dicitur Scriptura sacra aliud est verbum dei non scriptum dicitur ecclesiae traditio There is one vvord of God vvritten called the holy Scripture And there is another vvord of God not vvritten and it is called the Tradition of the Church Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture but another part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture then the body is a part of the soul or Scotland a part of England for both England and Scotland are collaterall parts of great Brittain the Scripture say they is the unperfect rule of Faith and not the compleat will of God as touching Faith or manners but Scripture and Tradition together are the perfect and totall rule so say Formalists that Scripture is the compleat and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Morall acts But the other part of the distinction is that Scripture is not a compleat and full rule to regulate all our Morall Acts whatsoever whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe for orders cause and obedience to my Superiours and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linnen creature called a Surplice or not to wear it or that I am to excercise or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Crosse the Air above the face of a Baptized Childe vvhile I baptize to betoken his dedication to Christs service And hitherto neither Traditions nor Positives of Church-Policy are added as necessary parts of written Scripture 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture by Papists as coming from the immediatly inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture more then our Ceremoniall Positives of policy It s true Papists say they come from an infallible spirit But Formalists I hope refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood yet in this they agree that Traditions are not added by them as descending from the immediate inspiring spirit of written Scripture Therefore Cornelius a Lapide saith Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor aliquid scilicet tanquam meum vel a me dictum aut jussum nulli enim homini licet prescripta aut precepta sua pro preceptis a deo a spiritu sancto immediatè inspirante dictatis aut pro Scripturis sacris addere It is not lavvfull for any man to adde to the vvord any thing of his ovvn as his ovvn or as spoken and commanded by himself For no man may broach his own injunctions and precepts as if they were the precepts taught by the immediate inspiring spirit speaking in the Scriptures Hence Papists teach that their Traditions flow from a little lower Spring then from the immediately inspiring Scripturall spirit So I make this good from famous Iesuites Cornelius a Lapide in Deut. 4. 1 2. saith Sed et ipsi judaei multa addiderunt legi ut coelaturas omnemque ornatum templi ut festum sortium sub Eester festum dati ignis festum Encaeniorum c. Hec enim non a deâ— sed a judaeis sancita et instituta sunt denique hec non sunt addita sed potius inclusa legi dei Quia Lex jubet obedire parentibus Magistratibuâ— pontificibus eorumque legibus The Jevvs saith he objecting the instances of Formalists added many things to the Lavv as the ingraving and adorning of the Temple the feast of Purim of Dedication c. And these traditions vvere not ordained and instituted by God Ergo not by the immediate inspiring spirit as is the Holy Scripture but by the Iews and they were not added to the Law but included in the Law because the Law biddeth obey Superiors and their Laws whence it is evident that these very Ceremoniall traditions of Papists for which Formalists contend are not added to the word as coming from God or the immediatly inspiring spirit that diteth scripture but from the Church without warrant of Scripture just as Popish traditions which we count unlawfull additions to the word And Tannerus the Iesuit saith Tom. 3. in 22. de fide spe et cha dis 1. de fide Q. 1. Dub. 8. That the assistance of the spirit that the Church hath in proposing unwritten traditions requireth no positive inspiration or speech made by God to the Church but it is enough that the Church have a very negativehelp of God only by which she is permitted not to erre His words are these Nam assistentia illa dei quà ecclesiae adest ne ejusmodo rebus fidei in traditionibus non scriptis proponendis erret por se non dicit nec requirit positivam inspirationem seâ— locuâ—â—onâ—m Divinam ipsi ecclesiae factam sed contenta est quovis auxilio dei etiam mere negativo quo fit ut ecclesia ijs in rebuus non sinatur errare Cum tamen nova revelatio utique novam inspirrtionem seu Locutionem dei aliquid positivè notificantem significet And the like saith Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog. That though traditions come from an infallible spirit no lesse then Scripture yet traditions are the Word of God because they are heard and constantly believed But the Holy Scripture is the Word of God because written by the inspiration of the holy spirit Q. 2. Art 1. Dub. 4. pag. 83. And therefore he maketh two sorts of traditions some meerly Divine vvhich the Apostles received either immediately from the Holy Ghost or from the mouth of Christ as those touching the matter and form of the Sacraments Others saith he are properly Apostolick as those touching the Lent Fast instituted by the Apostles ib. tract de trad Q. Vnic Dub. 1. Traditiones inquit per apostolos traditae aliae sunt Divinâ— quas immediatè ipsi a spiritu sancto dictante vâ—l ex ore Christi acceperunt ut de materia et potissimum de formis sacramentorum aliae autem propriâ— dicuntur Apostolica ut de Iejunijo Quadragesimali quod Apostoli Iâ—stituerunt Hence it is evident if Papists cannot but be condemned of impious additions to the Scriptures by these places Deut. 4. Deut. 12. Formalists are equally deep in the same crime and the same is the answer of Malderus ibid. Dub. 2. vetat Apoc. 22. Ne quis audeat Divinam prophetiam depravare assuendo aliquid aut abradendo Turrianus tom de fide spe et cha de traditio disp 20. Dub. 2. pag. 255. Respondetur Joannem planè probibere corruptionem Libri illius non tamen prohibet ne alij Libri scribantur vel alia Dogmata tradantur Stapletonus Relect. Prin. fidei Doct. Contaver 4. q. 1 Art 3. Sed non prohibet vel legis interpretationem per sacerdotes faciendam imò hoc disertè prescribit Deut. 17. Vel aliquid aliud in fidem admittendum qúod lege scriptâ non contineatur Alioqui quicquid postea prophetâ— predicaverunt et Divinis Scripturis adjectum est contra hoc dei mandatum factum
such mixed actions as these that are mentioned by Hooker As to move sleep take the cup at the hand of a friend cannot be called simply morall for to move may be purely naturall as if a man against his will fall off a high place or off a horse to start in the sleep are so naturall that I know not any morality in them but sure I am for Nathaniel to come to Christ which was also done by a naturall motion is not a meer naturall action proceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature so to sleep hath somewhat naturall in it for beasts do sleep beasts do move I grant they cannot take a cup at the hand of a friend they cannot salute one another It is Hookers instance but fancy sometimes in men do these whereas conscience should do them What is naturall in moving and sleeping and what is common to men with beasts I grant Scripture doth not direct or regulate these acts of moving and sleeping we grant actions naturall and common to us with beasts need not the rule of the Word to regulate them But this I must say I speak it my Record is in Heaven not to offend any Formalists as such and as Prelaticall are irreligious and Profane One of them asked a godly man Will you have Scripture for giving your horse a peck of Oats and for breaking winde and easing or obeying nature And therefore they bring in these instances to make sport But I conceive sleeping moderately to inable you to the service of God as eating drinking that God may be glorified 1 Cor. 10. 31. are also in the measure manner of doing Morall so ruled by Scripture and Scripture only and not regulated by naturall instincts But what is all this to the purpose are Surplice Crossing Saints-dayes such actions as are common to us with beasts as moving and sleeping are Or is there no more need that the Prelate be regulated in wearing his corner-Cap his Surplice in Crossing then a beast is to be ruled by Scripture in moving in sleeping in eating grasse 2. Expresse and actuall reference and intention to every Commandment of God or to Gods glory in every particular action I do not urge a habituall reference and intention I conceive is holden forth to us in Scripture 1 Cor. 10. 31. 3. God by every effect proceeding from the most concealed instinct of nature is made manifest in his power What then the power of God is manifest in the Swallows building her nest Ergo neither the Swallow in building her nest nor the Prelate in Crossing an Infant in Baptisme to dedicate him to Christ have need of any expresse or actuall reference to any Commandment of God or Gods glory Truly it is a vain consequence in the latter part except Hooker make Surplice Crossing and all the mutable Frame of Church-Government to proceed from the most concealed instincts of nature which shall be nâ—w Divinity to both Protestants and Papists And I pray you what power of God is manifest in a Surplice I conceive it is a strong Argument against this mutable frame of Government that it is not in the power of men to devise what Positive signes they please without the word to manifest the power wisdom and other attributes of God For what other thing doth the two Books opened to us Psal 19. The Book of Creation and Providence and the Book of the Scripture but manifest God in his nature and works and mans misery and Redemption in Christ Now the Prelats and Papists devise a third blanke book of unwritten Traditions and mutable Ceremonials We see no Warrant for this book 4. Hooker maketh a man in many Morall Actions as in wearing a Surplice in many actions flowing from concealed instincts of nature as in moving sleeping like either the Philosophers Civilian or Morall Athiest or like a beast to act things or to do by the meer instinct of nature Whereas being created according to Gods Image especially he living in the visible Church he is to do all his actions deliberate even naturall and morall in Faith and with a Warrant from scripture to make good their Morality Psa 119. 9. Prov. 3. 23 24. 2 Cor. 5. 7. And truly Formalists give men in their Morals to live at random and to walk without taking heed to their wayes according to Gods word Hooker It sufficeth that our Morall actions be framed according to the Law of reason the generall axiomes rules and principles of which being so frequent in holy Scripture there is no let but in that regard oven out of Scripture such duties may be deduced by some kinde of consequence as by long circuit of deduction it may be that even all truth out of any truth may be concluded howbeit no man be bound in such sort to deduce all his actions out of Scripture as if either the place be to him unknown whereon they may be concluded or the reference to that place not presently considered of the action shall in that be condemned as unlawfull Ans 1. The Law of reason in Morals for of such we now speak is nothing but the Morall Law and will of God contained fully in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and therefore is not to be divided from the Scriptures if a man be ruled in that he is ruled by Scripture for a great part of the Bible of the Decalogue is Printed in the reasonable soul of man As when he loveth his Parents obeyeth his superiors saveth his Neighbour in extream danger of death because he doth these according to the Law of Reason shall it follow that these actions which are expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2. 14. the things or duties of the Law are not warranted by expresse Scripture because they are done according to the Law of naturall reason I should think the contrary most true 2. Such duties saith he Morall duties I hope he must mean to God and our Neighbour may be deduced by some kinde of consequence out of Scripture But by what consequence Such as to Argue Quidlibet ex quolibet The Catechisme taught me long ago of duties to God and my Neighbour that they are taught in the ten Commandments Now if some Morall duties to God and man be taught in the ten Commandments and some not taught there 1. Who made this distinction of duties None surely but the Prelats and the Papists if the Scripture warrant some duties to God and our Neighbour and do not warrant some the Scripture must be unperfect 2. The warranting of actions that may be service to God or will-worship or homicide by no better ground then Surplice and Crosse can be warranted or by such a consequence as you may deduce all truth out of any truth is no warrant at all the Traditions of Papists may thus be warranted 3. Nor is the action to be condemned as unlawfull in it self because the agent cannot see by what consequence it is
skill'd Physitian forbiddeth him to drink wine the King is to obey him as a Physitian by vertue of the sixth command as the King would not kill himselfe And yet by vertue of the fifth command the Physitian being the Kings subject is subject to the Laws of the King The Queen of Scotland as a wife was to be subject to her Husband in the Lord as the Word of God commandeth Ephes 5. 22. and her owne Husband not being King but a subject was to obey his Wife the Princes and supream Magistrate according to the Word of God Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Tit. 3. 1. Yea all Arts have a sort of collaterall and co-equall dignity and we are to believe a skilled Artist in his owne Art though this Artist be a servant a vassal a slave to those who do yeild to him in his owne Art CHAP. XXV Quest 21. Objections touching the subordinations of Magistrate and Church removed THere is nothing more hated by the Adversaries then the pretended emulation of those two superlatives and highest powers Some Object 1. Are not all powers on earth subject to the Magistrate Ministers of the Gospel not excepted doth not the Magistrate command the Pastors to preach the Word Ans All power deviating offensively and to the disturbance of societies in Morals is subject to the Civill power and the Sword and every power failing against the Law and Gospel within the bosome of the Church is subject to the Word of God in the mouth of the Ministers who are nothing but Servants and Heralds so that the subjection is to God not to the Church and in a spirituall and Ecclesiasticall way See P. Martyr Lo. Com. l. 4. c. 13. seq It s but a poor evasion of Vedelius to say That the Magistrate is subject to the Church Catachrestice abusive unproperly and abusively 1. Because the Ministers as the Ambassadors of Christ do properly and not abusively preach the Gospel to Magistrates 2. Magistrates are not unproperly the sheepe of Christ yea they are to the adversaries chief Members of the Church Ergo they are that way subject as other Members as Pareus saith Com. Rom. 13. Nor 3. Will that prove any thing that the Pastors are Ministers not Lords for to people and Prince as they have souls to be saved they are Ministers and by this people should abusively be subiect as well as Magistrates But Vedelius freeth Magistrates from subjection to Pastors because they are subject to the Word of God not to Pastors but so are the people subject also the same way Obj. 2. Then may the Church censure all sinnes even those that are most proper to the civill judge such as sorcery parricide sodomie for the which the Magistrate is to draw the sword and for which the Lord made the land to cast out seven great Nations Ans The case is one within the Church and another without the Church 2. It is one in the case of a confused or backsâ—â—ding Church another in the Church rightly constitute and pure without the Church God intendeth nothing either in the intention of the worker or the work but the externall peace of humane society Then I grant the Magistrate is at the first without any previous labours of religious men to save the soul of the offender to take care of peace and the conservation of humane society But within the visible Church where the Gospel is preached it is presumed that God intendeth salvation in regard of the intention of the work the Gospel being preached to all within the visible Church if therefore any within the visible Church fall in horrible scandals and such as are capitall in the intention of Gods dispensation without the Church God intendeth nothing but peace But in regard of the intention of Gods dispensation within the Church where the Gospel is preached he intendeth both peace by the godly Magistrates care and eternall life by the preaching of the Gospel Because therefore life eternall is more necessary then externall peace it is necessary that the Church first labour to try cognosce of and cure the mans soul by rebukes threats conviction and if need be by excommunication that the souls of many may be saved from the contagion of scandal before the Magistrate punish either to death if the scandal so deserve or by any coactive way by the sword the genuine fruit whereof is not repentance and gaining of the mans soul except by accident and through the co-operation of a higher hand above nature even of free grace but the externall peace of the common-wealth hence in a constitute Church the Magistrate is not to proceed with the sword against the body of any Member of the Church while the Church first try and attempt how to save his soul therefore the Magistrate is to sentence none as punishable by the sword while first he be laboured on by the Church and upon a previous sentence of the Church then must the Magistrates judging of a scandalous Church-member be subsequent and the Churches judging antecedent But 2. If the Church be remisse this is a defect and somewhat extraordinary if the Magistrate command the Church to do their duty and they neglect to do it the Magistrates cognizance then may be antecedent and not consequent and the case of a Church erring in a fact is as if in that fact there were no Church Obj. 3. Those are subordinate to the Church whose judgement and sentences are subjected to the Church to be tryed or condemned by the Church but the judgement and sentences of the Magistrate are subjected to the Church Ergo and by the like they prove Pastors to be subjected to the Civill Magistrate because their preaching their dispensing of the seals their sentences in their Presbytery are subjected to the Magistrate so as he may absolve or condemne Ans Vedelius shall never prove the Major as touching the subjection or subordination in question he is subject to the Magistrate whose sentence or judgement is subject in an antecedent cognizance and in a coactive corporall way it is true But now the assumption is false in a constitute Church the sentence or thing sentenced or judged by the Church is subject to the Magistrate in a subsequent cognizance and in a corporall coactive way only But not in an antecedent cognizance and by a way of Ecclesiasticall censuring we acknowledge a subordination of the Churches sentence to the Magistrate in regard of the Magistrates externall care to punish iniquity in any not in regard of intrinsecall judging and dealing with the conscience the Church is to give a reason of their sentence from the Word of God to the Magistrate when he demandeth it Obj. 4. Ministers as Ministers are subjects of the King Ergo the King judgeth them as Ministers Ans I deny the antecedent The Ministery as such is an Ordinance of God and cannot be judged nor are Ministers nor Painters as Painters nor Musitians as Musitians nor Saylors
the Church in his dominion leave to live under him as Nebuchadnezzar did to the Church in captivity The Christian Magistrate is a Governour for the Church 1. Men are governed as men politically by Magistrates though Heathen 2. Men are governed as Christians and Citizens of Heaven and Members of Christs invisible body by the inward government of the Spirit and Word 3. Men are governed as Members of Christs visible Body in Church-society Ecclesiastically by Church-officers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13. 7. 13. who watcheth for our Souls and are over us in the Lord and must give an account to God whom we are to obey in a Church-society so Pilate is called Mat. 27. 2. it is given to Kings and Rulers 1 Pet. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 23. 24. so it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one that serveth Luk. 22. 26. no question it is a word borrowed from the seventy interpreters who use it Iosh 13. 21. Mich. 3. 9. Ezech. 44. 3. Dan. 3. 2. the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thes 5. 12. are ascribed to Church-officers Yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler or a Commander Act. 23. 5. is ascribed to the High-Priest who was but a Church-officer and the stile given to Rulers Exod. 22. 28. from which these words are taken is Gods so Ioh. 10. 35 36. compared with Psal 82. 1. Exod. 21. 6. and proveth the same though Church-officers be onely Ministers not Lords not Princes having any dominion over the Lords inheritance Obj. 8. But is not this an easie way to extricate our selves out of all doubts if we say in Church-government that the doctrinal and declarative part is in the Ministers of Christ as Mat. 28. Go teach c. and the punitive and censuring part in the Christian Magistrate Rom. 13. according to that for the punishing of evill doers as Mr. Coleman saith Ans This Erastian way will intricate us not a little and is destructive of the Covenant of both Kingdoms 1. It s a distinction void of Scripture and reason for the Apostolick Churches by it must have no Government as Churches at all for to publish the Gospel which is made the one half Yea all Church-government for this punitive part is a dream is not Church-government nor any part thereof 1. Master Coleman desires that the Parliament would give to preachers Doctrine and power of preaching and wages learning and competency as for Governing of the Church let the Magistrate have that Ministers have other work to do and such as will take up the whole man Sermon Pag. 24 25. Then preaching the Word to the Church cannot be any part of Governing of the Church 2. Because Church government is properly acted by the Church with the power of the keyes to bind and loose in earth as in Heaven by Church-censures and pardoning of an offender and committed to many to the Church to a society gathered together Mat. 18. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. But publishing of the Gospel is done by one single Pastor even to the end of the world even where there is no Church even in the hearts of the Athenienses Act. 17. 33 34. of Felix Act. 24. 25. of the Iayler not Baptised Act. 16. 29 30 31. of the woman of Samaria Ioh. 4. 28 29 30. The Gospel exerciseth a doctrinall and externall government on thousands the like without the Church visible yea and who never are members of a visible Church is this any Church-government of which we now speak and in all the Scripture a power of the keyes to govern the visible Church was never committed to any one single man by Iesus Christ if an Apostolick-priviledge of Pauls excommunicating his alone be objected I can easily answer Apostles continue not to the end of the world 2. This doctrinal publishing of the word is the plants and flowers of the Gardens but Church-government is the hedge and those two are not to be confounded 3. Paul differenceth them as two distinct qualities of a Preacher 1 Tim. 3. while he will have him apt to teach ver 2. and v. 4 5. one that can rule the Church of God well and 1 Tim. 5. 17. ruling well is distinguished from labouring in the Word and Doctrine as a charge worthy of lesse honour from a charge worthy of double honour 4. All Protestant Divines distinguish Doctrine and Government the former belonging to the being and essence of a visible Church as an essentiall note thereof I mean the publike and settled publishing of the Gospel the other is only a thing belonging to the well being of the visible Church and an accident thereof so it is a heedlesse tenent to make the former a part with the latter 5. When we swear a conformity of Doctrine and worship in one Confession one Catechisme one Directory we do not swear the same over again when we swear to endeavour the nearest uniformity in Church-government c. which we cannot but do if the Doctrine and Worship be nothing but a part of Church-government or if it be all Church-government nâ—w if Mr. Colemans punitive part be but his own dream as I hope is easily proved there is no Church Government at all Now how Mr. Coleman did swear to indeavour the nearest uniformity of a Chimera and a thing that is just nothing let himself consider As for Mr. Colemans punitive part of Church Government by the Magistrate this by his way is done by the power of the sword of the Magistrate saith he and therefore citeth Rom. 13. He beareth not the sword in vain c. Hence either the Apostolique Church had no censures at all and so no visible government and order but preaching of the Word was all and except we would adde to our pattern and be more wise then the Holy Ghost and the Apostles we ought to have no Church Government but onely preaching the Word or then the Apostles Pastors and Teachers medled with the sword of the Emperour Nero in discharging the punitive part for with no other instrument doth the Magistrate punish ill-doers but with the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. This text Mr. Coleman citeth to make bloody Nero a Church-governour But no ground is for this in the Word that Paul Peter Timothy Archippus meddled with the Emperours sword or that the weapons of their warfare were carnal or that Paul was the Minister of God bearing the sword for the punishment of evil doers I think Paul speaketh of civil bodily punishing Rom. 13. and no violence greater can be offered to the Word of God for if that power be an Ecclesiastical administration every soul and so the Christian Magistrate is to be subject to this Ecclesiastical and Church power and if so then to the Church If Mr. Coleman deny the consequence I conceive to be subject to the Magistrate is Rom. 13. to be subject
your selfe I am not to reprove a scorner because of the scandall he shall but trample as a sow upon any word of reproofe yet the scandall were causleâ—ly taken if we should doe so The good word of God should furnish no just cause to him yet am I not taking from God his due and your bare word that this is disobedience to Superiours not to practise Pearth Ceremonies is not enough to us 2. Your probation is weak That children and wife keep company with the Excommunicate father is a commandement of the law of nature and Gods necessary law and to deny this to an husband and father is such a sinne as the eschewing of a scandall can never legitimate but I hope kneeling to Bread and Crossing and Surplice commanded in our Canons and Service-book are at the best commanded by a positive law and not commanded in the law of nature and so very unlike to naturall duties that wife and children owe to father and husband 3. I retort this Argument We may not wrong men in that which is their due Ergo We may not wrong God in his due but it is his due Murther not him for whom Christ died practise not Ceremonies before the weake who shall be scandalized thereat Duplyers 5. arg n. 40. What if the thing be commanded by the Civill Magistrate under paine of death and by Ecclesiasticall authoritie under paine of Excommunication shall we for feare of scandall causlesly taken which may be removed by information or for the scandall of the malitious abstaine from a thing lawfull and expedient injoyned by authoritie and incurre these grievous punishments of death temporall and spirituall We believe your selves who speake most of scandall would be loath to take such a yoake upon you Answer The first part of this Argument is Logick from a sore skinne That which we are bidden doe under paine of death that we must doe the just logick of the King of Babylon to prove it is lawfull to worship the Kings golden Image Dan. 3. 15. I have scarce heard Papists for shame presse to conclude the equity and lawfulnesse of a Law from the penaltie of a law Suffering as your Jesuits and Arminians teach you falleth not under Free-will and is not culpably evill nor is Excommunication except you be Papists death of the soule when the cause of Excommunication is not just and deserveth no censure but it may be some of you think Mr. Sibbald I know doth it that Navarrus and their Gregorie said true that unjust Excommunication is valid and to be feared but if this argument as I see not head nor feet in it be founded upon the lawfulnesse and expediencie of Ceremonies commanded then not to practise them at all So first they be lawfull 2 Expedient 3 Commanded by lawfull authority is sinne and all sinne is a death of the soule and then you may put your Argument from grievous punishments of body and soule in your pocket for it is of no use here for whether punishment Civill or Ecclesiastick follow upon disobedience to Superiours it is sinne 3. That none of us would die or be Excommunicated for eschewing Scandall is no good argument though many have suffered as hard as death banishment and proscription of all and Excommunication also But the truth is you might have said Shall we incurre for scandall the losse of our stâ—pends and one faire before the wind qualification for a Bishoprick Duplyers 6. arg pag. 64. n. 41. Sixtly The denying of obedienâ—e to the lawfull commandements of our Superiours is forbidden in the â—iâ—â— commandement and consequently it is sinne shall we then for a scandall causlesly taken deny obedience to our Superiours and so incurre the guiltiness of sinne Ye commonly answer to this that the negative part of the fift Commandement wâ—â—ch forbiddeth the resisting of the power Rom. 13 2. is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandall taken by others For â—â— we say say â—â— that any may or will take offence at the â—â—ing of that which is commanded by our Superiours we are not holden to oby them 42. But first we aâ—ke what â—arr and ye have â—o say that the negative part of the fift Commandement â—â— to be understood wâ—â—â— the exception of the case of Scandall more then other negative precepts in the second Table Answer â— To fill the field an Argument already answered is brought again to make the figure of fiâ— up The refusall of the Ceremonies till they be tryed in lawfull Assembly is not forbidden in the fift Commandement prove that and take it with you 2. You bring an Answer as commonly given â—â— us that is neither ours commonly nor rarely but it is good build a strawâ—astle and you may soone cost a fire-ball at it and blow it up We never taught that the negative part of the fifâ— Commandement is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandall taken by others For this includeth all scandalls both passive and active Who of ours ever dreamed such a thing if Superiours command what God commandeth before them doe we teach that because others take scandall at that Command therefore we are not holden to obey that is scandall taken not given We teach no such thing Rulers command to honour father and mother if any take offence at this commandement and obedience to either the affirmative or negative part of it we are not to esteeme that scandall the weight of a feather the Commandement obliedgeth But this we teach if when the matter of the Commandement of Rulers is indifferent as you plead Ceremonies to be if from obeying of these any weake or wicked be scandalized then the Rulers doe command spirituall murther and then their commandement is no commandement noâ— is it the fift Commandement It is just like this You shall not refuse obedience to your Rulers commanding you to rubbe your beards when you come to the Church or to draw a crosse line with your thumbe in the aire above a baptized infants forehead though many soules by obedience to these Commandements be induced to love Poperie many be made sad thinking zealous Rulers love popish toyes better then the simplicitie of the Gospell Now such is the Commandements of Pearth-articles and these suffer no exceptions for we judge them no Commandements at all and if any such be injoyned upon pretence of any other of the nine Commandements we hold them to be impious commandements and no obedience to be given to them at all So if according to the sixt Commandement and the seven and eight Rulers command to run Carts amongst a multitude of young Children whence killing of some might fall out If they should command a young man and a faire virgine to chamber together and command Paul in the case he was at Corinth to take stipend though it should hinder the progresse of the Gospell as 1 Cor. 9. 23. all these were to command culpable scandalls and were unlawfull as
appointed yet is it not Morall that a Pastor be such or such a Country man so he be apt to teach and holy Crossing signifying the dedication of the Baptized Childe to the service of Christ must be Morall but what sort of River the â—â—ter of Baptisme be is meerly Physicall not Morall So there be two sort of things in Gods Worship things either meerly Morall or meerly Naturall And here also we consider things Circumstantiall as Time Place c. And circumstances are either meerly Physicall or 2. meerly Morall or 3. mixt partly Morall partly Physicall Circumstances meerly Physicall are such adjuncts of divine worship as are common and unseparable concomitants of both civil naturall and Religious or Sacred actions performed by men and as they are such contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the action or Agent in the performance thereof such as I take to be the seven individuall proprieties of every man Forma figura locus tempus strips patria nomen under Forme and figure The first two I comprehend such a proportion of body a man of a high stature or low a man beautifull or not beautifull to which I crave leave to reduce all externall Formes of habites as cloathes the head covered or not covered the situation of the body as as they are in themselves meer Physicall acts kneeling sitting standing the eyes cast down to the earth or lifted up the hands lifted up or not lifted up the knocking on the breast or not knocking motions of the soul that are naturall Time Place Family Country Name as such a person Thomas not Iohn the son of such a man not of such a man 1. All these are common concomitants of Civill Naturall and Religious actions for all actions performed by man of what kinde soever as naturall to eat sleep or civill to declaime an oration before the people or religious to preach or pray must be done by some persons Iohn or Thomas men of some Family in some time in some place for they are not actions eternall and so must be done in time and place so the Agents must have some habite some gesture in the doing of all these actions and they are unseparable Adjuncts of all these actions because neither actions naturall civill nor Religious can be performed but by some persons in some habite and gesture in some time in some place and lastly they are meere circumstantials and contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the actions as they are but common and unseparable circumstances for because he preacheth in time or in place simply the preaching is neither Morally good nor ill better or worse because Thomas prayeth in Gown or Cloak in this place rather then that place so it be not Locus ut sic of intention such a Religious place before the Image of Christ or the Father or the Virgin Mary the praying is neither the more or the lesse acceptable to God because of these common and unseparable adjuncts Hence there can be no such force in these circumstances as to make the actions indifferent Such as contend for the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies say our circumstances of time place and the like is nothing but a meerblinde for we cannot say they enumerate all these circumstances for habite gesture person are not meer circumstances and they mustcome in under the lap of this general c. or the like To which I answer that to my knowledge all these that are meer Physical circumstances are particularly enumerated such as are 1. Time 2. Place 3. Person or Agent 4 Name 5. Family 6. Condition as Country Family House 7. Habits or Garments 8. Gestures as sitting standing lifting of the eyes or hands knocking on the breast kneeling and there is no blinde in this enumeration for there be no other particulars that can be enumerated except this time of the day eight or ten of clock this place not any other this person not another and these are only considered here as circumstances not as such and such circumstances but the truth is the enumeration of Symbolicall Rites as Crosse Surplice and the like is really a blinde and is an enumeration with a wide belly and includeth species and not individuals only as Symbolicall Ceremonies such as are Crossing Bells Oyle Salt Spettle Milk turning to the East toward the people from the people toward the Altar with a high voice with a low voice and a thousand the like yea all the old Ceremonies of Moses with a new face all the toyes of the Masse of the Dedication of Churches which would fill a Volumne like the Rationale of Durandus 2. Some Circumstances are meerely Morall for as Divines distinguish Time and Place in Time as Time and as such a Religious Time the Lords Sabbath Tempus tempus ut sic and Place as Place or such a Religious place Locus locus ut sic So we may distinguish here between circumstances in common or in grosse and such and such circumstances As time is a common adjunct of Divine Worship But such a time to wit the Lords-day is both the time of Worship and Worship it self So there is place of Worship and there is such a Religious place The holy of holiest the Temple A habit is a meer accident of Worship the person John or Thomas is also an accident but if God command such an Ephod as Aaron and the Priests were to wear this is not a meer circumstance that the person who administreth the Lords-Supper be John or Thomas is a meer circumstance but that this person be a called Pastor not a private man is more then a circumstance And therefore these circumstances taken in common and their Universall nature are meerly Physicall circumstances but taken in their particular and determinate restrictions as such circumstances they may be meerly Morall circumstances such as are the common adjunct of the time of Worship the place and the Sabbath time and the Temple for Iewish Worship The former are circumstances meerly Physicall the latter meerly Morall I mean as they are restricted other wayes The Temple of Jerusalem served as our meeting places do to sence off the injuries of Heaven and Sun but that is as a place not as such a place 3. There be some mixt circumstances as these same Physicall circumstances clothed with their own seasonable conveniences so time for Worship and due and convenient time is required there may be some Scandalous and Superstitious time for Worship A habit in the Preacher is required and that a grave one a place is required for private Worship and a fit place such as is not the Market-street for private Praying the inconveniency of the circumstance may vitiate the Worship I did say that Christ Iesus hath set down in the Word a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in all Morals I say in all Morals because the Word doth not teach us any thing of circumstances Physicall as Physicall Scriptura talia non ponit sed
of adoring God Obedience is founded not formally upon Gods excellency properly so called but upon his jurisdiction and Authority to Command Adoration is the subjection or prostration of soul or body to God in the due recognition and acknowledgement of his absolute supremacy There is no need that Vasquez should deny that there is any internall Adoration for that Adoration is only an externall and bodily Worship of God can hardly be defended for there may be and is Adoration in the blessed Angels as may be gathered from Isa 6. 1 2 3. Hâ—b 1. 6. And it is hard to say that the glorified spirits loosed out of the body and received by Christ Act. 7. 59. Psal 73. 27. Into Paradice Luk. 23. 43. And so with him Philip. 1. 23. And Praying under the Altar Rev. 6. 9 10. And falling down before the Lamb and acknowledging that he hath Redeemed them Rev. 5. 8 9 10. do not Adore God and his Son Christ because they have nor bodies and knees to bow to him and yet they Adore him Phil. 2. 9 10. in a way suitable to their spirituall estate It is an untruth that Rapha de la Torres in 22. q. 84. Art 2. disp 2. n. 1. saith That Protestants detest all externall Worship now under the New Testament as contrary to Grace and Adoration of God in spirit and truth For things subordinate are not contrary we should deny the necessity of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and of vocall praying and praising under the New Testament which are in their externals externall worship I grant internall Adoration is more hardly known But 't is enough for us to say as externall Adoration is an act by which we offer our bodies to God and subject the utter man to him in sign of service and reverence to so supream a Lord so there is a heart-prostration and inward bowing of the soul answerable thereunto As the profession whither actuall or habituall in a locall and bodily approach or in verball titles of Honour in which we Honour great personages by bowing to them in prostration and kneeling is an act in its state Civill not Religious we intending I presse not the necessity of a â—ormall or actuall intention only to conciliate Honour to them suitable to their place and dignity so a profession whither actuall or habituall in a Religious bodily approach to God either by prayer or prostration or inâ—lination of the body tending to the Honour of God is a Religious act Now bodily prostration of it self is a thing in its nature indifferent and according as is the object so is it either Artificiall as if one should stoop down to drive a wedge in an image or civill if one bow to Honour the King or Religious when God and Divine things are the object thereof But with this difference the intention of the minde added to externall prostration to a creature reasonable may make that prostration idolatrous and more then civill honour Thus bowing to Haman Honoured by Ahasuerus who hath power to confer honours if people bow to him as to God is more then civill honour And Cornelius his bowing to Peter Act. 10. as to more then a man is Idolatrous and not civill honour and the Carpenters bowing to an Image as to a piece of Timber formed by Art is only Artificiall bowing and if any stumble at a stone before an Image and so fall before it it is a casuall and naturall fall whereas a falling down with intention to Adore had been Religious Adoring But when the object of bodily prostration or kneeling is God or any Religious representation of God whither it be the elements of bread and wine which are Lawfull Images of Christ or devised pictures or portraicts of God or Christ because these objects are not capable of artificiall naturall or civill prostration if therefore they be terminating objects of bodily kneeling or prostration these Religious objects to wit God and Religious things must so specifie these bodily acts as that they must make them Religious not civill acts though there be no intention to bow to God for bowing to God hath from the object that it is a Religious bowing though you intend not to direct that bowing to God as bowing to Jupiters Portraict is a Religious Worshipping of that Portraict though you intend not to worship the Portraict for the act and Religious object together maketh the act of prostration or kneeling to be essentially Religious though there be no intention to bow to these indeed the intention to bow to God maketh kneeling to God to be more Morally good laudable and acceptable before God then if therewere no such intention but the want of the intention maketh it not to be no Religious worship nor can it make it to be civill worship Hence let this be observed that intention of bowing can or may change that bowing which otherwayes were but civill if there were no such intention of over-esteeming the creature into a Religious bowing but neither our over or under-intention can change a Religious kneeling to God or to an Image into a civill kneeling because civill or naturall bowing to creatures is more under the power of an humane and voluntary institution of men then Religious bowing which hath from God without any act of mans free will its compleat nature When we kneel to Kings we signifie by that gesture that we submit our selves to higher powers not simply saith P. Martyr but in so far as they Command not things against the Word of the Lord. When we Adore God we Adore him as the Supream Majesty being ready to obey him in what he shall Command without any exception the Adoration of men signifieth a submission limited if it go above bounds it is the sinfull intention of the Adorer who may change the civil Adoration into Religious and may ascend But the Aderation of God cannot so descend as it can turn into Civill Adoration only keeping the same object it had before Worship is an action or performance or thing by which we tender our immediate honour to God from the nature of the thing it self 1. I call it an action because the passion of dying or suffering is not formally worship but only dying comparatively rather then denying of Christ or dying so and so qualified dying with Patience and Faith may be called a worship 2. I call it not an action only but a performance or thing because an office as the Priesthood the Ministery is a worship and yet not an action Sometime Time it self as the Sabbath Day is a Worship yet it is not an action So the Lord calleth it His Holy Day and undenyably the lewish dayes the High Priests garment and many things of that kinde were Divine or Religious performances things or adjuncts of Divine Worship but so as they are not meerly adjuncts of Worship but also worship for the High Priests Ephod was not only a civil ornament nor was it a
they distribute to wicked and scandalous men such Ordinances as they see shall certainly be judgement and damnation to them and as maketh the Communicants guilty of the body and blood of our Lord Now that the Stewards Communicate with the sins of these manifestly scandalous to whom they administrate the Supper I prove 1. Because they that sow pillows under the head of the openly wicked preaching peace to these who should die do hunt souls Ezech. 13. 20. and partake of their presumption and they that heal the wound of the people with smooth words are false dealers and concurreth to the wound of the people Ier. 8. 10 11. As the Prophet that preacheth lies partaketh of the peoples presumption which believe those lies Ier. 14. 14 15 16. 2. If Eve should but reach the fruit of the forbidden Tree to Adam and say take and eat she partakes of Adams sin if the mother give poyson willingly and wittingly to a childe she killeth her childe though it be told the childe that it is poyson The Supper to those who knowingly to us eat unworthily is forbidden meat and poyson 3. A third Argument is from the nature of holy things It is not lawfull to give that which is holy to dogs nor to cast pearles before swine least they trample them under their feet Matth. 7. 6. But the Sacraments are holy things saith Erastus and no man can deny it Ergo we are not to give the Sacraments to the scandalous and openly prophane But Erastus answereth That the Lord preached the word to Pharisees and the word is a holy thing and a pearl and by Dogs and swine he meaneth open persecutors They that will seem members of the Church and confesse their fault and promise amendment are not such as will trample on the Sacraments and will turn again to tear you Et si quis talis reperiatur hunc ego admittendum minime censeo for such saith he Are not to be admitted to the Sacrament Ans These holy things which prophane men and openly scandalous can make no use of but pollute them to their own destruction and the abusing of the Ordinances no more then Dogs and Swine can make use of Pearls to feed them but onely trample on them are not to be given to the prophane and openly scandalous But the Lords Supper is such a thing being Ordained only for those that have saving Grace not for Dogs Now the Assumption applied to the word is most false as it is applied to the Lords Supper it is most true for the Word is Ordained by speciall Command to be Preached to Dogs and Lions that thereby they may be made Isa 11. 4 5 6 7. Isa 2. 3. 4. Lambs and Converts the Supper is not a mean of Conversion and since Dogs can make no use of it but trample it under foot we are forbidden to give such holy things to them It is true They 'll trample the Pearl of the word but we are Commanded to offer the word to all even while they turn Apostates 2. If Christ Commanded the word to be Preached to Pharisees and Saduces these were such persecuters as sinned against the Holy Ghost Dogs in the Superlative degree Matth. 12. 31 32. Joh. 9. 39 40 41. Joh. 7. 28. Joh. 8. 21. Ergo Christ Commanded some holy things the word to be given to Dogs and yet his precept cannot be obeyed if we give them the Sacrament 3. By what Doctrine of Scripture will Erastus have these that trampleth on Ordinances and turn again to tear us debarred from the Supper For in his Thes 26. 27 28 29. he holdeth it unlawfull to debar any Judas from the Supper doth he think there be no Dogs in the Visible Church Peter saith There be such Dogs as have known the way of truth and turn to their vomit and such may promise amendment confesse their sin and desire the Sacrament 4. Arg. Those who will not hear the Church but doth scandalize not only their Brethren but also a whole Church and are to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans are not to be admitted to the highest priviledge and to feast with Christ when the Church knoweth they want their wedding garment But there may be and are many in the Church of this sort Ergo such should not be admitted For the Major I set down the words of Erastus granting it The Assumption both Scripture and experience proveth for there be in the Visible Church Dogs Persecuters Jezabels as there be many called and few chosen 5. Arg. If the incestuous man must be cast out lest he leaven the Church then can he not be admitted to Communicate with the Church in that which is the highest seal of Christs love but the incestuous man must be cast out lest he leaven the whole Church 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 c. Ergo The Proposition is clear because none can be put out of the Church but they must be separated from the Table of the Children of the Church the Assumption is 1 Cor. 5 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Put him out ver 7. Purge him out Now the Church hath no power by bodily violence to attempt a locall separating of him in person from them as they are men though they may separate themselves from him then it must be a declarative casting of him out as unworthy to Communicate with the Church in such holy Ordinances as distinguisheth the Church from other Societies and these be the Seals of the Covenant 6. We are not to suffer sin in any Levit. 18. 17. Rev. 2. 20. but to hinder it so far as we can according to our vocation 1 Sam. 3. 13. As the Priests hindred Vzziah to Sacrafice 2 Chron. 26. 18 19 20. And must pull them out of the fire Jude ver 23. As the Law of nature would teach the Mother not only not to co-operate with her sonne attempting to kill himself but to hinder and stop him by pulling a knife or sword out of his hand when he is about to destroy himself if so then ought not the Church and her Officers to co-operate so far with those who do Eat and drink their own Damnation as to exhibite and give to such the seals of the Covenant to pray that these seals may be blessed to scandalons ones which is to pray directly contrary to the revealed will of God in his word and against that which the faithfull Pastors and Paul Preacheth That every one should try and examine themselves and so eat and drink Now a reall and physicall co-operating of the Church with such manifest impiety must then be the Churches suffering of sin in a brother or not hindring him â—o eat his own Damnation if the Lord have committed a power of dispensing the seals to Christians not to Pagans and Turks Let Erastus show any precept or practise why we might not admit Jews Turks Indians though never Baptized to eat and drink the Lords body and blood we are to Preach
Paul for fear of the iniquity of this Church or Sanedrim dealt with them as Heathen and appealed to Cesar Ans But by what Law of God did they this It is not denyed but the Iews Synedrim being two courts did inflict punishment But that Christ establisheth a civill Sanedrim as a mean Matth. 18. To gain the soul of a brother is now the question we utterly deny this and gave reasons before thereof to which I adde if any obeyed not the Church that is the Sanedrim as Erastus saith they might be stoned to death as Steven was Was this Christs milde way to cite them onely before the Romane Senate Were dead men capable of answering to any further Iudicatures 2. The last step of conveening Heathens and Publicans before the Romane Senate according to Christs order is not to be observed with them for even Heathens and Publicans are so far forth our brethren that 1. We are not when they offend us to suffer sin in them but to rebuke them as Christians Lev. 19. 18. For this is the Law of nature The Law of nature will teach us not to hate an Heathen in our heart 2. We are to labour to gain all even those that are without the Church 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. 1 Pet. 3. 1. And this is Christs way of gaining all to rebuke and admonish them Ergo it was never Christs meaning to deal with Heathens and Publicans so as at the first we are to drag them before the Heathen Magistrate that by his sword he may gain them or take away their life yea and Erastus granteth in Ecclesiasticall crimes that the Iews had power of life and death in the matter of Steven and of Paul if he had not appealed to Cesar to save his head Josephus de bel Judaic Lib. 5. Cap. 26. Antiquit. Lib. 14. Cap. 12. But in things politick Cesar took all power of life and death from them Hence only is Christs time the footsteps of the two distinct courts remained and the Priests not the civill Magistrate had the power of Church-discipline But all was now corrupt CHAP. IX Quest 5. The place 1 Cor. 5. for Excommunication vindicated from the Objections of Erastus Erastus Paul did nothing contrary to the Command of Christ But Christ excluded no man from the Passeover not Iudas Ergo Neither minded â—e to exclude the incestuous man he saith not 1 Cor. 5. Why debarred you him not from the Sacrament But why did you not obtain by your tears and prayers as Augustine expoundeth it that the man might be cut off by death Ans Christ would not take the part of a visible Church on him to teachus that none should be cast out of the Church for secret and latent crimes 2. Paul did nothing without the Command of Christ But Christ neither in the Old or New Testament commanded his Church to pray for the miraculous cutting off of a scandalous person give an instance in all Scripture except you make this one which is contraverted your instance Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth the man from all punishment and nameth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuking Ergo He was not excluded from the Sacrament Ans Exclusion from the Sacrament is but one of the fruits of Excommunication not formally Excommunication yet he harpeth on this alway that to be excommunicated or to be delivered to Satan is but to be debarred from the Sacrament 2. The answer presupposeth he was Excommunicated we urge the place for a precept only of Excommunication if he repented to the satisfying of the Church there was no need of Excommunication 3. If the man 2 Cor. 2. was delivered from rebuke onely and if that was all his punishment Ergo he was not miraculously cut off for then he must have been miraculously cut off and raised from death to life againe unlesse miraculous cutting off had been no punishment But if he was not miraculously cut off because he prevented it then with what faith could the whole Church pray for the miraculous killing of a brother and not rather that he might repent and live 4. In all the Word of God the intrinsecall end of putting to death a Malefactor is to avenge Gods quarrell Rom. 13. 4. That all Israel may hear and feare and doe no more any such wickednes Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sinne off the Land Numb 34. 33 34. that the Lords anger may be turned away and a common plague on the Church stayed when justice is executed on the ill doer Psal 106. 28 29 30 31. And it concerneth the Church and Common-wealth more then the soule of the Malefactor and there is nothing of such an end here But the intrinsecall end here is that the mans Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus and this delivering to Satan is in the Name and authority and by the power of the Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the Sonne of man came to save soules not to destroy bodies and burne cities and though by the power of Christ Peter miraculously killed Ananias and Saphira and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blinde yet these being Miracles we heare not that this was done by any interveening act of the Church conveened or by their prayers to bring vengeance by a miracle on the ill doâ—r Peter and Paul doe both these not asking any consent or intervention of the peoples prayers but by immediate power in themselves from the Lord Jesus 2. If any such power were given to the Church by their Prayers to obtain from God a miraculous killing of all scandalous persons who infecteth the Church in case the civill Magistrate were an Heathen and an enemy to Christian Religion and refused to purge the Church Christ who provideth standing remedies for standing diseases must have left this miraculous power to all the christian Churches in the earth that are under Heathen Magistrates or some power by way of Analogie like to this to remove the scandalous person but we finde not any such power in the Churches under Heathen Magistrates except power of refusing to the offender the Communion and rejecting him as an Heathen and Publican that he may be ashamed and repent 3. The whole faithfull at Corinth men women and children and all the Saints for to those all iâ— this power given as Erastus saith must have had a word of promise if they ought to have prayed in faith as the Prophets and Apostles prayed in faith that they might work miracles that Paul was miraculously to kill the incestuous man But that all and every one who were puffed up and mourned not at this mans fall had any such word of promise I conceive not imaginable by the Scriptures for the Proposition I take it as undeniable if Paul rebuked the Corinthians all and every one because they prayed not and mourned not to God that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man they behoved to have
is not to kill were Hymeneus and Alexander delivered to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme what learning or Discipline can dead men be capable of 2. There 's need of mourning when any is cut off from Christs body it being the highest judgement of God on earth 3. Without the visible Church altogether as Heathens are there is no salvation But to be so without the Church as the casting out is a medicinall punishment That the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord is a mean to bring the soul in to both the invisible and visible Church and putteth none in that state that they cannot be saved but by the contrary in a way to be saved so the man periret nisi periret Erastus It would seem it may be proved from the Text that the man persevered not in that wickednesse for the Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done and that hath wrought this deed not he that doth this deed and therefore it seems Paul would inflict punishment as a good Magistrate useth to do even though the man repent and he saith that his spirit may be saved then the man repented Ans 1. Reconcile these two Paul was as a good Magistrate to kill the man though he should repent and yet at their intercession saith Erastus he did forgive him durst Paul at the request of men pardon a Malefactor contrary to the duty of a good Magistrate 2. Can Paul intend in miraculous killing only the saving of the mans soul and knowing that he was saved and having obtained his end yet he will use the mean that is he will kill him or if he intended another end also that others might fear how could he not kill for this end A good Magistrates zeal should not be softned and blunted for the request of men Erastus he saith He decreed to deliver the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the soul may be saved now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to give over to permit here a person given a person to whom a person giving to wit Paul and the end wherefore that the spirit may be saved it is as if I would give my son to a Master either to be instructed or chastised so 1 Tim. 1. Act. 27. 28. Matth. 5. 18. Matth. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 15. The brother shall deliver the brother to death and the Lord saith to Satan behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give him to thee this is to deliver one afflicted killed condemned Ans All this is needlesse to be delivered over is to be recommended and taken in a good sense also Act. 14. 26. Commended to the grace of God Act. 15. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we deny not but to be delivered to Satan is to be delivered to be afflicted but the question is what affliction is meant here the affliction of the flesh say we or of the unrenewed part opposed to a saved spirit Erastus It is unpossible that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destruction can be shown to signifie the destruction of the desires of sinfull flesh in all the New-Testament it alwayes signifieth killing death destruction nor doth the thing it self compell us to take it other wayes here nor for killing and death as 1 Thes 5. It is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to kill destroy crucifie are so taken but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in either sacred or prophane Authors Ans I conceive Chrysostom knew Greek better then Erastus the man was delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he might scourge him as he did Job with a hurtfull boyle or some other sicknesse Hence as that learned and judicious Divine who hath deserved excellently of the Protestant Churches Petrus Molineus saith on the place Chrysostom Homo Grece eloquentiae Râ—rum exemplum A rare example of Grecian eloquence doth think per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word destruction not death but some heavy torment to be meant And I am sure Hieronymus a man in the tongues incomparably skilled said by destruction here was meant jejunia egrotationes fasting and diseases 2. Nor need we contend for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in all Authors of the world signifieth destruction for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to destroy the question will rather be what is meant by the flesh but certainly it is in prophane Greek Authors as unusuall I except sacred Greek Authors such as Basil Chrysostom who knew what mortification meant to speak as Paul doth Rom. 8. 13. If ye mortifie the deeds of the flesh ye shall live Let Erastus finde me a parallel to that in the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think Erastus may not deny that this is to mortifie the sinfull works of the body of sin yet Aristotle Plato Lucian Plutarch Hâ—siod Homer nor any prophane Greek Author ever spake so We shall therefore deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth never to Greek Authors any thing but bodily death for 2 Thess 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting destruction is some more then bodily destruction 3. We say it is unpossible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be showen to signifie in either Old or New Testament a miraculous destroying of the body by Satan we retort this reason back upon Erastus his Exposition is not tollerable because it wanteth a parallel place it is his own reason Erastus The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body not of concupiscence because he addeth that the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be saved here the soul is opposed to the body Ans Though we should grant that by the flesh is meant the body yet it followeth not it is the miraculous killing of the man as I observed before 2. It maketh nothing against Excommunication for many learned Protestants teach that though to deliver to Satan were a bodily punishment or conjoyned therewith as the Learned Anto. Waleus doth observe yet the Apostle is clear for Excommunication in this chapter the learned Molineus denyeth delivering to Satan to be expounded of Excommunication and will have the destruction of the flesh to be some bodily tormenting of his body by Satan so doth sundry of the Fathers especially Ambrose Hyeronimus Augustinus and Chrysostom though Augustine be doubtful Yet Molineus saith Certum est paulum velle hunc incestum moveri communione Ecclesia sed id vult fieri ab ipsa Ecclesia Corâ—nthiacâ dicens ver 13. Tollite istum sceleratum è medio vèstrúm And that grave and judicious Divine Piscator saith on the place That the forme of Excommunication is this delivering to Satan but the destruction of the flesh he thinketh to be the exhausting of the naturall strength of the body with sorrow for his sin according to that Prov. 17.
22. A broken heart dryeth the bones And therefore it is to be observed that â—rastily Erastus insisteth most on those points and syllables of a Text whereon all Divines Ancient and Modern do place least strength for Excommunication I might therefore passe all Erastus his force against Excommunication in these and he shall be not a whit nearer his point 2. But I shall follow him when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirit are put together I see no reason that the one should signifie the body the other the soul I know the contrary to be Rom. 8. 1. Those that walketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the inordinate affections and lusts of the flesh are opposed to those that walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the spirit and Gal. 5. 17. the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lusteth against the spirit and the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the flesh Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is flesh it is not that which is born of the body as body and that which is born 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the spirit is spirit so Rom. 8. 9. 13 14. Erastus should have shewed us such places wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and the spirit signifieth the body and the soul when the matter of salvation is spoken of as here That the spirit may be saved ver 5. then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh is for the most part if not alwayes taken in an evil part for the corruption of mans nature Erastus How could they desire the Apostle not to deliver him to Satan that he might as Beza expoundeth it destroy his flesh that is bring him to repentance How could Paul assent to such a Petition How could the Apostle write that he did forgive him Did Paul by forgiving him permit him not to mortifie and destroy his flesh and sinfull lusts Ans Let Erastus answer How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul grant such a Petition as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul by pardoning the man permit that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord for the saving of the mans soul is no lesse a fruit of this delivering to Satan then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh 2. They might well desire that upon the mans repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends the mortification of his lust and the saving of his soul then the last and most dreadfull remedy which is the censure of Excommunication 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scripturall remedy for saving of the soul in the day of Christ at is clear Rom. 7. 7 8 9 10. Gal. 5. 24 25. But whether miraculous killing be such a mean ordained of God is the question and ought to be proved by some word of God beside this place in controversie Erastus These words that the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord do hold forth that the miserable man was presently to die Ans That they hold forth no such thing is evidently proved for how were they to cast him out and judge him And how was Paul to pardon him and they and Paul to confirme their love 2. When Peter saith 1 Pet. 1. 7. That your faith may be found unto praise honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ were all these presently Because Paul and the faithfull Philippians were waiting for their Saviours second coming who should change their vilde bodies were they to die presently When Paul prayeth that Onesiphorus may finde mercy in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. I pray you will it follow that Onesiphorus was presently to die Erastus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuke doth not signifie rejecting from the Sacraments 1. Rejecting from the Sacraments is never put for punishment in Scripture 2. It is but a rebuke inflicted by many and Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth him from this as a sufficient punishment a rebuke is no punishment Ans 1. To be debarred from the society of the faithfull as Hagar was as Cain was as David was Cast out of the Lords inheritance by Saul yea to be rebuked Ezech. 3. 25 26. are evils but they are not evils of sin Ergo He speaks not like a Divine who will not have them punishments if to injoy the Sanctuary Church holy things of God and the society of the Saints be a rich blessing of God as the Scripture saith it is Psal 42. 4. Psal 27. 4. Psal 84. 10. Psal 110. 3. Psal 63. 1 2 3. Cant. 1. 7. 8. Cant. 2. 16. 17. Cant. 5. 1. Cant. 6. 1 2 3. Rev. 2 1. and to deny this be a symtome of prophanity then to be separated from these as a Heathen must be to the children of God the greatest evil of punishment and matter of sorrow on earth it smelleth not of piety to deny this Erastus If the man was only rebuked How was he to be delivered to Satan to be tormented and killed Some Ancients answer he was but delivered to Satan to be afflicted in his body with sicknesse and at length delivered by Paul others say more congruously to the minde of Paul that Paul purposed not by himself to deliver the man to Satan but to do it with the Church congregated together and when the Church saw him swallowed up with griefe they deferred while they tryed Pauls minde and obtained pardon to him and in the means time threatned him if he should not repent and obtained at length that Paul should pardon him Ans Many learned Divines hold the former yet so as they conclude Excommunication out of this Chapter of this I say no more But Erastus hath a way of his own To which I say 1. There is no Scripture but this controverted one to warrant that the Apostles who had the gift of Miracles 1. Suspended the working of Miracles either on the prayers or free consent of the whole multitude of beleevers 2. That the execution of a miraculous work was committed to Deputies and substitutes under Paul who had it in their power miraculously to kill him or in their free will and Christian compassion to suspend the miracle and not kill 3. That the Apostles in acts of miraculous justice sought advise of any or might be broken by requests to desist from miracles as they saw the party repent or not repent or friends intercede or not intercede 4. So many circumstances of the Text laying a command on the Church of Corinth to put him out and judge him and yet the matter remaine a miracle These to me are riddles if God had told us such a History I could have beleeved it but to gather these by uncertaine conjectures without any
ground of other Scriptures is a thing I can hardly beleeve But since Excommunication is an ordinary censure the Church might well as they see the man penitent or contumacious cast him out or not pardon or not pardon Erastus Paul delivered to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander that they might learne not to blaspheme not that the dead are capable to learne or to be blasphemed but this be saith as a Magistrate when he saith he will give an ill doer to the hangman that he may learn to steale no more and to rob no more Ans 1 Tim. 1. 20. I delivered them to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is like to edifying discipline and agreeable to Pauls use of the rod of discipline 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our authoritie which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction Now it were safer to give a sense congruous to the intrinsecall end of discipline which was not for destruction of the body but for the edifying of souls 2. Yea so Paul had no lesse the Sword then the rod of the Word Nero had not so heavy a sword as miraculous killing Should not Paul speake rather as a Pastor of Christ then as a bloody Magistrate Erastus If to deliver to Satan be all one with debarring from the Supper onely yet it is not all one with being cast out of the Church without which there is no salvation but the Supper is not absolutely necessary to Salvation Ans Nor doe we put that necessity on the Sacraments but where the man is excluded from the Sacraments for such a sinne as if he repent not he is excluded from Salvation it concerneth him much to thinke it a weighty judgement to be excluded from the Seales Erastus These two are inconsistent which you teach to wit that he is not debarred from the Sacraments who desireth them and that his desire whether it be a right or a wrong and unlawfull desire shall depend on the judgement of others to wit the Presbytery Ans Erastus should have made others see how these two fights together I see no inconsistencie no more then to say a childe that desireth food is not debarred from food and yet his desire of food may be subject to wise Stewards whether every desire of food be right or no as whether he should be answered by the Stewards when he desireth poyson or bread not to eaâ—e but to cast to dogs and this will fight against preaching of the Word the Professor that longeth for the comforts of the promises of the Gospel is not debarred from them yet are preachers to try whether threatnings be not fitter for him in his security then the comforts of the promises Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 12. and 13. threatneth not exclusion from the Lords Supper to those who had not repented of their schisme drunkennesse denying of the resurrection but he saith he would severely punish them according to the authority and power given him of God and he did this frequently but we read not exclusion from the sacraments Answ 1. It is true he threatneth those who had not repented of their uncleannesse and fornication and lascivionsnesse 2. Cor. 12. 20 21. and c. 13. v. 2. threatneth that he will not spare but use his authority but doth Erastus read that he either threatneth or doth actually miraculously kill any of the beleevers at Corinth and let him answer why the Apostle did not write to the Church that they would conveene and take course with them as he did with the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. 2. when he saith He will not spare when he comes he must be expounded according to Erastus to come as a miraculous Magistrate to kill them 3. He saith not they were impenitent but he feareth it should be so 4. We hold if any should be contumacious he would not onely deny pearls to such Swine as his Master commanded Mat. 7. But also follow that rule Mat. 18. 4. Erastus himselfe granteth if there shall be found a man that tramples upon the Pearles and holy things of God as there must be some one or other which is such as deserveth to be miraculously killed By this Argument he granteth I say that such a one should not be admitted Hunc ego minimè admittendum censeo but how shall he be not admitted by this Argument Erastus There were many amongst the Ancients who deferred their Baptisme to the end of their life when therefore it is not written that these are damned who are excluded from the Supper against their will and not those who willingly exclude themselves from Baptisme why should the one more then the other be delivered to Satan for he is in a better condition who is excluded by the Presbyters against his will from the Supper then he who doth of his owne free will exclude him selfe from Baptisme Ans That the Ancients in the Apostolique Church which is our rule did deferre baptisme till they died Erastus cannot prove the Ancients after them is not our rule 2. That these were admitted to the Supper a Sacrament of the nourishment of these in whom Christ liveth before they were baptized which is the Sacrament of Regeneration and our first birth cannot be defended by Erastus and so he argues from an unlawfull practise 3. We reach not that any is damned because he is excluded from the Supper that Exclusion is a punishment men are damned for sins not for meer punishments but his sin is bound in heaven because of a great scandall such as incest and that if he repent not is the cause of damnation and therefore Erastus should have compared sinne with sinne the scandall with sinfull refusing of Baptisme and not have made a halting and lame comparilon an argument that concludeth nothing 4. Though those who deferred baptisme till death should not have been delivered to Satan yet will Erastus say they should not have been otherwise censured for these behooved with Socinians to hold Baptisme but an indifferent rite and by this many lived in the contempt of a necessary ordinance though not simply necessary and so died with the sinfull want of Baptisme many times Erastus The exclusion of men from the Sacraments did creep into the Church when men did ascribe salvation to the Sacraments therefore the Supper was given to dying men though excommunicate as the deniall of the Supper damneth Ergo the receiving of it saveth And so of Baptisme they reasoned Answ Erastus nameth this his own probable conjecture But it is to beg the question he may know how singular Augustine was for the necessity of Baptisme and how many of the Ancients were against him in it 2. He may know this consequence to be a conjecture and that it is not stronger because it is his owne 3. He granteth that exclusion of the unworthy from the Sacraments is ancient so much gain we by his conjectures Erastus When the Church wanted a Magistrate
the Church though amongst the Turkes is in the world but not of the world If he keep the faith and if he do so he shall repent and come home to Christs visible Kingdom but because he keepeth the faith yet he is not a member of a visible Church except he professe it and repent for even the sound in faith if obstinate in Scandals may deserve Excommunication 6. There is nothing said against Excommunication in the two last Reasons but what striketh against Timothy his publike rebuking and threatning wrath against those that sin openly for they may through their owne corruption so farre abuse publike threatnings as they may be led on despaire and hypocrisie Now Erastus as we shall hear granteth those are to be rebuked openly who sin openly 7. We say not to deliver to Satan any man is to deliver him to the World but to cast him out of the Church that consequenter he may be left to the World but that he should sinne and be led away with the World is neither the intrinsecall end of Excommunication or of the Church but an event or end by accident the intrinsecall end is the Salvation of the man Beza saith that Paul speaketh of a spirituall punishment and not of a corporall Erastus saith When Peter killed Ananias corporally was not this corporall punishment When Paul gave some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and God punisheth our sinnes with temporall death how shall you prove that God and the Apostles punisheth not sinnes with corporall or politicke punishment Ans The instance of Peters killing Ananias is in vain brought in It s but a begging os the question for it is not said Peter delivered Ananias to Satan that his Spirit might be saved Who revealed this secret to Erastus that Peter used the Ministery of Satan in killing Ananias We have as good reason to say Peter delivered Ananias to a good Angell to be killed as Erastus hath for his dreame 2. We deny not but God and the Apostles did punish sinne with corporall punishment but let him show without the bounds of the place in controversie for we must expound Scripture by Scripture where ever the Church conveened together in the Name of the Lord Jesus did judge and miraculously kill any member of the Church that the Spirit may be saved in the day of God Beza said This killing by the people would be ground of a great Calumnie to make many say Christians did usurpe the Sword of the Magistrate and that they were not subject to the Magistrate Erastus We give this power of miraculous killing onely to the Apostles Ans Yea But the calumny standeth so long as Erastus giveth to all the people the faith of Miracles to conveene and pray that Paul might miraculously kill those that offended the Church and its probable when the enemies objected to Christians all they could falsely they would not have omitted this that the very people by their prayers meet in one Church-jury to kill Cesars Subjects Beza said The Christian Magistrate should by this kill all the drunkards fornicators and the like with the Sword Erastus answereth 1. All faults deserve not killing but some other punishment of a lower degree 2. The Lord himselfe appointed that the Magistrate should compell men to doe their duty why then should Beza speake against God and call this a compelling of men to be Hipocrites Ans If other sins as drunkennesse fornication extortion doe infect the Church and be scandalous to the very Gentiles as the Apostle saith of incest 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6 7. Upon the same reason Paul should have rebuked them because they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict some miraculous judgement by the Ministery of Satan though lesse then death for other sinnes But I pray you Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man or he had none at all If he had a warrant why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magistrate without the prayers of the Corinthians Did Paul chide them because they prayed not to God that he might doe his duty if he had no warrant at all Why should he chide the Corinthians for that they prayed not that he might doe a duty which was not his duty For that is not Pauls duty for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God if it was his duty onely conditionally 1. What warrant is there in Scripture to say Paul should have miraculously killed the incestuous person upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles prayed that he might worke that miraculous slaughter which because they did not Paul was either exonered of that as no duty or then Paul chided them because they prayed not to prevene Pauls sinfull neglect 2. How was this revealed to the Corinthians that they should pray that God by Paul as by his Magistrate might revenge this incest and not revenge their fronication coveteousnes extortion Idolatry especially seeing he saith that v. 9. He had written to them in another Epistle not to keâ—p company with such Whence I thinke it evident that Paul in another Epistle had ordained separation of Fornicators Coveteous persons and the like from amongst them and so censures for all scandalous persons And how shal we believe he would not teach them to cast out incestuous persons that are far more scandalous And if so he must have written in another Epistle of this miracle that they were to pray he might work Is it not evident by this that Erastus his way is full of Conjectures and groundlesse uncertainties 2. We deny not that the Magistrate may compell men to do their duty nor doth Beza deny that But that the Church hath or had any influence in the blood of an incestuous person and in working of miracles for the bodily destruction of any is most false and cannot be proved by this Text Nor do we think that the Church the weapons of whose warfare are carnall can compell any man by corporall punishment to duties by the Sword for so their Spirituall way which is terminated on the Conscience should lead men to Hypocrisie in profession of the truth for so reasoneth Erastus the Magistrate with the Sword rather punisheth sins committed in Gods Service then forceth to duties The fifth Argument of Beza is vindicated already Erastus We say not that Paul was to deliver the man to Satan that he may be saved but that Paul was to punish this high transgression with the Sword to the terror of others but only he set bounds to Satan that he should only kill his body but not meddle with his soul but because the man repented Paul hoped well of his soul that his soul should be saved in the day of Christ Ans 1. Here Erastus doth more fully reveal the vilenesse of his opinion for he granteth the intrinsecall end of this miraculous killing is not the Salvation of the mans
soul but the revenging of the wickednesse of the sin for the terror of others Which is 1. Contrary to the Text which saith He was to be delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the spirit may be saved This noteth that the intrinsecall end of this delivering to Satan was the Salvation of the mans soul But the Text saith nothing of Erastus his end that others may be terrified though that may be an end It is a wonder to me that since Erastus granteth the man repented even when Paul did in this Chapter chide with the Corinthians that they delivered him not to Satan For Erastus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done this deed not he that continueth pertinaciously in it saith he hence it is clear that he repented at this time How doth Paul chide them for not delivering a repenting man to the Devil that his Spirit may be saved if he repented his spirit was saved Ergo Paul was in the fault and chid them without reason if they say though he did repent yet for example to terrifie others he should have been killed 2 Cor. 2. saith He was not killed and Erastus saith it Ergo yet Paul failed and they also 3. It is against the intrinsecall end of that power which Erastus saith is miraculous For Paul saith the end of that power is for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now the intrinsecall end of bodily killing is peace and terror to others that they may be afraid to do so any more But the intrinsecall end and finis operis is not Edification but finis operantis onely for acts of Magistrates are not acts of the first Table which kindly and per se regardeth edification but acts of the second Table if their soules be saved who die for their enormous crimes by the hand of the Magistrate It is not from the violent death as if it were an intrinsecall mean and ordinance appointed of God for conversion But because God giveth to those who die that way repentance Yea it is no more a mean of saving of the soule then if they should die in their beds by some disease To the examples of Hymeneus and Alexander that they were not killed miraculously I answered before Erastus addeth no new reply to Beza CHAP. XI Quest 7. Of the leaven 1 Cor. 5. Erastus his sentence in his l. 3. c. 6. and â— c. 7. Examined Erastus I shall grant since Beza will have it so that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven in the celebration of the passeover and that he doth not only allude to it Paul compareth the feast of unleavened bread to the pilgrimage of our life in this world and leaven signifieth wickednesse Hence as the Iews all the time of the feast might eat no leavened bread so all our life are vve to leave and forsake the vvorld and journey toward our promised Canaan we are never to live wickedly What can hence be collected but as he that eat unleavened bread was to be killed so should every wicked man be killed He that eat leavened bread in these seven dayes was not commanded to be debarred from the Passeover And the Passeover was the beginning of this feast as faith in Christ was the beginning of our spirituall eating of Christ crucified for us and of our new Christian life Ans I hold that learned Beza hath well expounded the leaven here he compareth the scandals of wicked men to leaven the holinesse of the Saints to unleavened bread and the publick Congregation to the feast of the Passeover and Excommunication or putting away to the removing of the leaven for a scandalous man corrupteth the whole Church so the Jewes and Rabbines as Buxtorfius saith that the Rabbins call naturall concupiscence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Alexander said after his Prayer Lord It is known to thee that it is my will to do thy will But what retardeth me the leaven in the masse or lump and Buxtorfius citeth the same place 1 Cor. 5. 6. and Gal. 5. 9. And least we should think that he meant nothing but naturall concupiscense he saith in the Targum They take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wickednesse and folly he citeth Medraseh Koheleth cap. 7. ver 8. except R. Samuel had been long suffering The Persian that he taught had returned to folly or his old wickednesse Paul saith the same Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump He speaketh to the Church conveened 2. The comparison runneth so that the Corinthians were to purge out the old leaven of wickednesse and cast out the incestuous man that they might be a new lump and this if it must alwayes be done far more when they are to celebrate that feast that came in place of the passeover Nor is the Apostle only Teaching what they could not lawfully do all their life as they were single Christians but what was their duty as Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveened together in a Church way for Paul doth not command one single Christian to cast him out but he commandeth the Church gathered together in the name of the Lord Iesus with Pauls spirit and the power of our Lord Iesus Christ ver 4. 5. To purge out not the leaven of sin in themselves but the man ver 2. That he that hath done this deed may be put out and ver 7. Purge out the old leaven and that the Apostles precept is to cast out the man he saith it in expresse termes ver 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cast out that wicked man from amongst you and ver 12. They were to judge him as one that is within 2. Because without conveening together in their daily conversation they were to purge the leaven of mâ—lice out of their heart it were a ridiculous thing for Paul to command them to convene altogether to lead a godly life 3. There was no need that they should convene with Pauls spirit and in the name and power of our Lord Iesus Christ to lead a godly life and for a personall purging of every man his own soul from this leaven 4. They were to judge this man ver 12. Therefore this cannot be meant of a personall judging every one of themselves but of a Church-judging of an offender 5. If Erastus grant that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven and putting away leaven in the Passeover Let him see how he can apply this to killing of every single man that liveth wickedly We apply it to the casting out of the scandalous out of the Church as leaven was to be put out of the houses of all who were to eat the passeover Erastus I care not much whither the Lord himself immediatly or the Magistrate was to kill him who eat leavened bread at that time But I rather think that God killed him for we finde none killed for this cause 2. Because Paul writ of those who
Word and Sacraments if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments who made him a judge and a Ruler Will this satiâ—fie mens conscience The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister but the Minister may not play the Magistrate Now as Erastus saith the Minister in holy things is his servant called by him may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also Erastus Eli and Samuel were both Priests and Iudges and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent 2. Ministers ought not to usurpe the civill sword Ergo they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit it followeth not the contrary is evident 1 Thes 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7 8. Erastus Peter Martyr saith Com. 1 Sam. 8. Those that live wickedly may be corrected by the Magistrate But Papists give one civill Ecclesiastick power to the Pope and another to the Magistrate whereas the civill Magistrate is sufficient enough Ans Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expresly asserteth Excommunication and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors or Elders Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword Erastus Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is it is not pollitick externall visible for Christ reigneth in the world but his Government is invisible and spirituall in the Word and the Spirit Ans Christ denieth only that his Kingdome is of this World in regard it is not holden up by the civill sword of men or Magistrates as Erastus doth dreame who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the onely Catholick and principall Ruler in all Christs courts which Christ refuteth when he saith If my Kingdome were of this world mine owne would fight for me Now Erastus will have no weapon but the Magistrates sword to hold out and cast out all offenders out of Christs Kingdom but it is false that Christs Kingdom is not politicall externall and visible this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church Sure exhorting rebuking censuring withdrawing from the scandalous excommunication are visible externally and in a politick spirituall way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors for externall and spirituall are not opposed nor are politicall and spirituall opposed as Erastus dreameth and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus His Kingdom is not of this world Ergo it is not externall Erastus When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea and Gabinius having overcome Alexander had changed the state of Iudea the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up Ioseph bel Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph antiq l. 14. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synedrie for the most part had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus and under Archilaus it was more fully restored as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death setteth forth an Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them Ans Will then Erastus have Christ Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim in gaining a lost brother that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this 2. Say that the Sanedrim in sacris in in the holy things of God had its full power the Romans not impeding them hath any man a face to deny but Pharisees corrupted both Law Gospell Sanedrim and all and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government especially when they set themselves against the Messiah Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued but before they were subdued the Sanedrim was changed and corrupted 3. This is to beg the question to say they kept the power of the Sword For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power and forsooth because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles What then therefore the Sanedrim had the Law of God for it and Aaron and his sonnes might beat scourge imprison and kill as they killed Steven without Law or warrant except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature surely this is a vaine consequence 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both gave them liberty of their own Religion Ceremonies and customes at their pleasure and that is much for us the adversary so do reason from a corrupt unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law Erastus I have solidly proved there were not two distinct jurisdictions but that the Magistrate Governed all I deny not that the Magistrate took counsell at those that were skilled in the Law And I have proved that the Sanedrim in Christs time when he spake these words had the power of the sword in things pertaining to Religion Ans Let another man praise thee solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines is plain emptinesse 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law is not like the first pattern of Moses David Solomon who as Magistrates saith Erastus did rule all in the Church gave the Law to Aaron his sons directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord as nearest to him what they should do what Laws they should teach the people Shew us one precept practise or promise in the word where Moses David Solomon asked Counsell at Aaron the Priests Gad Nathan or the Prophets saying O sons of Aaron O Prophets advise us Magistrates what Laws we should command you touching your office your holy garments your washing your beasts clean and unclean your lâ—per your putting men out of the Camp touching the forme dimensions structure materials of the Arke Tabernacle Temple c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord for we are nearer to the Lord and have a more eminent place as Church-Officers then you who are but our Vicars Deputies and servants to be directed by us Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediatly from God and never consulted with any man either Aaron Priest or Prophet David and Solomon had the forme of the Temple given to them by the Lord in writing and advised with none at all therefore received from God and delivered to the Church what they received of the Lord. 2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers what they should command-Ministers to preach and do in their Ministery if by vertue of their Office they command Ministers 3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civill sword on their bodies to gain their souls which is the scope of Christ Matth. 18. CHAP. XVII Quest 13. Whether Erastus can make good that the
not subjected to them in conscience after any Ecclesiasticall way for the power of commanding in magistrates as magistrates must be commensurable to the power of punishing the transgressors of the command if the one be in order to a temporary good the other cannot but be in order to an eternall ill if ministers command in the name of Christ in order to an eternall reward they cannot threaten the transgressors in order to a temporary punishment but it must be in order to an eternall punishment so that it is most clear that the magistrate though he be in some sense a little God and invested with the authority and Majesty of God in that he commandeth and threatneth upon proposall of temporary reward and temporary good the very same duties that God injoyneth and forbiddeth the same evills of sinne that God forbiddeth yet he holdeth not these out to the soul and conscience of the subjects as the Ambassador of Iesus Christ upon condition of eternall life if they obey and of eternall death if they disobey but he holdeth out to the external man these that are materially divine commandements divine inhibitions but in another consideration but formally only they are the mandates of the Magistrates in order to temporary reward and temporary punishment Then the Ministers as Ministers in preaching and Synods forbid adultery incest murther but they propose them to those that are within the visible Church And that 1. to their consciences 2. Under the paine of eternall wrath 3. As the Ambassadors of Christ craving spirituall subjection of conscience and divine faith to those charges But Magistrates as Magistrates hold forth in their Law-abstinence from those same sinnes of adultery incest murther But 1. Not to the consciences of their subjects but to the outer man as Members of the common-wealth 2. Not under the paine of eternall wrath and condemnation before the judge of quick and dead Magistrates as Magistrates have neither calling office place nor power to threaten or inflict eternall punishment if Magistrates do perswade the equity of abstinence from adultery incest murther in their Statutes or Acts of Parliament from the word of God from the sixth and seventh command of the Decalogue from the judgement and eternall punishment that followeth these sinnes they so perswade not as Magistrates but as Divines and as godly and Christian men yet my sense is not that the Magistrate can Lawfully command obedience in matters of Religion not understood or knowne by the subjects that were to exact blind obedience but my meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate holdeth not forth his commandements to teach and informe the conscience as Pastors do but he presupposeth that his mandates are knowne to be agreeable to the word of God and proposeth them to the subjects to be obeyed 3. Magistrates as Magistrates hold forth in their Law abstinence from these sinnes not as the Ambassadors of Christ craving subjection of coâ—science and divine faith to those charges but only externall obedience for though Ministers as Ministers crave faith and subjection of conscience to all commandements and inhibitions as in Christs stead 2 Co. 5. 19 20. yet the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth not crave either faith or subjection of conscience nor is he in Christs stead to lay divine bands on the conscience to submit the soul and conscience to beleeve and abstaine he is the depâ—â—y of God as the God of Order and as the Creator and founder and another of humane societies and of Peace to exact externall obedience and to lay bands on your hands not to shed innoceat blood and on your body not to defile it with adultery or incest nor to violate the châ—stâ—â—y of your brother hence it is evident that the adversaries are far our who would have Ministers who do hold forth commands that layeth hold on the conscience and craveth faith and soul-submission under the paine of eternall wrath to do and act as the deputies and Vicars of those who have nothing to do with the conscience and have neither office nor authority to crave soul submission or to threaten or inflict any punishment but such as is circumâ—cribed within the limits of time and which the body of clay is capable of yea when the Magistrate punisheth spirituall sinnes heresie idolatry he punisheth them only with temporary punishment Obj. 5. When a Minister speaketh that which is treason against the Prince in the Pulpit by way of Doctrine the Church only doth take on them to judge him and censure him and he will not answer the civill judge for his Doctrine but decline him and appeal to a Synod and yet if another man in private speak these same words of treason he is judged by the civill judge and can give no deâ—linature against this civill judicature this must be unequall dealing except the civill judge may by his office judge whether the Minister spoke treason or not Ans It cannot be denied but that which is spoken by way of Doctrine by an Ambassador speaking the word in publick and that which is spoken in private although the â—ame words are very different for a private man in private to slander the Prince may be treason he hath no place nor calling to speak of the Prince but a Pastor hath a calling as the watchman of the Lord of hosts to rebuke Herod for incest and in a constitute Church the Church is to try whether Iohn Baptist preached treason or not 2. If it be a slander of the Prince and treason indeed the Prophet who preached it is first subject to the Prophets who are to condemne and censure him and then the magistrate is to inflict bodily punishment on him for it but the Church should labour to gaine the slanderers soule before the civill judge take away his life IV. Assert The Magistrate de jure is obliged not only to permit but also to procure the free exercise of the ministery in dispensing Word Sacraments and Discipline and owe his accumulative power to convene Synods to adde his sanction to the lawfull and necessary constitutions and ordination of worthy and to the Deposition of unworthy officers in the Church 1. Because he is a Nurse-father in the Church Isa 49 23. 2. And by office as a Publike father to procure the good of the soules of the subjects in his coactive way that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlines and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. 3. He is not onely to permit but also positively to procure all peace in the exercise of all lawfull and profitable trades and Arts Ergo farre more that glory may dwell in the Land and that the Peace thereof may be as a River Isa 48. 18. by the presence of Christ walking in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks V. Assertion When the Magistrate commandeth painfull and sound administration in preaching and governing with provision of the praysing and rewarding of well doing he doth not subordinate
as Saylors subjects these reduplications be consening and deceiving notions painters as painters are regulated by Art subject to be judged by painters but as men they are subjects so are Ministers as men subject to Cesar as Ministers they are the servants of Christ not subjects Ob. As Ministers they are either Magistrates or subjects but Ministers as Ministers are not Magistrates He that is not with Christ is against him M. Coleman in his Brotherly examination p. 21. saith He that doth not manage his office under Christ and for Christ must manage it under the Devil and for the Devil if therefore the Christian Magistrate do not manage his office under and for Christ he must manage it under or for the Devil which were blasphemous Ans I deny the Major proposition Ministers as Ministers are neither Magistrates nor subjects but formally the separated servants of Christ set a part for the work of gathering the Saints Now to be subjects is to be judged by the Magistrate in those things in which they are subjects that is in all Civill businesse they are and false teaching discerned by the Church to be false teaching or in case the Church corrupt themselves then are Ministers obnoxions to bodily punishment to be inflicted by the Magistrate But this is properly to be a subject of the Magistrate to be lyable to the civill cognizance trying and bodily punishment inflicted by the Magistrate and to be a subject and a member of the other Kingdome is to be subject to the Ecclesiasticall cognizance tryall and censure of the Church as a matter that concerneth the soul hence the former concerneth the body and outward man the latter the inner man and the soul 2. The former concerneth peace with men and edification to be procured by a mean extrinsecall to edification to wit by the sword the latter concerneth peace with God by a spirituall sword the Word of God 3. The former is carnall and of the Kingdome of this world the latter spirituall and of Christs other Kingdome that is not of this world Ioh. 18. 36. 4. The former worketh by coaction and bodily violence the latter by removing unwillingnesse and making a rebellious soul obedient 5. The former is an act of justice not terminated on repentance or the mans turning to God as an end for whether this end be obtained or no the Magistrate is to use the sword the other is terminated on repentance as its end He that is not with Christ is against Christ and with the Devil It s true in all professors of the Gospel as professors no man but he must be either on the one side or on the other either for or with Christ or against him But it is not true with every reduplication thus Ministers as Ministers are subjects of or to the King and to obey him in the Lord and so with Christ hath this sense Ministers essentially and formally are subjects of or to the King to obey him in the Lord so as Ministers do lose the essence and formality of the office of the Ministery if they be not the Kings subjects and with Christ this is most false for Iudas should not be a Minister of Christ then in that he was not subject to the Law of Cesar that is that the servant and disciple should be for and under his master and Lord it only followeth Ergo Iudas was not a godly Minister but under the Devil not under Christ Magistrates do neither essentially as Magistrates cleave to Christ nor â—ight against Christ but as holy men they cleave to Christ as sinfull men they fight against Christ 2. Master Coleman knoweth that we speak of the office of a Magistrate as a Magistrate not under the accidents of Christian or heathenish there was no reason he should apply his Argument to the Parliament except to make us odious as if we did not as much honour or pray for the Parliament and King as himselfe But it concludeth equally against all Magistrates and let him see it in a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth either manage his office under Christ and for Christ or under the Devil and for the Devil This I and Master Coleman also shall deny for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth not manage his office under or for Christ as mediator because he is utterly ignorant of Christ for he hath no more but what God as creator and nature gave him saith Master Coleman pag. 20. and the other horne of the Argument is as weak for this The heathen Magistrate as such manageth his office under or for the Devil is blasphemous for so Magistracy and the office should be intrinsecally unlawfull and for the Devil But it is intrinsecally the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. and apply this to God as creator it shall appear of force The Magistrate as the Magistrate doth either manage his office under and for God creator or under and for the Devil The former part is true because God creator and nature made the office of Magistracy apply it to a heathenish husband Father Master Musitian Painter under these reduplications and it shall make the relation of Husband Devilish or this proposition a Husband a Father as a Father and a Husband manage their office under and for Christ the mediator or under or for the Devil is most false and blasphemous the former part is false for there should have been and was Father and Husband which did manage the duties of these relations for God creator not for Christ mediator though Christ had never taken on our nature never been mediator never been King and Priest of his redeemed Church The latter part is blasphemous for then Adam had managed the part of Husband and Father under the Devil and for the Devil even before he fell in sinne and in the state of Innocency 3. Mr. Colemans meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate and by office is under Christ mediator as his supream and immediate vicegerent as mediator now in this sense Christs saying he that is not against us is with us shall not prove the truth of the proposition which must be this and is most false to wit that The Magistrate as the Magistrate by office is either under Christ mediator as the supream and immediate vicegerent of him as mediator or he is by office under the Devil This we deny for one might argue thus of the Apostle Paul who was either as an Apostle for Christ or against Christ Paul as an Apostle is either under Christ the mediator and his supream and immediate vicegerent having power of both Swords or he is under the Devil The proposition is most false for Paul is neither of them so say we here the Magistrate doth neither manage his office as a Magistrate under Christ mediator as his Vicar and a little head of the Church nor yet doth the Magistrate manage his office under or for the
to the Iewes if it were a matter of wrong and wicked lewdnes O yee Iewes reason were that I should bear with you 15. But if it be a question of words and names and of your Law looke yee to it for I will be no judge of such matters Ergo to the Romans all the blasphemies of the Iewish law was not a matter of wicked lewdnesse nor of death Now the story is clear they were seeking Pauls life and for names and words the Iewes should not reach Paul nor move the Romans to put to death a Roman except they could prove sedition or treason against him and Acts 25. Festus saith to Agrippa That the Priests and Elders desired to have judgement against Paul 18. But against him they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed 19. But had certain questions against him of their owne Superstition and of one Iesus who was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive Here it is clear all are but words nothing worthy of death which the Iewes chiefly intended therefore they accuse him of treason as we may collect from Pauls Apologie Acts 25. 8. Neither against the Law of the Iewes neither against the Temple nor yet against Cesar have I offended any thing at all Therefore Act. 24. Tertullus a witty man burdeneth Paul with that which might cost him his head v. 5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition amongst all the Iewes throughout all the world see Acts 21. 38. of all which though blasphemy according to the Iewish Law was something yet sedition to the Romans who only now had power of Pauls life was all and some and when the Deputies counted so little of Religion the Iews knew sedition and treason against Cesar behooved to do the turn and Paul seeing they pursued him for his life appealed to Cesar to be judged in that Now except the adversaries prove that Paul referred the resurrection of Iesus and of the dead and his preaching Christ and the abolishing of sacrifices the Temple the Ceremoniall Law to be judicially determined by Nero as by the head of the Church they prove nothing against us Hence their chiefe argument is soone answered in what cause Paul was accused of the Iews in that he appealed to Cesar But he was accused not for his sedition but for his Doctrine Act. 26. 18. Ergo Paul appealed to Cesar in the cause of Doctrine not of sedition For 1. The Major is dubious for in what cause he was accused of his head which was the intent of the Iews in that he appealed true but in what cause he was accused in all and every Article of the points of his accusation and challenge I deny that for as touching doctrinals and his being judged by a lawfull Church and rightly constituted he appealed neither from the Sanedrim nor from Festus but declined Festus nor in these did he appeal to Cesar he only appealed in all cases which might concern his head and blood 2. The assumption is false for he was accused of sedition as is evident from Act. 25. 8. and 24. 5. 3. Though the Priests and Elders were most corrupt men yet that they believed that Cesar or bloody Nero his lips should preserve knowledge and that the Law should be sought from the mouth of Nero as the head of the Church can never be proved which must be proved to justifie Pauls appeal in the tearms of the adversary Obj. But may not Nero accuse Paul that he dare preach his Iesus Christ in the Emperours dominions Ans If his dominions be the Christian Churches conquered by his sword he may accuse as he conquered that is he may oppresse the consciences of men in accusing as he oppressed them in their bodies and liberties in the conquering of them But he may not as a conquerour accuse them for their conscience he may if he conquer those that worship Sathan cause instruct them in all meeknesse and lenity But this he doth by the sword as a Christian ruler to inlarge the dominions of Christ for when â—â— conquereth their bodies it is not to be thought that he conquereth their souls or acquireth any new dominion over their consâ—iâ—nces But though he do as a Magistrate command them to be instructed I doubt if he have a negative voice in imposing any Religion that he will though they be heathens though some learned Divines say be have a definitive voice in setting up what Religion he will or tollerating it I conceive though he have a definitive voyce in erecting the only true Religion in his heathenish dominions when there be no Ministers of the Gospel there yet not for any false Religions that being of perpetuall truth God never gave authority or power of the sword to do ill ad malum non est potestas what other things Videlius and Vtenbogard have on the contrary are answered Hence we ask 1. If the intrinsecall end of judging and censuring Ecclesiastically be not the inlightning of the mind the gaining of souls and if Nero or Christian or Heathen Magistrates be appointed for that spirituall end 2. If Paul aymed to refer the judging of the Gospel to Nero 3. If Paul knowing the Sanedrim sought his blood not the gaining of his soul might not appeal to the Magistrate to save his life 4. If it was not the Law of natures dictate in Paul so to do and not any positive constitution of the Magistrates Headship over the Church and Gospel 5. If the Ecclesiasticall judicature will swell without its sphere of activity to dispose of the life and blood of the Saints if then the state of the question be not changed and if then it be not lawfull to appeal and decline and provoke to the civill Magistrate 4. Moreover Paul appealed not to Cesar in ordine ad censuram auâ— penâ—m Ecclesiasticam in order to a Church censure as if he thought Cesar should principally excommunicate and cast him out of the â—ynagogue or judge him in an Ecclesiasticall way whether he had done or preached against the Temple and Law of Moses or not which must be proved if the adversaries will prove a proper appeal from the Church to the Prince which is now our question All this which is our mind is well explained by our Countryman Ioh. Camero prelectio in Mat. 18. 15. p. 151. Christiani principes sunt precipui in Ecclesia in sensu diviso sunt precipui et sunt in Ecclesia non in sensu conjuncto non sunt precâ—pui Ecclesiastici Non enim obtinent principes directe authoritatem Ecclesiasticam sed indirectè non quod velimus ulla in causa ullum eximi jurisdictione principis sed quia ejus jurisdictio non nisi per media Ecclesiastica pertinet ad conscientiam nempe princeps non predicat Evangelium non ligat et solvit peceatores at de officio principis est dare operam ut sint qui predicent Evangelium ut sint qui ligent
et solvant peccatores uno verbo perinde principis est curare salutem animarum ac eiusdem est saluti corporum prospicere non est enim principis providere ne morbi grassentur directè esset enim medicus at indirectè princeps id studere debet Itaque Collegium Magistratuum nullo modo Ecclesia dici potest imo quatenus Magistratus est de Ecclesia subjicitur hac in parte Collegio Ecclesiastico neque tamen ista inter se pugnant idem ut imperet Collegio Ecclesiastico et pareat idem imperat enim quemadmodum mediâ—o imperat Rex paret ut medicao nam si medicum facientem officium morte multet non faciet quod decet sapientem principem sed quod faciunt furiosi et insani sin veneficum assiciat extremo supplicio faciet quod jus et fas et quod non facere neâ—as esset Sic impâ—â—reges et insani prophet as jusserunt interfici pius Rex et idem sapientissimus David Nathanem exosculatus est Ceterum accipiatur Caute parendi verbum Rex enim cum senatui Ecclesiastico paret non paret illi obedientia civili quae Collegium respiciat sed obedientia Religiosa que deum respiciat Sic qui lictori misso a senatu parebat non parebat lictori sed senatui Yet it cannot be denied but the same Camero ascribeth more to the Magistrate then is due for there is no reason why he saith the Prince obeyeth the Church unproperly more then the people for it is the same obedience that Prince and people yield 2. He denieth that the Magistrate and Pastors differ in their end and object but only in the way and means leading to the end and in the same doth that learned Divine Dav. Pareus though both be against the Erastian way for they say the Magistrates end and object is not only peace and the good of the body and of the externall man but also of the soul even a supernaturall good the externall salvation of men because the Kings of Israel and Iudâ—ls were to read the book of the Law and they only did reform Religion Ans This doth prove that the Church-teachers and Magistrate differ not in the materiall object and end of the Iewish Kings I adde nothing to what I have answered before but in the formall end and object they differ It s true I have said that the intrinsecall end of the Magistrate is a supernaturall good But 1. That I speak in opposition to the Author of the bloody Tenent to Socinians and such as exclude the Magistrate from all meddling with Religion or using of the sword against Hereticks Apostates and Idolaters 2. That I understand only of the materiall end because the Prince punishing Idolatry may per accidens and indirectly promote the salvation of the Church by removing the temptations of Hereticks from the Church but â—e doth that not in order to the conscience of the Idolater to gain â—is soul for Pastors as Pastors do that but to make the Church quiet and peaceable in her journey to life eternall but all this is but to act on the externall man by worldly power But saith Camero it is not true that the Church must meddle with every sin that is scandalous because for the circumstance it may be so hid that the Church cannot judge it especially in a matter of fact A Physitian killeth a man either of temerity or negligence there is no question but it is a great sin yet the tryall of this belongeth not to the Church so the Pastor may exhort the Magistrate to do his duty but to give judgement what way the King should do this and when he sinneth in this belongeth to him who governeth the Common-wealth for this must be true eredendum est artifici in sua arte You must believe every man in his owne Art and calling otherwise great confusion should follow Ans Observe that Camero doth liberate the Magistrate from being subject to the rebukes of Pastors but by accident because the sins of Princes are hidden in the dark obscurity of intricate causes which they judge But so the sins of Painters and tradesmen are hid because judges see not the mysteries of trades This is no Argument but such as will equally prove that the poysoning of a Kings son belongeth not to the King and Parliament for a medicinall and physicall trying how the Physitian killeth a man doth properly belong to the Colledge of Physitians and if it belong not for this physicall reason to the Church court because it is not their Art to judge of medicinall potions no more shall it belong to the civill judge to try this murther by poyson for as Pastors as Pastors are not Physitians and so cannot judge of the fact so Kings and civill judges as such are not Physitians and cannot judge for circumstances of a fact of incest murther parricide and of all sins acknowledged to belong to both Church and Magistrate in divers respects may make the fact equally dark to all 2. It is true Pastors cannot prescribe what way the Magistrate should judge but if the Pastors cannot determine in hypothesie that this is a fact of unjustice in a judge and so rebuke but credendum artifici in sua arte we must believe the judge in his owne Art he saith this is an art of justice then Isaiah and Ieremiah should not cry out against unjust decrees against crushing and oppressing the poor in the gate because the wickedst judges say all their decrees are just they defend the fatherlesse and widow and do not crush them and Pastors cannot rebuke the sins of unjust judges but you must believe they do just and right in their owne art yea many villanies and scandals are carried so mysteriously and in the clouds that we must believe the sinner in his owne art and trade of sinning and believe the harlot who wipeth her mouth and saith I have not sinned For the practice of Constantine the Great in the cause of Donatus and Cecilianus I remit to Eusebius l. 10. c. 5. to Optatus Melivitanus who wrote the History of the Donatists carefully to Augustine Epistle 162. and for the determination of the question see what the Emperour writeth to the Councell of Nice Zozome l. 1. c. 16. Ruffin l. 1. c. 2. Eusebius in vita Constant Deus vos constituit sacerdotes et potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi et ideo nos a vobis recte judicamur vos autem non potestis ab omnibus judicari propter quod Dei solius inter vos exspectate judicium c. That Nectarius was chosen and ordained Bishop of Constantinople by Theodosius Socrates l. 5. c. 8. saith not but by the contrary a centum et quinquaginta Episcopis qui tum aderant ordinatus Theodoretus l. 5. c. 8. saith he was designed Bishop by the Synod of Constantinople Antiquity seemeth dubious in it for Nicephorus l. 12.
members of the Church and that they are to be cast out of the Church as he doth also he must either grant that Christian Magistrates cannot turn Apostates and Idolaters which is against Scripture and experience or that if they turn Apostates and Idolaters they remain no longer members of the Church but are to be excommunicated or then Christ must have made some speciall exception that Kings though Idolaters and Apostates do yet remain members of the Church and are not to be cast out of the Church which beside that Erastus cannot shew is contradictory to his words Hence it is clear the Magistrate if he turn as Saul did a wicked man he is to be excommunicated But 1. By whom by the Church Erastus will deny he can be judged by the Church because he is above the Church by himselfe that is against reason By other Magistrates he is the only supream in that Church and by what reason he is above the Church he is above the other Magistrates and other Magistrates are guilty of the same fault Obj. 5. The supream and principall power called Architectonica of governing the Church in externals either agree to the Magistrate or to the Church not to the Magistrate as they say if to the Church Then 1. The universall care and inspection over the Church is taken from the Magistrate and given to the Church Ergo 2. Then the Christian Magistrate not indirectly only but directly must be obliged to follow the judgement of the Church in ordaining depriving punishing of Ministers or of any excommunicated 3. The subjects must be obliged not to obey yea to disobey the Magistrate if he decern any thing contrary to the Church and the Magistrate as a lictor and servant must execute all Ans 1. There is no reason to say that the supream and principall power by way of royall dominion as the argument supposeth in Church matters should agree to either Magistrate on earth or Church it is a Rose of the Crown of him who is the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords and so the Major is false Nor is that care and inspection which is due to the Magistrate taken from him when we ascribe to Christ what is his due 2. Neither doth it follow that the Magistrate is directly obliged to follow the judgement of the Church except we did make the judgement of the Church supream and absolute and armed with such a dominion as the adversaries give to the Magistrate in which case it followeth that the Church is directly and absolutely obliged to follow the judgement of the Magistrate according to the way of the adversaries and that if this argument be good they must ascribe blind obedience either to the Church or Magistrate not to the Magistrate they say Ergo to the Church Nor can they take it off by saying that the Magistrates dominon is limited by the Word of God for they know that we teach that all the constitutions and decrees of Synods made by the Church as the Church is limited by the Word of God yet they cease not to object to us that we make the Magistrate a servant and a lictor to the Church and obliged by his place to give blind obedience to the Church and therefore they are obliged to answer the argument and remove papal dominion from their way according to their owne argument if they will be willing to take in to themselves with the same measure that they give out to others But if they give a ministeriall power of judging to the Church the argument is easily answered which they cannot give to the Magistrate except they make his office to oblige the conscience and his commands as magistraticall to be given out under the pain of the second death Now his sword is too short to reach to this I hope except you make the vengence that he executeth on evil doers Rom. 13. to be eternall fire and his sword to be no materiall nor visible sword but such as commandeth Devils and Hell which is absurd for the Magistrates power of judging and commanding is commensurable to his power of rewarding and punishing that is both is temporary within time on the body of this world The Pastors have a power of commanding though only ministeriall but free of all domination or externall coaction which is spirituall and the punishment is accordingly spirituall a binding in earth and heaven I borrow only the word of punishment it being no such thing properly Obj. 6. If the end of the Church be a spirituall and of the Magistrate be a temporall good and if the Magistrate have no spirituall power to attain to his temporall end no more then the Church hath any temporall power to attain to her spirituall end is not this a contradiction that the Magistrate should determine what the true Church and Ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword for the Magistrates power to judge and punish in spirituall causes must be either spirituall or civill or then he hath none and so acts without commission Now for civill power the Magistrate hath it only over the bodies and goods of men and hath it not over the soul nor can he have it say â— in soul cases It is confessed that the Magistrate hath no spirituall power to attain a temporall end and therefore those who provoke the Magistrate without either civill or spirituall power to punish or prosecute in spirituall causes are to fear that they come too near to those frogs that proceed out of the mouth of the Dragon and Beast and false Prophet who with the same argument stirre up the Kings of the earth to make war against the Lambe and his followers Rev. 17. Bloody Tenent Answ 1. All this argument is builded on a great mistake and a conseqence never proved except by this one word of the Author Therefore say I and it is this The Magistrate hath no civill power over the soul therefore say I he hath no power in soul matters and cannot judge and punish in spirituall causes Sir this is a non sequitur The learned Divine Rivetus saith well The Magistrates power in spirituall things to judge and punish is formaliter and in it self and intrinsecally civill but objective in regard of the object and extrinsecally it is spirituall 1. I ask when the Author and his take a professor into Church-communion they judge whether he be just mercifull and peaceable when they excommunicate any member for murther for unjustice in taking away the goods of his brother whether the Church doth judge and punish in the causes of justice mercy and peace which properly belongeth to the civill Magistrate not to the Church properly but only ratione scandali as they are offensive in the Church of God I ask I say if the Churches power in judging and punishing be civill or spirituall not civill for this Author will say that the Church hath no power over the lives and goods