authors of the best note for our Interpretation that is that by the Church here is meant the Elders of the Church assembled The name of the Church given to the Elders for four considerations CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. OUr Opposites extreamly difficulted and divided in this point Binding and loosing both among Hebrews Grecians authoritative forensicall words Antiquity for us which is proved out of Augustine Hierome Ambrose Chrysostome Isidorus Pelusiota Hilary Theophylact. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private persons nor to civill Magistrates but to Church officers and that in reference 1. to the bonds of sinne and iniquity 2. To the dogmaticall decision of controversies concerning the will of Christ. That this power of binding and loosing is not meerely doctrinall but juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall censure This cleared by the coherence and dependency between verse 17. and 18 which is asserted against M. Prynne and further confirmed by eleven reasons In which the agreement of two on earth verse 19. the restriction of the rule to a brother or Church-member also Matth 16. 19. John 20. 23. Psalm 149. 6 7 8 9. are explained Another Interpretation of the binding and loosing that it is not exercised about persons but about things or Doctrines confuted by â—ive reasons How binding and loosing are acts of the power of the Keys as well as shutting and opening CHAP. VII That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication and bâ— a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation Suspension from the Sacrament of a person un excommunicated THe weight of our proofs not laid upon the phrase of delivering to Sathan Which phrase being set aside that Chapter will prove Excommunication verse 8. Let us keepe the Passeover c. applied to the Lords Supper even by M. Prynne himselfe Master Prynnes first exception from 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 20 21. concerning the admission of all the visible members of the Church of Corinth even drunken persons to the Sacrament answered His second a reflection upon the persons of men His third concerning these words No not to eate confuted Hence Suspension by necessary consequence His fourth exception taken off His three conditions which he requireth in Arguments from the lesser to the greater are false and doe not hold Our Argument from this Text doth not touch upon the rock of separation Eight considerations to prove an Ecclesiasticall censure and namely excommunication from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2 Cor. 2. More of that phrase to deliver such a one to Sathan CHAP. VIII Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper THe Question between M. Prynne me concerning Iudas much like unto that between Papists and Protestants concerning Peter Two things premised 1. That Matthew and Marke mentioning Christs discourse at Table concerning the Traytor before the Institution and distribution of the Lords Supper place it in its proper order and that Luke placeth it after the Sacrament by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or recapitulation which is proved by â—ive reasons 2. That the story Iohn 13. concerning Iudas and the sop was neither acted in Bethany two daies before the Passeover nor yet after the Institution of the Lords Supper The first Argument to prove that Iudas received not the Lords Supper from Ioh. 13. 30. he went out immediately after the sop Mr Prynnes foure answers confuted His opinion that Christ gave the Sacrament before the common supper is against both Scripture and Antiquity Of the word immediately The second Argument from Christs words at the Sacrament That which M. Prynne holds viz. that at that time when Christ infallibly knew Iudas to be lost he meant conditionally that his body was broken and his blood shed for Iudas confuted by three reasons The third Argument from the different expressions of Love to the Apostles with an exception while Iudas was present without an exception at the Sacrament M. Prynnes Arguments from Scripture to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament answered That Iudas received the Sacrament is no indubitable verity as Mr. Prynne cals it but hath been much controverted both among Fathers Papists and Protestants That the Lutherans who are much of M. Prynnes opinion in the point of Iudas his receiving of the Lords Supper that they may the better uphold their Doctrine of the wicked their eating of the true body of Christ yet are much against his opinion in the point of admitting scandalous persons not Excommunicated to the Sacrament M. Prynnes bold assertion that all the Ancients except Hilary onely doe unanimously accord that Iudas received the Lords Supper without one dissenting voyce disproved as most false and confuted by the testimonies of Clemens Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachymeres Ammonius Alexandrinus Tacianus Innocentius 3. Rupertus Tuitiensis yea by those very passages of Theophylact and Victor Antiochenus cited by himselfe Many moderne writters also against his opinion as of the Papists Salmeron Turrianus Barradius of Protestants Danaeus Kleinwitzius Piscator Beza Tossanus Musculus Zanchius Gomarus Diodati Grotius The testimonies cited by M. Prynne for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament examined some of them found false others prove not his point others who thinke that Iudas did receive the Sacrament are cleare against the admission of known prophane persons The confession of Bohemia and Belgia not against us but against Master Prynne CHAP. IX Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed THat Christ and his Apostles did eate the Passeover not before but after that Supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet and give the sop to Iudas These words before the Feast of the Passeover Joh. 13. 1. scanned The Jewes did eate the Passeover after meale but they had no meale after the Paschall supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 13. 2. needeth not be turned supper being ended but may suffer two other readings Christs sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Paschall supper and if it were it proves not that Iudas did eate of that Passeover more than 1 Cor. 15. 5. proves that Iudas did see Christ after his resurrection A pious observation of Cartwright Another of Chrysostome CHAP. X. That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lords Supper it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wicked persons from the Sacrament CHrists admitting of Iudas to the Sacrament when he knew him to be a divell could no more be a president to us then his choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle when he knew also that he was a divell Iudas his sinne was not scandalous but secret at that time when it is supposed that he did receive the Sacrament The same thing which M. Prynne makes to have been after the Sacrament to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament
to the holy men of God in the old Testament who honoured Heathen Princes and were subject to them as to lawful Magistrates but also to the doctrine of Jesus Christ who taught his Disciples to give unto Caesar what is Caesars and of the Apostles who in their time exhorted the Churches to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates for they had no other at that time to obey them to pray for them Rom. 13. Titus 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. 17. It is justly condemned as one of the errors of the Anabaptists that an heathen Magistrate is not to be acknowledged as a lawfull Magistrate or as being from God See Gerhard loc com Tom. 6. Pag. 498 499 P. Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo disp 13. cap. 1. The Scriptures now cited are so clear that when Mr. Hussey saith of the heathen Magistrate Let Baal plead for himself he might as well have said that Christ and his Apostles pleaded for Baal They that plead for the authority of an heathen Magistrate do not plead for Baal but for God and for his ordinance for the powers that be are ordained of God saith Paul speaking even of the heathen Magistrates Rom. 13. 1. But what will Mr. Hussey say if his great master Erastus be found a pleader for Baal as much as I am Confirm Thes. lib. 3. cap. 2. pag. 184. speaking of the heathen and unbeleeving Magistrates before whom the Corinthians went to law one against another he saith An non est impius quoque Magistratus à Deo praepositus ut subjectes quoslibet ab injuria vi tueatur Is not the ungodly Magistrate also preferred by God that he may defend any of his Subjects from injury and violence Yea the Scriptures afore touched are so clear in this point that Gamachaeus in primam secunda Quaest. 4. 5. cap. 33. though he hold that by humane and Ecclesiastical right Pagan Princes lose their dominion and authority over their Subjects when their Subjects turne Christians yet he acknowledgeth that they still retain their former Jurisdiction over those Subjects by the Law of God and nature Surely one might as well say that heathen Parents are unlawful and heathen masters are unlawful and heathen husbands are unlawful all which were contrary to the Word of God as to say that heathen Magistrates are unlawful Take the instance in Parents for all lawful Magistrates are fathers by the fifth Commandement Doth the paternity of a heathen father differre specie from the paternity of a Christian father are they not both lawful parents being made such by God and nature are not their children bound to honour them and be subject to them and obey them in things lawful The paternity is the same in se but different modaliter that I may borrow a distinction from Mr. Hussey The Christian father is sanctified and qualified to do service to Jesus Christ as a father in educating his children Christianly which an heathen father can not do So the heathen Magistrate and the Christian Magistrate are both lawful Magistrates being made such by God and nature or by election of people they are both of them to be honoured submitted unto and obeyed they are both of them the ministers of God for good to their people their power is the same in actu signato though not in actu exercito The heathen Magistrate may do and ought to do what the Christian Magistrate doth but the Christian Magistrate is fitted qualified enabled and sanctified to glorifie and serve Jesus Christ as a Magistrate which the heathen Magistrate is not Secondly They that hold the derivation of Magistracy to be from Jesus Christ and that it is held of and under him as Mediator must either shew from Scripture that Jesus Christ as Mediator hath given a commission of Vicegerentship or Deputyship to the Christian Magistrate or otherwise acknowledge that they have given the most dangerous and deadly wound even to Christian Magistracy it self which ever before it received Mr. Hussey pag. 20 answereth I conceive he the Christian Magistrate hath a Commission from Christ but when he should prove it which my argument calld for here he is at a losse He citeth Psal. 72 11. All Kings shall fall downe before him all Nations shall serve him Isa. 60. 12. That Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish I hope indeed there is a time comming when all Kings shall fall down before Jesus Christ and all Nations shall serve him and that will make an end of the Erastian controversie But I pray do all that serve Jesus Christ hold their office of and under Christ as Mediator and as his Vicegerents then the poorest servant that fears God shall be a Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator and shall have a commission from Christ to that effect for every godly servant doth not serve his master onely but Christ Eph. 6. 5 6 7. Again if those who shall perish because they serve not Christ be his Deputies and Vicegerents then the wickedest persecuters in the World shall have a commission of Vicegerentship from Jesus Christ. Well let the Christian Magistrate animadvert whether these men have done any thank-worthy service to Magistracy who will needs have it to hold of and unâ—er Christ as Mediator and by a commission of Vicegerentship from him and when they are put to it to produce that commission they prove no more then agreeth either to the meanest Christian or to the wickedest persecuter The Ministery hath a clear undeniable commission from Christ as Mediator even our opposites themselves being Judges Matth. 16. 19. and 28. 19. 20. Iohn 20. 21 22 23. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. Eph. 4. 11 12. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5. I say therefore again let them also shew from Scripture a commission from Jesus Christ constituting Christian Magistrates to be his Vicegerents as he is Mediator and to hold their office of and under him as Mediator which if they cannot shew they have done a greater disservice to the Christian Magistrate then they can easily repair or amend We are sure the lawful Magistrate whether Heathen or Christian is Gods Vicegerent and that is a safe holding of his office But our opposites shall never prove that any civil Magistrate though Christian and godly is the Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator And in seeking to prove it I am perswaded they shall but discover their own weaknesse and shall also weaken the Magistrates authority more then they can strengthen it Thirdly The Scripture intimateth this difference between Ministery and Magistracy that the work of the Ministery and the administrations thereof are performed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church the work of Magistracy not so except we adde to the Word of God they who will do any thing in the Name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and cannot find any Scripture which can warrant their so doing are lyars and the truth is not in
that for that end one ought to give place to another upon the other hand that a boundlesse liberty and confusion and immunity from censure may not be introduced into the Church To this latter branch belongs vers 29. 32. 33. Let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other judge He will have two or at most three Prophets to speak in one Congregation at one diet or time of assembling and those Prophets saith he must be examined judged and censured by the other Prophets for the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets that is every particular Prophet distributively is subject to all the Prophets collectively or to the colledge of Prophets add and of other spirituall persons intrusted with the government of the Church together with the Prophets as from vers 37. and Gal. 6. 1. is well observed by our Country-man Mr. Dickson upon this place Therefore Walaeus Tom. 1 pag. 468. doth rightly collect from this place an authority of Church-Government Protestant Writers prove hence the authority of General-Councels above the Pope and that the Pope is a false Prophet because he refuseth to be subject to the Prophets Iunius in divers places applieth this Text to the authority of Presbyteries and Synods Gualther upon the place applyeth it against the Pope who will judge all men and be judged of no man whereas saith he the Apostle here will have no man how eminent soever to be free from censure when he is censurable So then we have in this Text a subjection and an authority of judging and censuring And this Judgement which the Apostle here speaks of is neither the Judgement of the civil Magistrate nor the Judgement of discretion common to the whole Church but it is the Judgement or censure of Prophets and that not School-wise according to Mr. Husseys notion of Schooles that is by the Prophets disputing a man out of his error and no more no vote no decision no result except he that hath taught an error do agree to the arguments of the other Prophets and so all end in a brotherly accord and in the unanimous consent of the whole Clergy for so doth he advise the Parliament so that he shall be no more subject to all the Prophets then all the Prophets to him Yea in Mr. Husseys sence the Pope will not refuse to be subject to a Councel of Prophets and then Protestant Writers have been far out of their way who have disputed against the Pope from this Text supposing it to hold forth a binding authoritative Judgement of the Prophets whereunto any one Prophet is bound to be subject the Judgement of his private discretion being alwaies reserved to him that he give not blind obedience Eighthly I argue from Revel 2. 14. 20. The Lord Jesus reproveth the Angel of the Church in Pergamus for suffering those that taught the doctrine of Balaam and the Angel of the Church in Thyatira for suffering Iezebel which called her self a Prophetesse to seduce his people The fault here reproved must be the neglect of Church-censures and corrective government which is so manifest that they who plead most for liberty of Conscience from the Magistrate do acknowledge that the Angels of these Churches are reproved for not censuring Ecclesiastically those that did thus seduce Gods people Neither is it said because thou art silent and dost not reprove nor convince but because thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam that is because thou dost not cast them out of the Church that they may not hurt others So the English Annotations upon the place referring us also to 1 Cor. 5. The Angel of the Church was guilty in this that those who had so much scandalized the Church by their Doctrine were still in the Church and not yet cast out of the Church And who can imagine that the Angels of those Churches whom Christ himself commendeth for holding fast his name and for their love service faith and patience were so void either of prudence as not to observe or of zeal as not to gainsay and confute by sound doctrine those soul and scandalous errors Certainly their sin was like that of Eli they did not together with the doctrinal and monitory part make use of that Jurisdiction and corrective power which God had put in their hands Ninthly We have another Argument from 1 Thess. 3. 14. And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man and have no Company with him that he may be ashamed Here the Syriack helpeth us much And if any man obey not these words which are contained in this Epistle let that man be separated from you neither have company with him that he may be ashamed Gualther upon the place saith the Apostle speaks de disciplina Ecclesiastica what discipline they ought to have in the Church and the end thereof So Calvin Beza Piscator Zanchius Diodati The Dutch Annotations Gomarus also Mariana Cajetan Salmeron Gorranus Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Sect. 7. and diverse others following Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Aquinas all these do apply it to Ecclesiasticall discipline and censure Some controversie there is whether this Text reach as far as Excommunication which doth not belong to this present Argument but certainly it reacheth to a publick Church-censure and is more then the withdrawing of private Company and Fellowship either because of personal or private injuries or because of prophanesse For 1. the offence spoken of by the Apostle is not a matter of Civil or Personal injury but of scandal he speaks of idle bodies that walked disorderly not working at all and if these must be noted and separated how much more saith Theoylact those who commit crimes and wickednesse 2. Here is contumacy added to the offence if any man obey not our word by this Epistle intimating that upon occasion of this Epistle those that walked disorderly were to be solemnly admonished and required to work in quietnesse and to eat their owne bread which if after admonition they would not do then to note them Aquinas clears it by 1 Sam. 15. 23 for rebellion is as the sin of witck-craft and stubbornesse is as iniquity and as idolatry 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note that man signate as Menochius rendreth it rather then either significate or notate set a mark upon him even as saith Erasmus we set a mark upon pushing oxen that we may avoid them which agreeth well with the Syriack Let that man be separated from you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is some what more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The latter usually signifieth no more but significo indico signum do but the former is signum notam imprimo obsigno insignio The Septuagints make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 levavit elevavit sustulit So Psal. 4. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. signatum est
super nos that is the light of thy c untenance is lifted up upon us examplarly or banner-wise so as it may be remarkeable to others The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations upon 2 Thess. 3. 14. tell us that this Greek word doth not properly signifie to present or represent one but to note one and mark him out putting some ignominy upon him or outing him from an honourable Congregation and marking or blotting out his name as one unworthy of that honour By which reason as likewise by that which followes they confute those who construe the word note with the Word Epistle as if the Apostle had said note or present me such a one by a letter 4. Have no company with him He speaks it to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may have no fellowship with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he will have those that walk orderly and by rule to have no company with those that walk disorderly Now this concerneth the whole Church equally and it is spoken to the Church for what reason can there be that some in the Church should have no company with one because of his scandalous and disorderly walking but the same reason will make the whole Church to have no company with him there may be divers civil respects and considerations which may make it unfit for some to keep familiar civil fellowship which respects and considerations do not concern others But the avoyding of the company of those who walk scandalously and disorderly and that because they walk in that manner and further adde obstinacy to their sin after publike admonition must needs belong to the whole Church 5. Note that man and have no company with him he must first be noted before he be avoyded and both these are publick Ecclesiastical acts for it was far from the Apostles meaning that every man should be herein left to his liberty he that pleaseth to note him and have no company with him well and good he that pleaseth not shall be free But unlesse there be an Ecclesiastical Judgement and censure past upon such a one every one had been left to his liberty 6. That he may be ashamed this as it is the end of Church-censures so it will be attained in a very small measure and perhaps not at all by one private man his avoyding the company of another which will not make the offender ashamed abased and humbled but when he is publikely noted and when the Church avoids his Company that is it which most covers a man with shame and confusion of face Tenthly The Apostle mentioneth Ecclesiastical Rulers Rom. 12. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praefectus or qui praeest he that ruleth that is the ruling Elder He is making an enumeration of Ecclesiastical offices and administrations and no other So Calvin Beza Piscator Martyr Tossanus Diodati all upon the place and Iunius Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. do conceive and the whole context and the allusion to the severall offices of severall members in the same body proveth it and if all the rest be Ecclesiastical why not the office of ruling also which is there mentioned for how should civil ruling come in among the Ecclesiastical administrations especially in those dayes when Magistrates were not Christian Musculus takes the Rulers here to be Elders Gualther and Bullinger though they make this Text applicable to civil Rulers yet they do not exclude Church-officers from ruling but expressely mention Church-Governours distinct from civil Governours to be there comprehended under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Hussey pag. 19. answering this argument can neither deny what I said of Gualther and Bullinger nor yet doth affirm that civil Rulers are there meant onely his reply is that my argument is drawn from the interpretation of the place but the Disputant may not interpret saith he that is the answerers part This calls to mind the Anabaptistical error Concionatores non retinent verba Textus sed interpretantur ea id quod non ferendum For which see Petrus Hiâ—…kolmannus de Anabaptismâ—… Disp. 9. cap. 1. My Argument was drawn from the Text for the Text rightly understood and interpreted is the Text. But see now what strange rules you may exspect when Mr. Hussey comes to School-disputes the disputant may not interpret he must keep close to termes if the thing be not in terminis in the Text it s no Argumâ—nt by which rule he will at one dash overthrow not onely the disputations of Protestants against Papists of the ancient Fathers against the Hereticks of their times for how is Justification by Faith ONELY the number of the Sacraments the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father and many other most materiall points proved but by Scripture rightly opened cleared and interpreted but also the disputations of the Apostles and of Jesus Christ himself against the Pharisees Sadduces and Jewes for there is nothing more ordinary with Christ and his Apostles in their disputes for the truth then to interpret Scripture and give the sence of it Eleventhly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not Civil but Ecclesiastical Governments as I have largely proved Chap. 6. and shall not need here to repeat it onely observe what Bullinger saith on the place whereunto add the Testimony of Hugo Grotius whom I suppose our opposites do not look upon as an adversary on Luke 12. 14. He acknowledgeth that in the Church of Corinth censura morum was penes Presbyterium the censure of mens manners was in the power of the Presbytery This Government the Church of Corinth had a Christian Magistrate they had not Twelfthly If in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Civil then in the Christian Church also there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Civil But in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Civil Ergo. The Proposition is proved thus There can be no reason given for an Ecclesiastical government among the Jews distinct from the Civil which will not hold as well and as strongly for an Ecclesiastical government among Christians distinct from the Civil for we speak not now of the particulars a high Priest or the like which were typical and proper to that time but we speak of a Church government distinct from the Civil look upon it under that notion and then see if any reason can be given for it among them which will not conclude the like among us yea much more among us for if the Priests had a great influence and interest into the Civil Government of the Jewes and yet there was a Church-government distinct from the Civil how much more now when Ministers have not neither ought to have any share in the Civil government The assumption hath been abundantly proved before in the first book I will not repeat but here note these Scriptures Ier. 5. 31. The Prophets bear rule It was their
an Heathen man and a Publican 6. This interpretation as it is fathered upon Grotius so it may be confuted out of Grotius upon the very place He expounds Tell it unto the Church by the same words which Drusius citeth è libro Musar declare it coram multis before many But is this any other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many spoken of 2 Cor 2. 6 a place cited by Grotius himselfe together with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. Now these were acts of Ecclesiasticall power and authority not simply the acts of a greater number He tels us also it was the manner among the Jewes to referre the businesse ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the assembly of those who were of the same way or followed the same rites the judgements of which multitude saith he seniores tanquam praesides moderabantur the Elders as Presidents did moderate He further cleares it out of Tertullian apol cap. 39. where speaking of the Churches or assemblies of Christians he saith ibidem etiam exhortationes castigationes censura divina c. praesident probati quique seniores Where there are also exhortations corrections and Divine censure c. all the approved Elders doe preside And is not this the very thing we contend for I hope I may now conclude that Tell the Church is neither meant of the civill Magistrate nor simply of a greater number but of the Elders or as others expresse it better of the Eldership or Assembly of Elders So Stephanus Scapula and Pasor in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin Bucerus Illyricus Beza Hunnius Tossanus Pareus Cartwright Camero Diodati the Dutch annotations all upon the place Marlorat in Thesauro in the word Ecclesia Zanchius in 4. Praec pag. 741. Iunius Animad in Bell. Contr. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6. Gerhard loc theol Tom. 6. pag. 137. Meisuerus Disput. de regim Eccles. quaest 1. Trelcatius Instit. Theol. lib. 1. pag. 291. Polanus Syntag. lib. 7. cap. 1. Bullinger in 1 Cor. 5. 4. Whittaker de Ecclesia quaest 1. cap. 2. Danaeus in 1 Tim. pag. 246. 394. These and many more understand that neither the Magistrate nor the multitude of the Church nor simply a great number is meant by the Church Matth. 18. but the Elders or Ecclesiasticall senate who have the name of the Church partly by a Synâ—cdoche because they are a chief part of the Church as otherwhere the people or flock distinct from the Elders is called the Church Act. 20. 28. partly because of their eminent station and principall function in the Church as we say we have seen such a mans Picture when haply t is but from the shoulders upward partly because the Elders act in all matters of importance so as they carry along with them the knowledge and consent of the Church And therefore according to Salmeron his observation Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 9. Christ would not say Tell the officers or Rulers of the Church but Tell the Church because an obstinate offender is not to be excommunicate secretly or in a corner but with the knowledge and consent of the whole Church so that for striking of the sinner with the greater fear and shame in regard of that knowledge and consent of the Church the telling of the officers is called the telling of the Church partly also because of the ordinary manner of speaking in the like cases that which is done by the Parliament is done by the Kingdom and that which is done by the common Councell is done by the City Among the Jewes with whom Christ and his Apostles were conversant this manner of speaking was usuall Danaeus where before cited citeth R. David Kimchi upon Ose. 5. noting that the name of the house of Israel is often put for the Sanhedrin in Scripture T is certaine the Sanhedrin hath divers times the name Kabal in the Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek of the old Testament Which is acknowledged even by those who have contended for a kind of popular Government in the Church See Guide unto Zion pag. 5. Ainsworth in his Counterpoison pag. 113. CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. THey that doe not understand Matth. 18. 17. of Excommunication are extreamely difficulted and scarce know what to make of that binding and loosing which is mentioned in the words immediately following v. 18. verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Erastus and Grotius understand it of a private brother or the party offended his binding or loosing of the offender Bishop Bilson understands it of a civill binding or loosing by the Magistrate whom he conceives to be meant by the Church vers 17. These doe acknowledge a coherence and dependance between vers 17. and 18. M r Prynne differing from them doth not acknowledge this coherence and expounds the binding and loosing to be ministeriall indeed but onely Doctrinall Some others dissenting from all these doe referre this binding and loosing not to a person but to a thing or Doctrine whatsoever ye shall bind that is whatsoever ye shall declare to be false erroneous impious c. Sutlivius though he differ much from us in the Interpretation of vers 15 16 17. yet he differeth as much if not more from the Erastians in the Interpretation of vers 18. for he will have the binding and loosing to be Ecclesiasticall and spirituall not civill to be Juridicall not Doctrinall onely to be Acts of Government committed to Apostles Bishops and Pastors he alloweth no share to ruling Elders yet he alloweth as little of the power of binding and loosing either to the Magistrate or to the party offended See him de Presbyteriâ—… Cap. 9. 10. So that they can neither satisfie themselves nor others concerning the meaning and the context For the confutation of all those Glosses and for the vindication of the true scope and sence of the Text I shall first of all observe whence this phrase of binding and loosing appeareth to have been borrowed namely both from the Hebrewes and from the Graecians The Hebrews did ascribe to the Interpreters of the Law Power authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to loose So Grotius tells us on Mat. 16. 19. The Hebrews had their loosing of an Excommunicated person which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Buxtorf Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 1410. The Grecians also had a binding and loosing which was judiciall Budaeus and Stephanus on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cite out of Aeschines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quum primo suffragio non absolutus fuerit reus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the stone by which the Senators did give their suffrage in judgement It was either a blacke stone by which they did bind the sinner and retaine his sinne and that stone
bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Where the power of binding and loosing is given to the Apostles Grotius upon the place cleareth it from 2. Cor. 5. 19. 20. God hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ. So that we find in Scripture Church Officers inabled and authorised ex officio as the Heraulds and Ambassadours of the King of Zion to loose from the bands of sinne all repenting and beleiving sinners and to bind over to eternall justice and wrath the impenitent and unbeleevers 2 They are also authorised dogmatically and authoritatively to declare and impose the will of Christ and to bind his precepts upon the shoulders of his peeple Matth. 28. 20. as likewise to loose them and pronounce them free from such burthens as men would impose upon them contrary or beside the word of God 1 Cor. 7. 23. An example of both we have Act. 15. 28. The Synod of the Apostles and Elders bindeth upon the Churches such Burthens as were necessary by the Law of love for the avoiding of scandall but did pronounce the Churches to be free and loosed from other burthens which the Judaizing Teachers would have bound upon them Now therefore if we will expound Matth. 18. 18. by other Scriptures it being the onely surest way to expound Scripture by Scripture it is manifest and undeniable that Church-Officers are by other Scriptures inabled and authorised to bind loose in both those respects afore-mentioned But we no where find in Scripture that Christ hath given either to all private Christians or to the civill Magistrate a Commission and Authority to bind or loose sinners I know a private Christian may and ought to convince an impenitent brother and to comfort a repenting brother ex charitate Christiana But the Scripture doth not say that God hath committed to every private Christian the word of reconciliation and that all Christians are Ambassadours for Christ nor is there a promise to ratifie in heaven the convictions or comforts given by a private Christian No more then a King doth ingage himself in verbo principis to pardon such as any of his good Subjects shall pardon or to condemne such as any of his good Subjects shall condemne but a King ingageth himself to ratifie what his Ambassadours Commissioners or Ministers shall doe in his name and according to the Commission which he hath given them to pardon or condemne Besides all this if Christ had meant here of the brother to whom the injury was don his private binding or loosing not condemning or forgiving then he had kept the phrase in the singular number which Erastus observeth diligently all along the Text vers 15 16 17. But he might have also observed that vers 18. carries the power of binding and loosing to a plurality VVhatsoever ye bind c. As for the Magistrate it belongeth to him to bind with the cords of corporall or civill punishments or to loose and liberat from the same as he shall see cause according to law and justice But this doth n t belong to the spirituall Kingdome of Jesus Christ for his Kingdome is not of this world neither are the weapons thereof carnall but spirituall And beside the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth bind on punishment when the soule is loosed in Heaven and the sinne remitted Again the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth loose and absolve from punishment when a mans soule is impenitent and sinne is still bound upon his conscience There is no such promise that God will forgive whom the Magistrate forgiveth or condemne whom the Magistrate condemneth Neither hath God any where in Scripture committed to the Magistrate the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven or the word of reconciliation as to the Ambassadours of Christ. Binding and loosing in the other sence by a dogmaticall authoritative declaration of the will of Christ is not so principally or directy intended Matth. 18. 18. as that other binding and loosing in respect of sinne Howbeit it is not to be excluded because the words preceding Vers. 17. mention not onely the execution of Excommunication Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican but also the Churches judgement and determination of the case if he neglect to heare the Church which words implie that the Church hath declared the will of Christ in such a case and required the offender to doe accordingly but he shewing himselfe unwilling and contumacious as it were saying in his heart I will breake their bands asunder and cast away their cords from me thereupon the promise reacheth to this also that what the Church hath determined or imposed according to the will of Christ shall be ratified and approved in Heaven Now Christ hath no where given a Commission either to every particular Christian or to the Magistrate to teach his people to observe all things which he hath commanded them and authoritatively to determine controversies of faith or cases of conscience As in the old Testament the Priests lips did preserve knowledge and they were to seeke the law at his mouth Mal. 2. 7. so in the new Testament the Ministers of Christ have the Commission to make known the counsell of God My second proposition that the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. is juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall Censures this I will make good in the next place against M r Prynne who to elude the argument for Excommunication from Matth. 18. answereth two things concerning the binding and loosing there spoken of 1. That these words have no coherence with or dependence upon the former 2. That this binding and loosing is meant onely of preaching the Gospell Touching the first of these I confesse if by the Church vers 17. be meant a civill Court of Justice and by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen c. be meant no more but keepe no civill fellowship with him which is his sence of the Text I cannot marvell that he could finde no coherence between vers 17. and vers 18. yet if there be no coherence between these verses the generality of Interpreters have gone upon a great mistake of the Text conceiving that Christ doth here anticipate a great objection and adde a great encouragement in point of Church discipline for when the offender is excommunicated that is all the Church can doe to humble and reduce him put the case he or others despise the censures of the Church What will your censure doe saith M r Hussey To that very thing Christ answereth It shall be ratified in Heaven and it shall doe more then the binding of the offenders in fetters of Iron could doe But let us heare what M r Prynne saith against the coherence of Text because saith he that of binding and loosing is spoken onely to and of Christs disciples as is evident by the parallel Text
apply the promises yea the death passion and merits of Christ unto EVERY Communicants eyes ears HEART and SOUL Which is plainly universal grace to all who ever received this Sacrament and so to Iudas according to his principles and to all who ever shall receive it 4. Whereas he would confirm this which he saith by his Antagonists Confession I do not think he can give any conscientious account of that word Who said it or where He must needs hold universal grace hold it who will 5. Here lies the strength of his Argument The Word converts by applying Christ therefore the Sacrament which doth more lively apply Christ to every Communicant must be a converting Ordinance Which necessarily implyeth that all who receive the Sacrament are converted Yea if application inferre conversion as the effect of the Application the Saints and Beleevers themselves must be again constituted in the first Article of Conversion and transition from the estate of nature and unregeneration 6. The Application of Christ in the Word unto Conversion is a thing of another nature than the Sacramental application of Christ and therefore like effects ought not to be ascribed unto these Ordinances For the Application of Christ made in the Word preached to the unconverted to convert them is per influxum Physicum by a most efficacious life-giving influence as when Elisha applyed himself to the Shunnamites dead child or like that Ezek. 16. 6. Iohn 5. 25. and 11. 43. But this manner of influence or causality is denied to the Sacrament by many of the Schoolmen and Papists themselves So much of his fifth Argument which I thought to answer in two words if the many absurdities in it had given me leave His sixth Argument is this All grant that God doth as effectually convert by the eye as by the ear All grant I deny it and I verily beleeve he can produce very few Authors if any for it He ought not to speak so great words without good warrants which here I am sure he hath not Well but he will prove the thing it self First he tells us of the book of Nature and of the Creatures by which we are instructed c. But either he means that the very book of Nature can and doth effectually and savingly convert to Faith in Christ and to true sanctification or not If the affirmative then the Heathens who lived and died in Paganisme had sufficient means and helps to conversion and faith in Christ for those Pagans had the book of the Creatures to instruct them as is expressed in some Scriptures cited by himself and so there may be salvation and the means thereof without the Church If this be not his meaning but that the book of Nature instructeth us concerning many things of God yet doth not teach us to know Christ and all things necessary to salvation far lesse doth effectually and savingly convert then he hath said nothing to that point which he had to prove 2. He saith that all the Sacrifices of the old Law and Circumcision and the Passeover did teach Gods people who participated of them or were present at them by the eye and were converting Ordinances as all do and must acknowledge Answ. Here is another tinckling Cymbal Do all acknowledge that the Sacraments of the Old Testament were converting Ordinances There can be no rational account given hereof Certainly our Writers before cited and diverse others who denie the Sacraments of the New Testament to be converting Ordinances never meant to admit that the Sacraments of the old Testament were converting Ordinances 2. How Circumcision did teach by the eye those who did participate of that Ordinance and so Infants is another riddle 3. If Sacrifices under the Law had been converting Ordinances yet that cannot be a just parallel to Sacraments except seeking to make the Lords Supper a converting Ordinance we convert it self into a Sacrifice for sin as Papists do But neither doth he offer the least colour of reason to prove that all the external Sacrifices of the old Law were converting Ordinances which here he affirmeth The Apostle speaketh otherwise of the Legal Sacrifices which he saith could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 99. and therefore calls all those rites carnal Ordinances vers 10. for though they were spiritual in respect of their signification and typifying of Christ and sealing the Covenant of grace to the faithful in the Old Testament yet they were not spiritual in regard of their giving of grace or working conversion or purging the Conscience for they had no such operation nor effect Fourthly Mr. Prynn confirms his present Argument by the miracles of the Prophets Christ and the Apostles which saith he converted thousands without preaching did convert and regenerate men by the eye without the ear For proof whereof he cites abundance of Texts of Scripture which do not prove what he saith nay some of them prove the contrary Some of the Scriptures cited do not prove conversion and regeneration by miracles but either confirmation as Iohn 2. 11. after the miracle it is added and his Disciples beleeved on him Or some preparatory initial work before regeneration as that Iohn 3. 2. Mr. Prynn will hardly prove that Nicodemus was already regenerated at that instant when he knew not what regeneration was Or that those Iohn 2. 23. who beleeved on Christ when they saw his miracles at the feast had any more then a temporary faith it being said of them that Iesus did not commit himself unto them because he knew all men Act. 2. 12. Luke 5. 25. 26. tell us of some who at the sight of miracles were stricken with fear and amazement and gave glory to God which proves not that miracles did convert but convince The like I say of 1 Kings 18. 38. 39. Other Texts cited by him make expresse mention of the Word as a mean of the conversion which was wrought as Iohn 4. 50. the man beleeved the Word that Jesus had spoken and this was before the miracle Iohn 7. 31. many beleeved but they heard Christ preach vers 14. So Iohn 11. 45. those Jewes who beleeved on Christ after they had seen the miracle did also hear that which Christ said yea their beleeving is mentioned as an effect of their hearing vers 41. 42. So Act. 6. 8. Stephen did indeed great miracles but the multiplying of the number of the Disciples is referred to the Word vers 7. Act. 8. 6. it is expressely said And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake hearing and seeing the miracles which he did Quâ fide hath Mr. Prynn cited this very Text to prove that men were converted by miracles without the Word by the eye without the ear Some other Scriptures by him quoted prove onely a popular confluence and the multitudes following of Christ. Having seen his miracles as Iohn 6. 2. and 11. 47. 48. Matth. 15. 30. 31. For
them Now let our opposites shew if they can where they find in Scripture that the Christian Magistrate is to rule in the name of Christ to judge in the name of Christ to make laws in the name of Christ to make war or peace in the name of Christ to punish evil doers with the Temporal Sword in the name of Christ. Of the Ministery I did shew that in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we do assemble our selves together Matth. 18. 20. in his name doe we preach Luk. 24. 47. Act. 4. 17 18. and 5. 28. 44. and 9. 27. In his name do we baptize Act. 2. 38. and 8. 16. and 19. 5. In his name do we excommunicate 1 Cor. 5. 5. These my proofs from Scripture Mr. Hussey pag. 21. professeth he will examine according to laws of disputation I know none transgresseth those laws more than himself and even in this very place where he professeth to keep close to lawes of disputation my first proof from Matth. 18. 20. he quarrelleth upon a meer mistake of his owne He saith I brought it to prove the institution of Church-officers and that to prove it I do appropriate the meeting in the name of hCrist to Church-Officers and thereupon he tells us the Text saith not that none shall gather together in my name but Church-Officers Are these Mr. Husseys lawes of disputation He had need to be a better disputer who calls others to School I did not speak here of the Institution of Church-Officers and far lesse did I exclude all others from meeting in the name of Christ Church-officers assemble in the name of Christ with the Church and when they assemble in the name of Christ apart and without the multitude will it follow that because they meet in the name of Christ therefore none but they meet in the name of Christ. Well let Mr. Hussey try all his Logick in this consequence it will not do The sixth general Councell Actione 17. apply unto their owne oecumenicall Assembly that promise of Christ Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name c. Protestant Writers both in their Commentaries and Polemick Writings do usually apply the same Text to Synods and Councells For instance Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 9. sect 1. 2. holds that the authority of Councells dependeth upon that promise of Christ Where two or three are met together in my name c. That which went before carries it to Assemblies for acts of discipline as being principally intended in that place The promise ver 20. is general belonging to all Church Assemblies yet in that place it is applyed to Assemblies of Church-Officers for discipline But neither need I go so far in this present argument for when Church-Officers meet with the Church for the Word Sacraments and other parts of Worship this is in the name of Jesus Christ without all controversie and this is enough to justifie all that I brought that Text for especially there being herein a difference between sacred and civil Assemblies there is no such promise made to Magistrates Courts of Justice as to Church Assemblies That which he citeth out of Dr. Whittaker and Bishop Mortoun makes nothing against me neither doth he quote the places peradventure because he found something in those passages which made against him Whittakers sence is plainly of sacred and not of civil Assemblies And for that so much controverted Text Matth. 18. 17. Tell the Church Whittaker expoundeth it as we do against the Erastians Tell the Pastors and Rulers of the Church Whittak de Eccles. quaest 1. cap. 2. Dic Ecclesiae hoc est Pastoribus Praefectis Ecclesiae As for preaching Mr. Hussey saith it is out of question that we preach in the name of Christ. Well then let him shew such another thing of the Magistrate as is without controversie done by him in the name of Christ. But where I added that in the name of Jesus Christ we baptize though I said no more then the Scripture saith yet he is pleased to object against me These places he citeth saith he to prove that we baptize in the Name of Jesus as exclusively to Father and holy Ghost leaving out the words of the commission Matth. 28. Baptize in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost for so the state of his question doth require for he distinguisheth acutely and acurately between Christ as Mediator and second person he should have said as second Person in Trinity in all this Argument And so he concludes that which I had said to be contrary to the words of the Commission and the practice of all Churches What doth he drive at I cited plain Texts to prove that baptisme is administred in the name of Christ Either Mr. Hussey denyeth that this is done in the name of Christ as Mediator or he denyeth it not If he denie it let him speak it out and he shall not want an answer Mean while let him remember that himself pag. 25. saith that Christ as Mediator did give that commission to the Apostles Go Preach and baptize If he denie it not then let him give the like instance for Magistracy and civil Government to prove it to be managed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator else he must not plead that Magistracy is of the same tenure from Christ as the Ministery Again either he admitteth a distinction between Christ as Mediator and as second person in Trinity or not If he doe not he will infallibly wind himself into a grosse heresie as namely these two 1. He must denie that principle which according to the Word of God all Orthodox Divines hold against the Arrians and Antitrinitarians that Christ as Mediator is subordinate unto and lesser then the Father but as second person in the Trinity he is not subordinate unto nor lesser then the Father nor the Father greater then he but as such he is equal with the Father in greatnesse glory and honour 2. As opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa he must also hold that whatsoever Christ as Mediator doth that also the Father and the holy Ghost doth but Christ as Mediator did humble himself to the death offer himself in a sacrifice for sin maketh intercession for us Ergo he must conclude the Father doth the same But if he do admit the distinction as Mediator and as second person in Trinity then why doth he so often quarrell it And in this very place his Argument must drive against that distinction or against nothing But how doth the baptizing in the name of Christ as Mediator agree with the commission to baptize in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Though this belong not to my Argument yet I will by the way speak to it First I say the Question is of things or actions not of words Mr. Hussey it seems did apprehend my meaning as if I had intended an expression to be made in the act
consolatoria promissione nanâ—… dieitur Sunt quidam de hinc 〈◊〉 qui non gustabuâ—…t mortem donec videant regâ—…um Dei The very same words hath Bedâ—… on Mark. 9. 1. following it seemes Gregory Grotius on Matth. 16. 28. doth likewise understand the promulgation of the Gospel and the Scâ—pter of Christ that is his law going out of Zion to be here meant I conclude as the Church is not onely a mystical but a political body So Christ is not onely a mystical but a political Head But peradventure some men will be bold to give another answer that the Lord Jesus indeed reigneth over the Church even in a political respect but that the administration and influence of this his Kingly office is in by and through the Magistrate who is supreme Judge Governour and Head of the Church under Christ. To this I answer Hence it would follow 1. That Christs Kingdom is of this World and commeth with observation as the Kingdoms of this World do which himself denieth Luke 17 20 Iohn 18 36. Next It would follow that Christ doth not reigne nor exercise his Kingly office in the Government of his Church under Pagan Turkish or persecuting Princes but onely under the Christian Magistrate which no man dare say 3. The Civil Magistrate is Gods Vicegerent but not Christs that is the Magistrates power hath its rise origâ—nation institution and deputation not from that speciall dominion which Christ exerciseth over the Church as Mediator and Head thereof But from that Universal Lordship and Soveraignity which God exerciseth over all men by right of Creation In so much that there had been for orders sake Magistrates or superior Powers though man had not fallen but continued in his innocency and now by the Law of Nature and Nations there are Magistrates among those who know nothing of Christ and among whom Christ reigneth not as Mediator though God reigneth over them by the Kingdom of power 4. If the Magistrate be supreme Head and Governour of the Church under Christ then the Ministers of the Church are the Magistrates Ministers as well as Christs and must act in the Magistrates name and as subordinate to him and the Magistrate shall be Christs Minister and act in Christs Name The seventeeth Argument I draw from the institution of Excommunication by Christ Matth. 18. 17. Tell it unto the Church But if he neglect to hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a Publican In which Text 1. All is restricted to a brother or a Church-member and agreeth not to him who is no Church-member 2. His treâ—pasle is here lookt upon under the notion of scandal and of that which is also like to destroy his owne soule 3. The scope is not civil but spiritual to gain or save his soul. 4. The proceedings are not without witnesses 5. There is a publick complaint made to the Church 6. And that because he appeares impenitent after admonitions given privatly and before two or three 7. The Church speaks and gives a Judgement concerning him which he is bound to obey 8. If he obey not then he is to be esteemed and held as a heathen man and a Publican 9. And that for his not hearing the Church which is a publike scandal concerning the whole Church 10. Being as as an Heathen and Publican he is kept back from some ordinances 11. He is bound on earth by Church-Officers Whatsoever ye bind c. 12. He is also bound in Heaven More of this place else-where These hints will now serve The Erastians deny that either the case or the court or the censure there mentioned is Ecclesiastical or Spiritual But I prove all the three First Christ speaketh of the case of scandals not of personal or civil injuries whereof he would be no Judge Luk. 12. 14. and for which he would not permit Christians to go to Law before the Roman Emperor or his deputies 1 Cor. 6. 1. 6. 7. But if their interpretation stand they must grant that Christ giveth laws concerning civil injuries and that he permitteth one of his disciples to accuse another for a civil injury before an unbeleeving Judge Beside Christ saith not If he shall hear thee thou hast from him a voluntary reparation of the wrong or satisfaction for it which is the end why we deal with one who hath done us a civil injury But he saith If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother intimating that the offending brother is told and admonished of his fault onely for a spiritual end for the good of his soul and for gaining him to repentance All which proveth that our Saviour meaneth not there of private or civil injuries as the Erastians suppose but of scandals of which also he had spoken much before as appeareth by the preceding part of that chapter A civil injury done by one brother to another is a scandal but every scandal is not a civil injury The Jewes to whose custome Christ doth here allude did excommunicate for diverse scandals which were not civil injuries And Paul saith of a scandal which was not a civil injury when ye sin so against the brethren c. 1 Cor. 8. 12. 2. The court is Ecclesiastical not civil for when it is said Tell it unto the Church must we not expound Scripture by Scripture and not understand the Word Church to be meant of a civil Court for though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Act. 19. reoitative of a heathenish civil assembly called by that name among those heathens yet the pen-men of the holy Ghost have not made choice of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any place of the new Testament to expresse a civil court either of Jewes or Christians So that we cannot suppose that the holy Ghost speaking so as men may understand him would have put the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place to signifie such a thing as no where else in the new Testament it is found to signifie Nay this very place expoundeth it self for Christ directeth his speech to the Apostles and in them to their Successors in the government of the Church Whatsoever ye shall bind c. And if two of you shall agree c. So that the church which here bindeth or judgeth is an Assembly of the Apostles Ministers or Elders of the church 3. The censure is spirituall as appeareth both by these words Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican which relate to the Excommunication from the church of the Jewes and comprehendeth not onely an exclusion from private fellowship and company which was the condition of the Publicans with whom the Jewes would not eat but also an exclusion from the Temple Sacrifices and communion in the holy things which was the condition of heathens yea of prophane Publicans too of which elsewhere And further it appeareth by these words Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth c. The Apostles had no power to inflict any
civil punishment but they had power to bind the soul and to retain the sin Ioh. 20. 23. And this power of binding is not in all the Scripture ascribed to the civil Magistrate The eighteenth Argument shall be drawn from the example of excommunication 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. The Apostle writeth to the church of Corinth to deliver to Sathan for the delivery to Sathan was an act of the church of Corinth as the Syriack explaineth it the incestuous man which is called a censure inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. that is by the whole Presbytery of the Church of Corinth And whereas some understand by delivering to Sathan the putting forth of the extraordinary Apostolicall power to the working of a miracle upon the offender by giving him over into the hands of Sathan so as to be bodily tormented by him or to be killed and destroyed as Erastus takes it I answer 1. It cannot be meant of death for it is said that Hymeneus and Alexander were delivered to Sathan and to what end that they might learne not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20 which had been too late to learn after death 2. Nor is it at all meant of any miraculous tormenting of the body by the divel for beside that it is not likely this miracle could have been wrought Paul himself not being present to work it it is utterly incredible that the Apostle would have so sharply rebuked the Church of Corinth for that a miracle was not wrought upon the incestuous man it not being in their power to do or that he would seek the consent of that Church to the working of a miracle and as a joynt act proceeding from him and the Church by common counsell and deliberation for where read wee of any miracle wrought that way Therefore it is much more safe to understand by delivering to Sathan as Gualther himself doth Excommunication which is a shutting out of a Church-member from the Church whereby Sathan commeth to get dominion and power over him for he is the God of this World who reigneth at his pleasure in and over those who are not the Church and people of God 2 Cor. 4. 4. Eoh. 2. 2. And if any shall be so far unsatisfied as not to admit this sence which we put upon that phrase of delivering to Sathan Yet our Argument for Excommunication drawn from 1 Cor. 5. standeth strong the weight of it not being laid upon tradere Satanae onely but upon vers 6. 7. 11 12. compared with 2 Cor. 2. 6. which undeniably prove Excommunication from Church fellowship The nineteenth Argument shall be drawn from Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compared with 1 Pet. 5. 2. 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Texts as they hold forth a Bishop and a Presbyter to be one and the same Iure divino so they hold forth the ruling power of Presbyters or Elders First Because otherwise the simile so much made use of in these Scriptures of overseeing the flock mentioned and joyned together with the feeding thereof will fall short in a main and most materiall point for the overseers of flocks do not onely make them to lye down in green pastures and lead them beside the still waters but they have also rodds and staves for ruling the flocks and for correcting and reducing the wandring sheep which will not be brought home by the voice of the shepheard Psal. 23. 2. 4. The Pastorall rod there mentioned by David is corrective as Clemens Alexandrinus paedag lib. 1. cap. 7. who doth also paralel it with that 1 Cor. 4. Shall I comâ— unto you with a rod Secondly Paul requireth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to take heed unto and to oversee the whole flock which did consist of more then did or could then meet together ordinarily into one place for the worship of God as appeareth by the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla which was one but not the onely one Church assembly at Ephesus by the great and wonderfull increase of the Gospel at Ephesus and such other Arguments which I do but point at the full debate of them not being my present work Peter also writing to the Churches of the strangers in severall provinces calls them the flock not flocks and commends unto the Elders the feeding and oversight of that flock Now what is it that can denominate many particular visible Churches or Congregations to be one visible ministeriall flock or Church unlesse it be their union and association under one Ecclesiasticall Government No doubt they had the administration of the Word and Sacraments partitive or severally Nor do I deny but they had a partitive several Government but there was also an union or association of them under one common Government which did denominate them to be one visible Ecclesiastical flock Thirdly The very name given to the Elders of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name of authority rule and government especially in the Christian and Ecclesiasticall use of the Word H. Stephanus in Thes. ling. Gr. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that the Elders of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit saith he those qui verbo gubernationi praeeraâ—…t Where he tells us also that the Magistrate or Praetor who was sent with a Judiciall power into those Townes which were undâ—r the power of the Athenians was called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Septuagints use the word Nehem. 11. 9. Ioel the son of Ziâ—…hri was their overfeer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Judah the son of Senuah was second over the City He that had but the second place was a Ruler how much more he that was in the first place Loe here the head and chief Ruler of the Benjamites called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Numb 31. 14. 2 Kings 11. 15. the chief officers of the Host the Captains over thousands and captains over hundreds are called by the Septuâ—gints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Hebrew words which they render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praefectus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praepositus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princeps Yea the name of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render by this word Iob. 20. 29. This is the portion of a wicked man from God and the heritage appointed to him by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek by the overseer even as the same name of Bishop is given to Christ 1 Pet. 2. 25. Conradus Kirchâ—…rus in the word Pakad tells us also that Gen. 41. 34. Lâ—…t Pharaoh do this and let him appoint Officers over the Land where the 70. read